PDA

View Full Version : Moon fakes



4-Lom
2002-Mar-25, 11:46 AM
Sirs,

I noticed you had provided a link to my friends website, http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/. I presume some of you found this site amusing, presumably because you FEAR THE TRUTH. Well, I'm not sure 90% of the world know the missions where faked, but I certainly do. Its so obvious it was all a fake it makes me physically sick to be in the presence of believers such as yourselves.
I myself have done extensive study, thanks to support from my professor, and have uncovered further damning truths. I DARE YOU not to delete this post!:

* The differential in coriolis effect, when leaving earths atomsphere would tear orbiting astroNUTTERS to shreds! Bear in mind this is force is what makes the tides (not the moon as some people would have you beleive; how can they explain the high tide on the OPPOSITE side of the earth???)

* Moving through earths magnetic field at the speed they where supposedly travelling at would induce UNIMAGINABLY vast currents. When they reached the mode of the oscillating force between the moon and earth, they would have acheived resonance, and much like the resonant process in a TESLA COIL, would have produced enough current and voltage to form an arc from themselves to the earth or moon that would have disintegrated the entire ship! You only have to look at Jupiters moon Io to see this process happen daily!

* Using the binary operator XOR with the word NASA and the 32-bit hex value 0x08001804 (the serial number of the first 'Moon Mission') yields the words 'FAKE' in ASCII...is it all an expensive joke, that the government suddenly decided it had to take seriously???

* Foot prints from 'training' grounds on earth show moonboot footprints which are IDENTICAL to those seen on the moon! This PROVES that these training grounds also served to provide fake imagery. How can they have the gall to tell us they've been to the moon with such glaring mistakes visible to the ENTIRE nation?!?

* NASA supposedly made 9 journeys to the moon in 3 years. The moon is approximately 500,000 miles away. to do this in 3 years would require an average speed of (9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph! That is blatanly too slow for a rocket to leave earths gravity field, let alone visit the moon!

How can they explain such things? I myself have seen MILLIONS of ROCKS that look IDENTICAL to those SEEN in NASA photographs of the MOON! It really angers me to find that some people still believe the Nazi government propaganda fed to them by NASA and the like.

I DARE you to try to disprove ANYTHING i have said!

Im waiting....
------------------------------
XT
The truht is out there...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 4-Lom on 2002-03-25 06:47 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 12:28 PM
On 2002-03-25 06:46, 4-Lom wrote:
I DARE YOU not to delete this post!:


Do it, BA...


It really angers me to find that some people still believe the Nazi government propaganda fed to them by NASA and the like.

That should do it.


I DARE you to try to disprove ANYTHING i have said!

The NASA journeys were the only ones in 6000 years of creation, not 9 years, so our average speed was 171/2000, about 150 yards per hour. You can slither that fast, so yes it is possible.

I can't pass up a dare.

Firefox
2002-Mar-25, 12:36 PM
As my first post, I was going to say something witty, but GoW beat me to it.


* The differential in coriolis effect, when leaving earths atomsphere would tear orbiting astroNUTTERS to shreds! Bear in mind this is force is what makes the tides (not the moon as some people would have you beleive; how can they explain the high tide on the OPPOSITE side of the earth???)

............so you're saying we've never launched people into space period?


* Moving through earths magnetic field at the speed they where supposedly travelling at would induce UNIMAGINABLY vast currents. When they reached the mode of the oscillating force between the moon and earth, they would have acheived resonance, and much like the resonant process in a TESLA COIL, would have produced enough current and voltage to form an arc from themselves to the earth or moon that would have disintegrated the entire ship! You only have to look at Jupiters moon Io to see this process happen daily!

As I recall, Io's volcanic activity is more the result of gravitational forces than Jupiter's magnetic field, which is far more powerful than Earth's. Someone can correct me on this.


* Using the binary operator XOR with the word NASA and the 32-bit hex value 0x08001804 (the serial number of the first 'Moon Mission') yields the words 'FAKE' in ASCII...is it all an expensive joke, that the government suddenly decided it had to take seriously???

A lot of people thought that when RMS Titanic's hull number was reversed, it read NOPOPE. Well, okay, Titanic's number was 401; still a sad attempt. Try again.


* Foot prints from 'training' grounds on earth show moonboot footprints which are IDENTICAL to those seen on the moon! This PROVES that these training grounds also served to provide fake imagery. How can they have the gall to tell us they've been to the moon with such glaring mistakes visible to the ENTIRE nation?!?

I fail to see how this would be proof the landings were faked.


* NASA supposedly made 9 journeys to the moon in 3 years. The moon is approximately 500,000 miles away. to do this in 3 years would require an average speed of (9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph! That is blatanly too slow for a rocket to leave earths gravity field, let alone visit the moon!

I'd say something about this, but as I said before, GoW made a more eloquent response.


How can they explain such things? I myself have seen MILLIONS of ROCKS that look IDENTICAL to those SEEN in NASA photographs of the MOON! It really angers me to find that some people still believe the Nazi government propaganda fed to them by NASA and the like.

There are "MILLIONS" of meteorites from other planets that look "IDENTICAL" to those "SEEN" by common PEOPLE. Does that mean NASA faked those?

Oh, and naming yourself after an assassin droid from Star Wars really doesn't help...though I suppose someone can say something about a nickname from a fictional aircraft from a 1982 movie and book.


-Fox

2002-Mar-25, 12:40 PM
On 2002-03-25 07:28, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: HUb' 6:28 A.M.


On 2002-03-25 06:46, 4-Lom wrote:
I DARE YOU not to delete this post!:


Do it, BA... [x] Yeah Do It #2
Delete the whole thread in fact
Joined: Mar 25, 2002 (3.17 Messages per day)
posts: 1 (0.01% of total)
unking Na
how does one achive a 3.
with 1 post anyway?
$my part i've targeted 5
as the number of posts per day
{thin`N 9 lines 5 Posts } around 50 Li`es of text
I can't pass up a dare.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 01:20 PM
On 2002-03-25 07:41, HUb' wrote:
how does one achive a 3.
with 1 post anyway?
$my part i've targeted 5
as the number of posts per day

Ha, I never noticed that. Apparently, the BB software takes fractional days into account. So, if you post one post 8 hours after you sign up, your posts-per-day will be 3.

Simon
2002-Mar-25, 01:41 PM
Ai, leave a few chunks for me!



On 2002-03-25 06:46, 4-Lom wrote:

* The differential in coriolis effect, when leaving earths atomsphere would tear orbiting astroNUTTERS to shreds! Bear in mind this is force is what makes the tides (not the moon as some people would have you beleive; how can they explain the high tide on the OPPOSITE side of the earth???)

Shall I quote what the BA's book says on the Coriolis effect? I don't mind in the slightest, I have it all ready... But that's a lot of typing, and my computer would probably crash the second I finished... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif But anyway I believe the scale is something like 30 meters of displacement over 100 km of distance...



* Moving through earths magnetic field at the speed they where supposedly travelling at would induce UNIMAGINABLY vast currents. When they reached the mode of the oscillating force between the moon and earth, they would have acheived resonance, and much like the resonant process in a TESLA COIL, would have produced enough current and voltage to form an arc from themselves to the earth or moon that would have disintegrated the entire ship! You only have to look at Jupiters moon Io to see this process happen daily!

Io and Jupiter DO have some pretty weird magnetic stuff going on between them, but I don't think it affects Io's volcanos; they're a product of tidal force. And I don't think that Earth's magnetosphere would have much of an inductive effect on a spaceship... what, 15 meters long? There HAVE been schemes proposed to generate electricity by orbiting a big wire through Earth's magnetic field, but I believe the wire in question was several kilometers long. You might notice there's something of a difference in scale there.



* Using the binary operator XOR with the word NASA and the 32-bit hex value 0x08001804 (the serial number of the first 'Moon Mission') yields the words 'FAKE' in ASCII...i

THIS is a funny one!! ANY self-respecting computer geek (such as I) knows that the hex ASCII for FAKE is 4641 4b45.



* Foot prints from 'training' grounds on earth show moonboot footprints which are IDENTICAL to those seen on the moon! This PROVES that these training grounds also served to provide fake imagery.

Really? I thought that just proved that they used the same boots in training as they would in the real thing...



* NASA supposedly made 9 journeys to the moon in 3 years. The moon is approximately 500,000 miles away. to do this in 3 years would require an average speed of (9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph! That is blatanly too slow for a rocket to leave earths gravity field, let alone visit the moon!

*stunned, incredulous silence*
...you might want to look up "Moon" in an encyclopedia, and take a look at the distance... And then you might want to look up "Apollo" and read the mission profiles...

In Summary, I say:
Well, that was fun. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

SeanF
2002-Mar-25, 01:41 PM
Is this a joke?

I can understand the confusion about gravity causing a tidal bulge on the far side - it confused me at first, too. And the little numerology bit with NASA becoming FAKE is certainly in keeping with traditional types of conspiracy theory. But this:




NASA supposedly made 9 journeys to the moon in 3 years. The moon is approximately 500,000 miles away. to do this in 3 years would require an average speed of (9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph! That is blatanly too slow for a rocket to leave earths gravity field, let alone visit the moon!



is just so amazingly . . . unbelievably . . . I can't even think of a good word for it! How could somebody even write this, let alone think it makes sense?

I mean, come on! This has to be a joke!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 02:09 PM
On 2002-03-25 08:41, Simon wrote:
*stunned, incredulous silence*
...you might want to look up "Moon" in an encyclopedia, and take a look at the distance...

Hold up, I almost jumped on that one too, but if you look at the arithmetic, the distance is clearly round-trip distance. Straight there, straight back, as a light beam mphhm...mppphhhh....mmhhahahahah.

Andrew
2002-Mar-25, 02:10 PM
Oh come on, at least the guy has a sense of humour. Made me laugh, I think he's making a joke.
I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry if he was being serious. That'd be tragic.

Firefox
2002-Mar-25, 02:53 PM
I suppose 4-LOM was talking about the time it would take for him to drive to the Moon and back in his roadster, in order to determine whether the landings were truly fake or not...

...or if he's sincere in his belief, become the first person to drive on the Moon in a high-performance sports car.


-Fox

Tomblvd
2002-Mar-25, 03:09 PM
I noticed you had provided a link to my friends website....

Um, does he know that? You might want to check with him before you mention that again.





The truht is out there...

Oh yea? Well for God's sake, put it back. You shouldn't walk around with your 'truht' hanging out.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-25, 03:13 PM
It's hard to say if this is a troll or not. I have seen satirical posts just like this... and others that were very earnest.

Either way, I am afraid I have to say it again: I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks on this board, whether it is from an HB newbie or someone who has 5000 posts. Don't do it. If you find you cannot post something clear, rational and without insult, don't post.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 03:49 PM
presumably because you FEAR THE TRUTH.

We find it amusing because we did not realize it was possible to be as misinformed as your "friend", and yet so dogmatic about his conclusions.

I myself have done extensive study, thanks to support from my professor

I do not believe that a credentialled professor at an accredited education institution has had anything to do with these argumenhts. Please name the professor and the institution at which he teaches so that we may verify your claim.

The differential in coriolis effect, when leaving earths atomsphere would tear orbiting astroNUTTERS to shreds!

How does your argument account for communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit, at known orbital distances and positions, launched by non-Americans?

Bear in mind this is force is what makes the tides

The Coriolis force affects tides, but it does not cause them. The primary cause is the gravity of the moon and sun. The opposing bulge is a proper feature of gravity considered as an inverse square law.

Moving through earths magnetic field at the speed they where supposedly travelling at would induce UNIMAGINABLY vast currents.

We don't care whether you can imagine it, we want to know if you can compute it. Please provide the computations to support this conclusions.

You only have to look at Jupiters moon Io to see this process happen daily!

Jupiter is not the earth, and Io is not our moon. Qualitative and quantitative differences exist between the earth-moon system and the jovian system. Please account for those in your argument.

Using the binary operator XOR with the word NASA and the 32-bit hex value 0x08001804 (the serial number of the first 'Moon Mission') yields the words 'FAKE' in ASCII.

Numerology is numerology no matter what number base it's done in. Besides, NASA used IBM 360/370 computers which encoded text using EBCDIC, not ASCII.

Foot prints from 'training' grounds on earth show moonboot footprints which are IDENTICAL to those seen on the moon! This PROVES that these training grounds also served to provide fake imagery.

Affirmation of the consequent. Consult a book on logic and revise your argument accordingly.

The moon is approximately 500,000 miles away.

Consult a book on astronomy and revise your argument accordingly.

to do this in 3 years would require an average speed of (9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph! That is blatanly too slow for a rocket to leave earths gravity field

It is not NASA's claim that the journey took three years. NASA has published detailed records of the velocities and times involved in travel to the moon. Please account for those in your arguments.

I myself have seen MILLIONS of ROCKS that look IDENTICAL to those SEEN in NASA photographs of the MOON!

Are you a geologist? Have you read what qualified geologists from all over the world say are the differences between moon rocks and terrestrial rocks? Can those differences be discerned in photographs? Please account for these factors in your argument.

It really angers me to find that some people still believe the Nazi government propaganda fed to them by NASA and the like.

Whether it's propaganda or not is irrelevant. The argument you've presented against it purports to be scientific, yet is completely at odds with or totally ignorant of relevant scientific principles. It is factually, logically, and scientifically invalid and therefore is properly rejected.

I DARE you to try to disprove ANYTHING i have said!

I dare you to try to prove anything you've said.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 03:51 PM
so now this guy's saying we DIDN'T go????
As im not really a scientist, would it be possible if someone could explain the whole 9*500000/3/360/24=171 mph, I dont understand why he's giving us an average mph over the course of one avg day in the 9 yr pd????

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 03:53 PM
would it be possible if someone could explain the whole 9*500000/3/360/24=171 mph

Easy. This computation has nothing whatsoever to do with any claim from NASA or any principle of space travel. It's best ignored.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 03:59 PM
On 2002-03-25 10:51, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
As im not really a scientist, would it be possible if someone could explain the whole 9*500000/3/360/24=171 mph, I dont understand why he's giving us an average mph over the course of one avg day in the 9 yr pd????


No, it was 9*500000)/3/365/24 = 171 mph. In other words, 9 roundtrip journeys of 500,000 miles apiece, over a 3 year period, each year with 365 days, each day with 24 hours. That averages out to 171 mph, if you travel continuously from the first day to the last, and the journeys are straight to the moon and back.

Oh, and congratulations (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=837&forum=3&start=36), BA, I betcha this one was easier than the last one.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:33 PM
I am going to leave it alone but what I don't get in that claim is, who cares about avg. speed over the course of the year, they didn't travel for a whole year, or for 9 whole years, so why give an avg mph for 9 yrs when it means nothing. I've been licensed to drive for almost 9 yrs so why would I bother even working out the math to show you that my job is 15 miles away and I've only been there 4 times so (9*15)/4/365/24=.0039/mph!!!! What does it matter that I travel an avg of .0039 mph/yr for 9 yrs, what's the point, my only concern is the literal 15 miles (and maybe the speed I trave during this 15 mile drive) on any one of those 4 days I'm on my way to work? Am I missing something?
Finally lets hypothetically say the moon landing was a hoax. Why on god's green earth, would the evil supergenius, the US, hide the word "fake" in ascii code? Thats not an expensive joke, that's the government begging to be found out, and although I don't trust them or think their the smartest folks out there, their definately not THAT stupid. They're just not going to put the word "fake", hidden in ascii code, nothing will ever convince me of that because there's no logical reason behind it. Will this guy ever come back to respond to this and all these other posts?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-25, 04:40 PM
On 2002-03-25 11:33, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
I am going to leave it alone but what I don't get in that claim is, who cares about avg. speed over the course of the year, they didn't travel for a whole year, or for 9 whole years, so why give an avg mph for 9 yrs when it means nothing.

Three years. And the BA has been known to label as "troll" someone who posts and doesn't defend their posts. That could lead to they being banned. This particular post could be a warm up for Monday, a week from today.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:43 PM
ahhhhh ok now I get it. I didn't even know you were supposed to defend your post, I thought it would be ok to just post something and let the responses come in, thats my fault im sure there's terms or something on this site that I just didn't read, sorry bout that.

4-Lom
2002-Mar-25, 04:45 PM
Hello all,

Yes, it was a joke. Im sorry, I didn't think so many people would reply to it ;o) I was reading the post about my above 'friend' and after having read his site became increasingly angry. But rather than bare the futility of posting a reasoned argument to him explaining his mistakes, I figured it would be best to go along with him and simply add to his flawed logic. I also, possibly wrongly, thought I'd 'test' the email out here also.
I was quite proud of the '171mph' paragraph though, the logic was so twisted that it wasn't even wrong, as someone famous once said. I wish I could have kept it up /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif( But such flawed logic is hard to fake.

Sorry if I caused offense, and I won't be doing it again...
4lom

PS that XOR does work, though lord knows what the 4-byte number is ;o)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 4-Lom on 2002-03-25 12:02 ]</font>

Andrew
2002-Mar-25, 04:50 PM
What happens monday?

SeanF
2002-Mar-25, 04:51 PM
On 2002-03-25 11:50, Andrew wrote:
What happens monday?


It's April Fool's Day . . .

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:53 PM
<quote>What happens monday?</quote>
Now that I know I know I'll answer this. Apparantley this 4lom guy who made this thread has exactly one week to reply, and/or defend his post. If hes a "noshow" for 7 days he'd get banned and/or have his thread deleted. I could be wrong but i think that's it.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 04:54 PM
what I don't get in that claim is, who cares about avg. speed over the course of the year, they didn't travel for a whole year, or for 9 whole years, so why give an avg mph for 9 yrs when it means nothing.

Exactly. You've figured out just how absurd his argument is. Most of the rest of the arguments on that site are equally absurd.

Why on god's green earth, would the evil supergenius, the US, hide the word "fake" in ascii code?

Of course they wouldn't. And NASA's work was all done in EBCDIC, not ASCII. EBCDIC was IBM's method of encoding text, deriving from the 80x12 punch card. Character mappings are different in EBCDIC.

ASCII is very old, but until the mid 1960s (long after NASA had chosen its name) it was only found in teletypes, were exclusive-OR was irrelevant. It wasn't used in computers until the Apollo project was well underway, and it didn't supplant EBCDIC as the primary means of encoding until the late 1970s when non-IBM computers became pre-eminent.

This is all just numerology. Numerology is a branch of pseudoscience that attempts to assign significance to numbers via transformations and operations on those numbers. Obviously any number can be mapped to any number if the mapping is allowed to be arbitrarily complex. And the properties of number systems ensure that a mapping need not be horrendously complex -- sooner or later you'll get what you're after just because that's how numbers work, not because the mapping uncovers any sinister connection.

Many conspiracy theorists approach numerological problems with the certain conviction that what they seek will be there even though they haven't yet looked for it, and it's just a matter of finding it. And so armed with this preconceptual assertion, they just keep plugging away until they stumble accidentally upon something that seems significant. Then they triumphantly argue that this was the "hidden" clue all along.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 04:54 PM
or its april fools day /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 05:11 PM
Yes, it was a joke. Im sorry, I didn't think so many people would reply to it ;o)

I certainly don't mind. Bad arguments are always used to teach good arguments, and isn't that what we're here to learn about?

The site in question is notorious. Its author is quite possibly the least informed person I've ever encountered. When you get down to that level of ignorance, no amount of absurdity surprises you. Think about it, to those who were paying attention in school the entire hoax theory is absurd, no matter how eloquently argued. But the eloquence masks the absurdity to the droves of people who caught up on their sleep during physics class.

I was quite proud of the '171mph' paragraph though, the logic was so twisted that it wasn't even wrong, as someone famous once said.

True, and it actually typefies a lot of more sophisticated hoax arguments. There may be some nugget of truth somewhere in it, but the conceptual basis of the argument is wrong, irrelevant, or meaningless. Choosing the right conceptual framework is far more important than being able to manipulate the mechanics of the model.

I'm reminded of a story, probably apocryphal, of a venerated engineer who retired from the plant where he worked. When a machine later broke down and nobody could fix it, the retiree was asked to come back an help. Within an hour he had the machine working again. He submitted an invoice for $10,000 which the company insisted he must itemize before they would pay it. He itemized it as follows:

Replacing the part: $1
Knowing which part to replace: $9,999

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-25, 05:18 PM
<img src=http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/SCAM_files/0135ae30.jpg>
Ok I was looking at that nasascam geocities link and after looking at this picture I remember this was one of the things I thought was interesting. Im sure its been answered a zillion times so I apologize if I'm rehashing here but, this author Patrick Moore claims that the large crater seen is 19 miles in diameter (im going under the assumption he's correct about that, otherwise why ask the question if the answer is "how do WE know its 19 miles in diameter?) thereby making that shadow of the craft HUGE in proportion. He goes on to say that "NASA now claim that it is not a shadow, but the rear booster of command module in view of camera" was NASA claiming this was a picture of a shadow up until recent times? Also the argument that all of NASA's pictures are just too perfect is refuted by the statement that they took thousands of pix, so obviously, tehy released the best ones. So then why release this one with half a shadow and all those white dotted lines? (im kidding about the lines)

ToSeek
2002-Mar-25, 05:22 PM
On 2002-03-25 12:18, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
He goes on to say that "NASA now claim that it is not a shadow, but the rear booster of command module in view of camera" was NASA claiming this was a picture of a shadow up until recent times?


It's only HBers who have ever claimed that that image is a shadow. Anyone who understands the Apollo spacecraft architecture can tell at a glance that it's a silhouette of a lunar module (not command module - they can't even get that right) thruster through the window.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-25, 07:07 PM
See http://www.clavius.org/rcsshdw.html

This is one of the dumber attempts of conspiracy theorists to analyze photos.

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-25, 08:21 PM
On 2002-03-25 11:33, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
...who cares about avg. speed over the course of the year, they didn't travel for a whole year, or for 9 whole years, so why give an avg mph for 9 yrs when it means nothing. I've been licensed to drive for almost 9 yrs so why would I bother even working out the math to show you that my job is 15 miles away and I've only been there 4 times so (9*15)/4/365/24=.0039/mph!!!!

Seeking,

We can see from the above that even a jokester can do some good. You have succesfully completed your very first debunking of a "Hoax Believer's" claim.

Congratulations!
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Comixx
2002-Mar-26, 03:16 AM
I'm constantly amazed at the veracity with which these folks defend their illogical and ill-informed claims. I have to agree with BA when he states that most believers in the hoax line of thought are basing their arguments on the moon being like the Earth in several key ways. I'm an artist by trade, and atmospheric haze is a way I've quite often depicted distance where there was none in a 2 dimensional image. If I leave out the atmospheric haze and distortion, my work does appear to be out of proportion or distorted in some way. Since the photos of the moon lack atmospheric distortion, they appear to be the same as a 2 dimensional image poorly done...but anyone with passing knowledge of imaging 3 dimensional objects in 2 dimensions could clearly discern this.

The other thing which makes me laugh, and is posed on The Enterprise Mission site, as well as several others, is the "Crystaline Dome" structurs they think they see in several of the pictures and reflected in helmet visors. How can imaging artifacts that are clearly caused by endless computerized zooming be attributed to real life objects. Do they realize that computers just interpret the likely image based on dithering computations, not actual data.

That said, the original post was a riot!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Comixx on 2002-03-25 22:21 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Comixx on 2002-03-25 22:22 ]</font>

Chuck
2002-Mar-26, 03:25 AM
Maybe two can play the conspiracy theory game. When people present evidence of a hoax accuse them of faking it for their own purposes and refuse to look at it.

informant
2002-Mar-26, 07:38 AM
We would need to attach a conspiracy theory to it.

Hmmm... Obviously, aliens from Sirius have taken over the Hoaxers' minds. They want to convince us that we never went to the Moon, that it's impossible to go to the Moon, so that we never go back there, and discover their hidden base with cristaline domes.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-26, 10:46 AM
SeekingKnowledge: He goes on to say that "NASA now claim that it is not a shadow, but the rear booster of command module in view of camera" was NASA claiming this was a picture of a shadow up until recent times?

ToSeek: It's only HBers who have ever claimed that image is a shadow.

Actually, this appears to be a Patrick Moore gaffe. I guess the author is assuming it was originally a NASA claim, and which was subsequent quoted by others.

Jay's rebuttal fails to take any of this into consideration.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-26, 02:56 PM
Jay's rebuttal fails to take any of this into consideration.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone from NASA would claim the outline is of the CM's engine, either in shadow or in silhouette.

The arrangement of the RCS jets on the LM and their visibility through the cockpit windows was not a mystery at the time, and subsequent photos through the window (and that of subsequent LMs) clearly show the RCS quad for what it is. Anyone who has looked at a substantial portion of the Apollo photographs has no problem interpreting this photo.

Further, an Apollo expert would recognize the photo as the high-altitude image of the Apollo 11 landing site, with landmarks Maskelyne A and B in the lower right corner. This would only be possible after pitchover, which means it is fairly late in the powered-descent orbit and the CM is long gone by now.

I find it more credible at this point that the correct answer was given, but was misunderstood and misrepresented by a hoax theorist. But as I am always open to correction, if you can find where a NASA spokesperson claimed this was the CM's engine and not an RCS quad, I will add that to the page at Clavius.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-27, 07:29 PM
Jay: I find it difficult to believe that anyone from NASA would claim the outline is of the CM's engine, either in shadow or in silhouette.

Well, the HB in this case is claiming that the caption in question can be found in Patrick Moore's book, Mission to the Planets. And Patrick Moore, as I understand it, helped document some of the Apollo landing sites for NASA.

Jay: ..if you can find where a NASA spokesperson claimed this was the CM's engine and not an RCS quad, I will add that to the page at Clavius.

But aren't you shifting the burden of proof? Your rebuttal fails to take into account why some people have been led to this conclusion, and implies that this is another boob by the "conspiracist" when clearly it would be a mistake of Patrick Moore's.

Jay: Anyone is welcome to examine the footage.

Yes, but as you say, you need to travel to Texas in order to access it. To view it all and study it intimately will take many many weeks, and this in-turn creates further problems. i.e. you will need lodging for the duration, and so forth. My point is few cynics are ever going to go to such lengths in order to satisfy themselves, or others.

Jay: Further, it's hard to argue they're hiding something when they presented it live on television,

When you are not aware of the need for deception you are not aware of deception.

I think it is fair to say that if Apollo was broadcast live today VCR's around the world would be working overtime. Of course, the public didn't have VCR's in 1969. Or did they?

Jay: Finally, hoax believers have tried their hand at analyzing what's already out there.

We both know David Percy managed to come away with some material, as has Bart Sibrel. Though I bet if you asked them, both would like to examine further each and every minute in a localised environment of their choice.

Jay: The claim is not that there is no market, but that the market is insufficient to support the effort.

I dispute that. Once the initial transfer has been completed the publisher is in business. The complete body of Apollo footage -- despite a three figure price tag -- would be very desirable indeed. People could even build up their collection (mission tapes by mission tapes) over time, to help those who couldn't afford to purchase the entire volume immediately. You add that DVD is opening new doors. That is good news. But may I remind you that the years are still passing by.

Jay: So your market analysis, the basis upon which you're calling everyone liars, is simply that you asked a few of your friends?

I am not calling everyone liars. I said some people.

Tomblvd
2002-Mar-27, 09:15 PM
But aren't you shifting the burden of proof? Your rebuttal fails to take into account why some people have been led to this conclusion, and implies that this is another boob by the "conspiracist" when clearly it would be a mistake of Patrick Moore's.


If I'm not mistaken it is not where the mistake originated, but the fact that the HBs continue to use this as a "proof" when it has been corrected over and over again.



It is a simple thing to make a mistake, but it becomes something much worse when you continue to repeat the mistake after it is corrected.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-03-27 16:16 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 09:34 PM
But aren't you shifting the burden of proof?

No. I was asking for documentation of the charge. The Clavius page refutes the charge as it was brought to my attention. If there is additional material to investigate, then I will do so.

To view it all and study it intimately will take many many weeks

Boo hoo. Serious historical research takes time and effort. The problem with most of the hoax believers is that they only want to do ten minutes' worth of research, solely to find the bits that support their theories.

My point is few cynics are ever going to go to such lengths in order to satisfy themselves, or others.

Then they shouldn't be considered serious historians. If they aren't willing to undergo the rigors of scholarship, then they shouldn't aspire to its praises.

I think it is fair to say that if Apollo was broadcast live today VCR's around the world would be working overtime.

Irrelevant. You don't hide something by broadcasting it to the entire civilized world.

We both know David Percy managed to come away with some material, as has Bart Sibrel.

Sibrel's case is unique. So far I haven't been able to find anything that Percy has which hasn't already been publicly available for some time.

The point is not whether they were able to obtain unique footage. The point is that both work extensively with common footage and presume to identify numerous "anomalies" in it. However, those arguments are very naive and very unconvincing. If this is an indication of how they will approach the complete footage, I daresay NASA has nothing to fear by releasing it.

You claim NASA is hiding it because they fear the efforts of Sibrel et al. I don't believe NASA sees these individuals as any kind of serious threat.

I dispute that. Once the initial transfer has been completed the publisher is in business.

False. The initial transfer is generally not the most expensive part of the operation. The mass production, promotion, and distribution is. If you recall my discussion about musical concerts on Apollohoax you will realize I have some amount of experience producing and distributing entertainment products.

... would be very desirable indeed.

Desirability is not the issue because consumer cost determines the desirability that affects whether or not to do it. As I said, I don't know of many libraries who will spend upwards of $500 on a single item, and even fewer individuals.

That is good news. But may I remind you that the years are still passing by.

Make up your mind. First you whine because there don't seem to be any plans to produce an archival set. Now you're whining because it isn't happening fast enough to suit your tastes.

I am not calling everyone liars. I said some people.

Immaterial. Whether you call one person a liar or a hundred, your "market analysis" consists of unscientifically asking a few people of your acquaintance. If NASA says there hasn't been a sufficient market to justify the effort, and NASA does do this sort of thing as part of its mission, I tend to believe they've done more research on this than you.

As with most of your arguments, we find that your objection boils down simply to, "I would have done it differently."

JayUtah
2002-Mar-27, 10:57 PM
If I'm not mistaken it is not where the mistake originated, but the fact that the HBs continue to use this as a "proof" when it has been corrected over and over again.

There are really two separate questions here. Karamoon's latest elaboration sharpens the distinction.

The first question is, "What is casting the shadow?" There a number of variations on this point. Those who realize this is a high-altitude photo ask how such a shadow can be cast. Those who think this is a photo from the landed LM wonder what hardware is casting the shadow. Those questions are answered on the Clavius site.

The second question is whether someone with apparent authority described this photo, and did so incorrectly. And this would have two variants. Someone could say, "I was legitimately confused." It behooves someone with more expertise to say, "Sorry, that author was wrong, here's a better explanation."

And someone could also say, "Well, apparently NASA doesn't even know what it is because they've given two different explanations." Not precisely true, but it gives hoax believers some rhetorical ammunition. They believe their point is proven if they can show any degree of inconsistency or uncertainty in their opponents.

So obviously I need to go out and find this book and see what the caption says. If the caption says something different than the hoax believers claim, then the answer is simply that the hoax believer's claim is false. If the caption is reported accurately, then the answer is that the caption is wrong. Either way it's worth mentioning.