Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[Et in Arcadia ego]

Now that you mention it, that final shot - thermite?

Personally, I felt that comment was in very poor taste. It certainly was not appropriate in a public forum where people who actually lost friends and relations when the towers collapsed, or as many believe were deliberately destroyed, may frequent.

If thermite was irrefutably linked to 9/11 you would have a point possibly.

If..

[Iroquois]

No, my point was not that thermite was irrefutably used to bring the towers down. My point was that many hundreds of people died when those towers collapsed, that many serious researches have good reason to suspect that thermite or other charges were used to bring them down, and that making jokes about that is completely inappropriate.

If someone made a joke about there being a second gunman responsible for the death of JFK, or about the existence of an international network of ritual abusers of children, or about many of the other non-irrefutatably proven conspiracies, I would also find that inappropriate.

[Jeff]

No, my point was not that thermite was irrefutably used to bring the towers down.

Then your point is lost on me.

Moon hoax research is almost exclusively photo "analysis" that amounts to squinting at NASA pictures for supposed anomalies. CD "researchers" who practice similar methods should be able to take a joke as well, because they invite it.

Thermite isn't the "second gunman"; it's watching Zapruder and saying "my God - the driver did it!"

[yesferatu]

Moon hoax research is almost exclusively photo "analysis" that amounts to squinting at NASA pictures for supposed anomalies. CD "researchers" who practice similar methods should be able to take a joke as well, because they invite it.

Don't forget video analysis and audio analysis and science discrepancies and astronaut quotes and....

Regarding the thermite/sparks quip. Instead of concentrating on that, how come no one asks....."Gee, how did they pan the camera with the module as it quickly ascended off the lunar surface in such exact tracking?" That was good camera work. They explained that somewhere right? Please point to the explanation of the tracking/video technology they used for that scene. I'll wait for you to do that for me. Thanks. Or wait, maybe it was some poor sap they brought along just for that scene. 20 minutes later after he filmed the departure, he suddenly says..."oh...shit"

The sparks are kind of irrelevant.

[Iroquois]

It is a gross mischaracterization of the work of Hoffman, Jones, Ross and many other serious researchers into the causes of the WTC building collapses on 9/11 to imply that it amounts to squinting at pictures or is in any way in the same category of research as those who claim that the Moon landings were a hoax.

Furthermore, there is nothing about the horrific events of those tower collapses nor of the serious attempts to find out why they collapsed that invites jokes. Such jokes should not be made nor should they be accepted.

Thermite isn't the "second gunman"; it's watching Zapruder and saying "my God - the driver did it!"

This analogy is as inappropriate as your sense of humor.

[StarmanSkye]

I was intrigued enuff by Yesferatu's 'challenge' to provide an explanation for how the video camera pan-tracking of Apollo 16 was accomplished to spend the time onna google search to find it -- and coincidentally also managed to find an explanation for the televised image-phenomenon of flashing sparks not noted in previous televised non-tracking liftoffs (of Apollo 11, 12, 14 &/or 15).

My initial theory on how they managed to track the liftoff (of Apollo 16 and 17; while Apollo 15 was also equipped with a tilt-pan motor a technical issue prevented it from being used to track liftoff -- see below)was confirmed --ie., no big feat, since the cameras post Apollo 14 were fitted with a remote-controlled vertical/horizontal motorized gimbal, and the rate of ascent of the LAM could be readily determined (based on measurements of previous flights, Moon's gravity, mass of LAM and ascent thrust values) -- it only required a bit of trig. calculation using the camera-distance to synchronize the rate of camera motion speed with the LAM's accelerating liftoff (or working backwards, plotting optimal camera arc-second vertical motion relative to camera position-distance). I mean, I don't see this as a very problematic, overcomplex technical feat arguing for evidence of Moon Hoax.

But it turns out -- even with vastly-improved video-signal processing and control, an unforeseen glitch resulted in that the liftoff of Apollo 17 was NOT perfectly synchronized and the Lunar Ascent Module disappeared within seconds off the top field of view because the Rover (on which the video camera was mounted) was parked too close to the Lunar craft.

Re: the 'sparkly exhaust' cited: apparently referring to Apollo 15's liftoff as re: below. I thought it might have been the result of Moon dust (which is highly reflective, containing glassy nodules) having been deposited on the top of the Lunar Descent Stage (perhaps falling there off of Astronaut's suits while entering the upper stage Module and/or retrieving scientific instruments/specimens) OR ablative paint/insulation being blasted off by the (otherwise) invisible rocket motor exhaust, due to the non-visible flame characteristics of the Lunar Module fuel used: hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide -- an oxidizer). Turns out -- it WAS insulation. Perhaps this wasn't visible in other Apollo liftoff images (IF indeed it wasn't -- I don't recall) because difference in type or coating made the insulation more impervious to liftoff temperatures/pressures.

from: http://www.russelland.com/speaking_of_v ... nwalk.html
Russel and Company: Speaking of Video -- Shooting the Apollo Moonwalks
(see for more info on various technical details)

Liftoff
Of the most remembered shot from Apollo 15, I can still hear Walter Cronkite's voice in my head as he exclaimed, "Wow, look at that spectacular liftoff!" There was a display that looked as if roman candles were shot from the base of the stage lifting off. In actuality, pieces of insulation were ripped off and sent flying by the rocket blast, and they were colored brightly by a characteristic of the field sequential scheme. The color components for any objects moving in a scene will not register exactly, since they are imaged at different times. Liftoff showed this dramatically, with each piece of flying debris colored red, green, or blue.

Apollo 16 and 17
Two factors improved the quality of the television still more on the last Apollo missions. NASA's using the 210-foot dish stations of the Deep Space Network, which increased the signal strength by almost 8 dB, brought about the first improvement.

Image Transform, then a startup company in North Hollywood, brought about the other improvement. They demonstrated to NASA, using Apollo 15 footage, their new proprietary system for enhancing video. NASA had them bring their system online for Apollo 16. Now the converted video from all EVA's was shipped to California, enhanced, returned to Houston, and then distributed to the network pool, all in real time.

During Apollo 15 EVA's, the camera developed a clutch problem in the tilt axis. Flight control deemed it too risky to tilt the camera during liftoff to follow the ascent stage. For Apollo 16 and 17, however, flight controllers did track the ascent stage. With the punch button command arrangement and a 3 to 4 second time delay, their command sequence had to be totally preplanned. I had worked with Ed Fendell for the Apollo 17 liftoff to get it exactly right for a long tracking shot. At liftoff, the action was perfect, but soon the image of the ascending capsule drifted out at the top of the frame. Ed was furious that, after all the calculations, we missed the mark. It was discovered later that the crew had parked the Rover buggy closer to the Lunar Module than was prescribed by mission plan, and the vertical tilting of the camera was too slow.

Whenever I see a clip of that liftoff I note, as the stage nears the top of frame, a cut to a film shot of the stage ready to dock with the command module. And I still think, "Darn, we could have followed that final liftoff 'til it was but a dot of light winking out as it headed for the mother ship."

Incidentally: This website http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
provides numerous photographs, information and links re: optical tracking of Apollo flights by both amateur and professional astronomers, supplementing the abundant record of radio and telemetry communications/information, much of which was compiled by amateur enthusiasts -- and which is in itself a very comprehensive, independant resource affirming the actuality of the Apollo project evidence. I find it curious to the extreme that this validation of the fact of manned flights to the Moon is typically ignored or dismissed by those who endorse Moon hoax beliefs -- symptomatic (IMO) of gut-feeling replacing critical thinking.

I've made this observation before, but it bears repeating: I note the tendency of Moon hoax advocates to make far less use of available information and resources, and therefore being much less familiar with evidence re: reasonable certainty of Apollo accomplishments, than those who believe Apollo landings were genuine are familiar with evidence re: Moon Hoax.

I don't know how else to account for the persistence of extremely thin arguments and distorted claims that don't bear-up under even modest scrutiny. I haven't found a single Moon hoax claim that I can't explain, understand or otherwise account for.

Of course, I don't doubt there are and have been numerous conspiracies in almost all avenues of human endeaver, esp. public projects (as we discuss here on RI) -- and that NASA isn't exempt from having ITS secrets and frauds. But as far as hoaxing all Moon landings and the Apollo accomplishments -- I don't, can't buy it. My reasonable certainty is like 99.999... , as certain as I CAN be about something I don't have immediate, first-hand experience of.

All the evidence I've seen or considered in support of same is consistent and logically comprehensive.

Perhaps one of the more irrefutable, unfalsifiable 'proofs' taken in isolation, by itself, is the video imagery of moon dust following a discrete parabollic trajectory as it is flung off the moon rover's steelmesh-web tires -- this is ONLY possible in a vacuum, impossible to recreate in a sufficiently-large studio-stage to encompass the sheer scale of distances the video record consists of. (Though I suppose it's possible an argument could be made that a special surface could be made using moisture or chemicals to prevent dustclouds -- I just wouldn't find it convincing).

Oh: Another incidental. On landing, the Lunar lander, while generating a fairly modest 3000 lbs of thrust, is only 'pushing' on the Moon's surface equivalent to 1.5 lbs per square inch since the rocket exhaust chamber was 54 inches in diameter -- thus helping to explain minimum dust-displacement and lack of a significant crater. Due to lack of atmosphere, dust only several feet away from the exhaust thrust point of contact was relatively undisturbed (ie., about 2 inches thick, the moon-surface average, possibly a bit thicker from dust dislodged and settling due to landing.) Nevertheless, many photographs document that the Lunar Descent Module displaced dust precisely as one would expect.

This and other apparant Moon Hoax anomalies are explained at numerous Moon Hoax debunking sites, noteably here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Phil Platt's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV (re: Debunking the notoriously-flawed FOX Moon Hoax program).

Hope this sheds some light on what has, for some, become a very murky issue.
Starman
PS: The 'shadows' issue has already been well-explained; For confirmation, simply look through personal photos taken with low-sun shadows of objects on rough uneven ground. Surface dips and rises WILL cause apparant non-parallel shadow displacements because the angle of sighting is relatively low. Depressions will cause shadows to appear further away (longer) and rises will cause shadows to be nearer (shorter) to the object casting them (relative to POV). As stated, from directly above, shadows will appear parallel (providing sufficient long distance from light source). The 'anomaly' is strictly an artifact of representing a three-dimensional surface in a two dimensional plane. Likewise 'simple', the lack of vivid foreground detail (Rover tracks) is the result of photographic reproduction/exposure technical limitations and optical properties.

[orz]

Well said, but good luck getting anyone to actually bother to read the debunking or change their views. You'd think there's nothing to really be lost by admitting you're wrong on the internet, but the ego is a funny thing i guess.

I don't know how else to account for the persistence of extremely thin arguments and distorted claims that don't bear-up under even modest scrutiny. I haven't found a single Moon hoax claim that I can't explain, understand or otherwise account for.

It's because all the evidence is from NASA/scientists/the mainstream media/books and thus must be "fake" or at least "suspect".

The entire Moon Hoax argument boils down to "We never went to the moon. Prove we did!! Oh, but did I mention you aren't allowed to use any of the evidence that we did go to the moon?"

What embarrasing, weak, worthless, moronic rubbish.

[yesferatu]

I was intrigued enuff by Yesferatu's 'challenge' to provide an explanation for how the video camera pan-tracking of Apollo 16 was accomplished to spend the time onna google search to find it -- and coincidentally also managed to find an explanation for the televised image-phenomenon of flashing sparks not noted in previous televised non-tracking liftoffs (of Apollo 11, 12, 14 &/or 15).

My initial theory on how they managed to track the liftoff (of Apollo 16 and 17; while Apollo 15 was also equipped with a tilt-pan motor a technical issue prevented it from being used to track liftoff -- see below)was confirmed --ie., no big feat, since the cameras post Apollo 14 were fitted with a remote-controlled vertical/horizontal motorized gimbal, and the rate of ascent of the LAM could be readily determined (based on measurements of previous flights, Moon's gravity, mass of LAM and ascent thrust values) -- it only required a bit of trig. calculation using the camera-distance to synchronize the rate of camera motion speed with the LAM's accelerating liftoff (or working backwards, plotting optimal camera arc-second vertical motion relative to camera position-distance). I mean, I don't see this as a very problematic, overcomplex technical feat arguing for evidence of Moon Hoax.

Good technical explanation. Thanks. Though I still like to think there was some guy who filmed it, looked around, and then went ""aw fuck..."
I did not see it as "problematic proving moon hoax"...I just wanted the official explanation of how they did it.
Re-read what I am about on this thread. I am not "moon hoax"...I am "why is there false shit" even though they probably went?

Incidentally: This website http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
provides numerous photographs, information and links re: optical tracking of Apollo flights by both amateur and professional astronomers, supplementing the abundant record of radio and telemetry communications/information, much of which was compiled by amateur enthusiasts -- and which is in itself a very comprehensive, independant resource affirming the actuality of the Apollo project evidence. I find it curious to the extreme that this validation of the fact of manned flights to the Moon is typically ignored or dismissed by those who endorse Moon hoax beliefs -- symptomatic (IMO) of gut-feeling replacing critical thinking.

Again, it's not gut feeling about "they went"...it is gut feeling about "why the fake shit?" For me it is mostly the astronauts on hte surface for which the majority of fakery can be pointed at.

Here is some observations

apo11f.mov - The astronaut is bright and visible in the dark shadow of the LM.

apo16e.mov - The astronaut jumps not more than a couple of feet after flexing his knees to a fair degree.

In the Apollo 11 5492 KB MPEG video clip, with description "Aldrin (with gold visor up) displays smudges on glove", the background ladder is visible behind the glove and arm which appear as a "ghost" image.

In the Apollo 11 8222 KB MPEG video clip, with description "Aldrin demonstrates lunar lope and kangaroo hop", the background LM and flag are visible behind the astronaut which appears as a "ghost" image.

In the Apollo 15 12974 KB RealVideo clip, with description "Scott and Irwin deploy the Lunar Rover", the axle and wheels of the rover just seem to pop out, or "explode", out of a space too small.

AS14-66-9306 10075611.jpg This photograph appears to be taken directly of the sun. The sun appears to be shining through the LM. The shadow side of the LM is relatively well-lit and the words "UNITED STATES" and other details are easy to distinguish. No detail can be distinguished on the ground in the shadow. Optics in this image are strange.

Here are a couple that makes me ask "why the fake shit?":
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS14/10075628.jpg
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS14/10075629.jpg
The foreground is textured and rock-strewn, while the background is blurry. The two are separated by a relatively straight and abrupt transition.
I mean what is in the background they faked away? Please do not look at this photo and tell me you have conclusive knowledge that that photo (the background) was not faked in. Don't be so dogmatic as to think there could be NO reason they would need to fake in a different background. Look at it. Look at the fakeness.
My question all along: why? Why the fake shit??
Why did the NEED to fake in the the flag and the the "United States" where nothing but black shadow should be:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075735.jpg
Like here as well: A straight line behind the astronaut separates a brighter area from a darker area. The flag and the words "UNITED STATES" are easy to see on the dark shadow side of the LM.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075742.jpg

The foreground is light and textured, while the background is darker, drab and smooth. They are separated by a relatively straight transition. Unlike the astronaut, the rover is not casting a shadow. The shadow side of the helmet is very bright.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS16/10075862.jpg
<<The shadow side of the helmet is very bright.>> No. It is very fake. What was reflected in his gold mirror like visor that they faked in a patch of white shit? Why the fake shit?
Like here:
The plain/hill transition is very straight. The colour and shading change is abrupt and non-gradual at this transition.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS17/10076013.jpg
It's not just abrupt....everything is wrong in it's abruptness and transition!

A very straight unnatural-looking line is found at the horizon before the hills. Left hill incline is also very straight.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS17/10075963.jpg He failed to also note the apex of the hill on the right was strait-cropped, and then something fudged in quite poorly to approximate an apex in that picture.

The background hills in the following three images are inconsistent with background hills in 360-degree pans showing the LM.
The following two images (the second has higher resolution) show the LM as seen from Station 6, with the "Pluton Crater" in the background.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... -11324.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 1324HR.jpg

This post-EVA-3 pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... on_pan.jpg, is taken looking out through an LM window and shows the same surface features on the background hills as in the previous two images (the frames are AS15-82-11204 to 11217).

Compare the background hills in the three previous images with the following 360-degree pans.

This 360-degree pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 12pan8.jpg , is taken right next to the LM at the end of EVA-2 (the frames are AS15-87-11822 to 11840). A VR version of this pan is available.

This station 8 pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 480225.jpg, also shows a 360-degree view in the LM vicinity (the frames are AS15-92-12420 to 12438).

The background hills in the first three images showing the "Pluton Crater" do not match the background hills in the 360-degree pans.
I've made this observation before, but it bears repeating: I note the tendency of Moon hoax advocates to make far less use of available information and resources, and therefore being much less familiar with evidence re: reasonable certainty of Apollo accomplishments, than those who believe Apollo landings were genuine are familiar with evidence re: Moon Hoax.

I don't know how else to account for the persistence of extremely thin arguments and distorted claims that don't bear-up under even modest scrutiny. I haven't found a single Moon hoax claim that I can't explain, understand or otherwise account for.

I just gave you plenty to work on.
You sound reasonable and maybe we can debate why there could be no reason for them to fake in what was documented on the moon.

If you tell me none of the pictures look suspect to you, then fine. We'll agree to disagree.
If certain things appear faked, why was there fakery needed for these particular scenes?

Why the fake shit? That's all.

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

[erosoplier]

Thanks StarmanSkye. I've found the "no sparks" video footage I was thinking of - here at the 45 second mark. It's over in a flash - pausing it repeatedly may help. The quality is so crappy (why is it so crappy when Nomo's picture of an image on a TV screen is so good?), seeing it again I can't say the lift-off had no sparks. But in Nomo's picture the jets had flames, it wasn't just glowing insulation (so the invisible exhaust wasn't working very well on that occasion). And there doesn't appear to be flames in the fox video.



Orz, it's funny that you should be the one who mentions "ego." See how Starman spends most of his time talking about facts and details and stuff, and only a small amount of time complaining about the rigid mentality of steriotypical "moon-hoaxers"? Whereas the ratio seems to be reversed with your posts.

And I'd just like to point out that spending most of your time calling moon-hoaxers morons and asserting in various ways that they are wrong, wrong, wrong, does nothing to set them straight. With facts and arguments you'll have a chance, with insults you'll get nowhere with them. Except perhaps make it harder for them to change their view.

[orz]

Here are a couple that makes me ask "why the fake shit?":

All those examples demonstrate is that you're not very visually literate at all and are hunting for something that looks "fake."

Orz, it's funny that you should be the one who mentions "ego." See how Starman spends most of his time talking about facts and details and stuff, and only a small amount of time complaining about the rigid mentality of steriotypical "moon-hoaxers"? Whereas the ratio seems to be reversed with your posts.

But that's because i'm correct, and he's incorrect. You can talk about all the "facts and details" you like but it's still a total waste of time if what you SAY about them is incorrect gibberish.

Since none of the moon hoax "arguments" have anything to them, all that's left to legitamately discuss on the subject is the interesting psychological phenomena on display.

does nothing to set them straight. With facts and arguments you'll have a chance, with insults you'll get nowhere with them. Except perhaps make it harder for them to change their view.

Nonsense. I have no chance. The facts and arguments have been spelled out politely and comprehensively on countless forums before to no particular avail. If they were remotely interested in the truth and were capable of or willing to understand the facts, they wouldn't have ever even believed moon hoax in the first place.

"The truth is out there" as they say; anyone who is willing to do the slightest internet research (let alone real research) into the moon hoax claims can easily find that they've all been thoroughly debunked many times. Anyone still believing them is doing so against all odds because they want to, and are clearly not gonna change their mind however civil I may be when presenting the facts.

[robert d reed]

I find it curious to the extreme that this validation of the fact of manned flights to the Moon is typically ignored or dismissed by those who endorse Moon hoax beliefs -- symptomatic (IMO) of gut-feeling replacing critical thinking.

It's exceedingly typical of threadbare & extravagant conspiracist claims (of which the "moon landing hoax" might be considered a model example) that the adherents often have exhaustive knowledge of any detail that gives the appearance of being anomalous, while remaining in near-total ignorance of the content and context provided by the voluminous historical evidence on the topic to the contrary, in support of the narrative that renders their claims baseless.

You know, like this:

...This website http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
provides numerous photographs, information and links re: optical tracking of Apollo flights by both amateur and professional astronomers, supplementing the abundant record of radio and telemetry communications/information, much of which was compiled by amateur enthusiasts -- and which is in itself a very comprehensive, independant resource affirming the actuality of the Apollo project evidence...

Compared to that, the fact base of "moon landing hoax" supporters is a Saturday morning cartoon.

A legal advocate in a criminal trial who refused to look at the discovery evidence provided by the adversarial side would quickly be exposed in any legal proceeding, and dismissed by the judge as incompetent counsel.

Science students in class attempting to argue from such a limited fact base would be setting themselves up for the ultimate put-down by a professor: "you aren't even wrong."

But, for worse and for better, this is the Internet... there are no deputized Authorities, no one can be dismissed from their advocacy, and every lurker is a judge. Which is how it comes to pass that this sort of thread tends to be the windiest...the weaker the case, the more contorted the logical sophistries employed in support- a tactic, which, if nothing else, generally manages to ensure a draw simply by wearying the opposition. Stalemate- at least on the page, if nowhere else.

Well, that's show business.

"crown yourself the King of Clowns..."

[erosoplier]

Well while you were off being correct, Orz, and the moon hoaxers were off being incorrect, the thing I noticed was that establishment figures are in fact encouraging incorrectness. Political figures allow old interviews to be used in mock hoax documentaries, old astronauts are out there acting as guilty as sin - "acting" being the operative word, apparently. That's the most interesting thing I've discovered while taking part in this thread, but I wonder whether while wallowing in your correctness you even noticed this or find it the least bit interesting?

[orz]

It's a very interesting idea indeed. I've never been too convinced by any of the "guilty" astronaut clips I've seen... can just as easily be read as "exhausted from having JUST BEEN TO THE MOON," "sick of being harrassed by moon hoax scam artists" etc.

Political figures allow old interviews to be used in mock hoax documentaries,

That indeed would be interesting. Needs evidence that this happened intentionally though, it doesn't mean anything as a mere assumption. Fair use, public domain, the intricities of licencing etc etc mean that there's many situations in which the material could be legally used without their permission, or without them even knowing about it at all. The mere fact of inclusion of a person's interview in a hoax documentary doesn't demonstrate anything one way or another.

[erosoplier]

Just to be sure, you have seen the "Astronauts Gone Wild" footage, Orz?

[orz]

At least some of it. Out of pure curiosity I'll see if i can find on youtube and have another look...