Okay, here's a thought. By measuring the rate of the hammer falling you can work out the gravity it was dropped in right? It obviously had to be a vacuum else the feather wouldn't have fallen at the same rate. Now unless NASA used some pretty way out there techniques that probably would have been harder to create than actually going to the Moon, shouldn't this experiment alone show that they really did? And if they didn't actually go, why bother doing such an experiment considering the difficulties it would involve?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Make a lead feather (it wouldn't have to look perfect, it's a low-res image) and slow the tape down. You get them falling slowly and at the same speed.

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

The feather drop is not very logically rigorous.

Of course Scott did not intend it to prove he was on the moon. In fact, the stated proof was of Galileo's principle, and the antecedent to that proof was the lunar environment. If you accept that Scott was on the moon and that the objects used were correctly identified, then the experiment is sufficient proof of Galileo's theorem. If you accept Galileo's theorem as true (i.e., you affirm the consequent), it's not sufficient to cite Scott's experiment as proof of a lunar environment (i.e., the antecedent). This is an example of when debunkers commit a fallacy.

Given, however, that Galileo's theorem can be proved in other ways, it does not require the empirical test to confirm it. Thus it can be used as an antecedent to further arguments. And given that a feather is noticeably subject to air resistance, more so than a hammer or other dense object, a properly certified experiment would be suitable as proof.

If it could be certified that the object alleged to be a feather is in fact a feather, then the identical fall rate would be proof of the absence of air. If it could be certified that the video is a true representation of the rate of fall, then the measured fall rate would be proof of diminished gravity.

Now the object is claimed to be a falcon feather, and the other object claimed to be a geology hammer. Insofar as our ability to judge the accuracy of that identification from the video downlink, the object indeed resembles a feather. A photograph exists of an object resembling a feather resting on the lunar surface, which is claimed to be the object dropped in the test. The other object is similarly agreed to be a hammer, insofar as our ability to judge.

It is an open question whether more could have or should have been done to verify the identity of the objects in the video. But inasmuch as the test was ad hoc and not intended for rigorous control, the question is largely academic. Provisions were not made to certify the frame rate of the playback, nor to identify the object in the video as a feather. Nevertheless, given what was practical and what was done, there is no basis to discredit the identification and applicable properties of the objects, nor the frame rate of the video, except the wishful thinking of those who desire to disbelieve it.

The only evidence cited for the possible misidentification of the feather is the abstract possibility of creating a feather facsimile that would fail to exhibit the feather's aerodynamic resistance. Similarly the only evidence cited for the possible alteration of the playback rate is the abstract possibility of doing it. No evidence is provided that any such facsimile was actually made, nor that any such alteration of the video was undertaken.

Thus to discredit the experiment based solely on abstract possibility is an "ad hoc escape" fallacy in which additional criteria are subsequently applied to contrary data, which are intended to suggest how the data may be impeached but not actually to impeach it. The deployment of an ad hoc rescue establishes a burden of proof above and beyond mere abstract possibility, requiring proof of actual impeachment.

In short, if conspiracists wish to argue that Dave Scott dropped a lead feather, they are required to show that this actually happened -- not merely that it is possible to construct a lead feather. Nevertheless, since the experiment was directed from one antecedent to a particular consequent, and stated quite clearly as such, we may not arbitrarily exchange antecedent and consequent without reargumentation.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Jay, someday a poor woowoo is going to stumble onto a post like that and have a stroke just trying to wade through it. It's like washing a puppy with a firehose.

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

Please pass another puppy. :-)

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I was going to ask him to translate it into English, but then decided that is just wasn't worth the hassle.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I hope when the BA writtes another book he adds an, er, addendum with Jays 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 best postings here.

Harald

Or maybe Jay makes a book out of this stuff and the BA writes the preface...

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I wonder if there would be any value in compiling a "damning items" list.

For instance, if an HB found a genuine 40 year old invoice from a lead craftsman reading something like, "To NASA, one lead item resembling a falcon's feather," then I think we would have to consider the possibility that something fishy is going on.

In fact two lists would be useful. A "things we'd have difficulty explaining" list, which includes lead feathers, a lunar film-set, footage of a stage hand walking across the moon sans spacesuit, an astronaut's confession etc. This would contrast with the "things we have adequately addressed already" list, which includes no stars seen, radiation too high, flag waved etc.

Ouch... that was so funny it hurts. Please don't do that when I'm eating lunch!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

That would redefine the term "short list".

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

That is a good point. Jay, have you considered a summation of many of your posts as an anti-hoax book? Your writing is clear and concise and a summary of them would make a great sourcebook against hoax claims. You'll even make a few dollars for your efforts.

I've got an outline for a book. But it's hard to collect disjoint essays like this together and call it a book on the moon hoax theory. A book typically benefits from a certain cohesion and flow, and so far that's hard to find.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't know, you could almost set it out like a FAQ: one chapter on Sibrel's stuff, another on Collier and so forth. Anyway, it's your outline so do it however you, and your editor, feel works best.

How about The Artful Dodges of Cosmic Dave Cosnette? That first post alone could fill a book. You could include all the other stuff as well. Cosmic Dave had such a fondness for plucking arguments wherever he could find them that he's a pretty good person to go to for a summary of the popular conspiracy arguments.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

Or the book could be constructed as an anthology of essays on the subject. Admittedly, there's still a need to find cohesion, but anthologies sometimes sell fairly well simply because people sometimes like to have a piece that can be read in a single sitting, and anthology contains many of those. This would permit an episodic structure to the book that might relieve some of the need for a cohesive flow.

Clavius originally began as a dialogical refutation of specific charges. I soon realized I was repeating myself, since most conspiracy theorists rely on about 80% common material. I then migrated to a format in which topics such as shadow angles and thermodynamics are discussed. The downside of that is difficulty locating the refutation for some precise charge.

In the Bibliography section you may still find detailed responses to individual offerings such as the Milne article and Bart Sibrel's top 15. But increasingly those reviews become lists of links into other parts of the site.

I suppose a book could be organized in a similar way, with chapters corresponding to general topics such as photography and flight dynamics, and then I could provide a set of appendices or an additional index that lets someone watching, say, the Fox program go down a list of charges and find material in the book to discuss it.

Some of the material naturally lends itself to refutation via motion pictures, which is being discussed elsewhere.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

JayUtah said:
That is true; however, it is acceptable for them to use the lead feather explanation in the most common way. It is a response to the claim that the feather/hammer demo proves it is on the moon. It is then acceptable to point out that other conditions can produce the same effect as the feather/hammer demo. A set of other conditions is lead feather and slowed playback.

This is the same methodology of the standard skeptic's approach to paranormal claims. Said claim is that so and so happened. Alternate explanation could be such and such. That is the same model here. Said claim is hammer and feather on moon. Alternate explanation is lead feather and slowed playback. See? In order to put the demo in question one does not have to prove it was done that way, only that it could have been. It doesn't disprove the moon landings, but it prevents the demo from being proof. Same way Randi bending spoons with his hand doesn't prove Geller uses his hands to bend spoons, merely disproves that the only way Geller can bend the spoons is with his mind.
-----
Edited to fix "disproves". Thanks.

Er, I think you mean disproves... :P

Wouldn't a lead feather react in a different way from a real feather when it hit the ground? Harder impact, more dust, falling the wrong way?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran