Hey!

Since I've been away, I've gotten a bit rusty on my debunking skills (blush).

So, I've gotten into a situation where a couple of guys are "Moon hoaxing" and one of them is "Cassini hoaxing."

So, if you'd offer quick help, or direct me to where I can find quick answers (Sometimes it takes me a while to dig up specific issues, you know?)

The Moon hoaxer referenced a book called "It was a Paper Moon" or something like that, and mentioned the "X" being on the same rock in two different locations?

The Cassini hoaxer mentioned the background stars not being visible (he bet he could recreate the newly released Saturnian moon photo at home).

I know the background stars things has to do with lighting - but I'm not sure how to explain that with regards to the photo of this moon.

The "X" I believe was something from the camera? But I don't recall correctly.
but he said it was the same rock in supposedly two different locations (???). I don't recall hearing about that one before.

Thanks in advance!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Here are some.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.clavius.org/

Both have answers to questions. Very educational for me.

James Collier's Was It Only a Paper Moon? makes the claim that "official" NASA footage shows astronauts in the exact same place on two different days, when it is claimed they were actually in a different place. In fact, Collier's "official" footage isn't official; it's the 30-minute film Nothing So Hidden produced by AV Films of Houston. It contains various clips from the Apollo 16 mission. AV Films mistakenly used two clips from one EVA, representing them to be from different EVAs. Collier simply used a convenient secondary source instead of verifying his "inconsistency" from primary material.

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

Thank-you muchly!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

You should suggest he read a book on basic photography and pay close attention to the sensitivity ranges of various emulsions. Then point out that the same considerations apply to CCDs, i.e., when set re aperture (f stop) and exposure time to record details in bright areas, details in dark areas (such as space) will be lost. It would be very easy to take pictures of stars using Cassini's cameras, but that's not what we sent it to Saturn for!

All those incredibly detailed photographs of the moons, the rings, and Saturn itself are part of the mission objectives. BTW, if you wish, feel free to mention you got this information from someone who helped build Cassini. Of course if your friend is into conspiracies, I guess that would make me yet another government-paid disinformation agent. Oh well...

Nevertheless, there is no "Cassini hoax", it's all very real.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Re stars - you can see them in the few Cassini images exposed long enough to show the dark sides of moons lit by Saturnshine. Examples are here, one of a whole series of Iapetus exposures so long that the background stars trailed into streaks, and this additional one of Iapetus, and so on (there's one of Janus that I can't find at the moment).

Thanks for the references. This underscores the fact that if, on the other hand, the aperture and exposure time are set for recording details in dark areas, guess what's going to show up in the sky? One benefit of the time exposure streaks is that one can easily discriminate between the star images and cosmic ray/bad pixel/etc. artifacts.

Nice photos! Wonderful to know there are may more that will be taken.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Notice that on both images the sunlit crescent of Iapetus is completely overexposed.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

...despite reflecting sunlight which is only about 1% of the intensity reaching the surface of our Moon...

Cassini hoax? Wow.

Not sure why this surprises me, but what motivation would someone have for alleging such a thing?

I've run into a few hoax believers who held to the idea of the Van Allen belts as an impenatrable barrier; for those, Voyager, or Spirit and Opportunity, are as impossible as Apollo 11. A strain of belief a little closer to the hoax believer mainstream is that this sinister barrier only kills humans; automated spacecraft are still free to go. Of course, in all flavors of this belief, the Van Allen belts are some convenient distance away where ordinary shuttle flights and communications satellites are not endangered.

On the other hand, there's some like our old friend Interdimensional Warrior, with his remarkable idea that rockets melt....

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Awsome assistance!

Why the Cassini hoax? I feel ashamed to explain why - as it has to do with religion (gone awry) - a missaplication that he interpets to mean man can't send anything into space. Don't ask! (Insert emoticon of banging head against a wall.)

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Eek.

I actually debated a Cassini HB on the apollohoax boards, he never claimed a reason as to why, rather he was claiming that either NASA was lieing or idiots. The quick summary was that he read a press release stating the probes speed a short way to Saturn and how it was slowing down to a new speed, he took this to mean average speed and wondered why the probe was taking so long. He then argued that NASA should've used the Earth's movement to launch the probe faster, that Gravity from the Sun wouldn't slow it down, and that it should've gone to Saturn at full speed all the way. needless to say I didn't get very far -_-;. Anyways, as to why, I think he just wanted to feel that he had outsmarted NASA ("Look, they could've done this much faster if only they had ignored the laws of physics.").

__________________

Yes, I was there too. It could have been a fun discussion if the HB had any debating skills at all. Unfortuantely he didn't last long.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

Tell me about it.

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Neville Jones the geocentrist claims that all the NASA deep space probes are faked, as are the Hubble images. Of course, he says every physicist since Copernicus is wrong, too....

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Your efforts should be applauded nonetheless. Good luck.

Sounds like unknown/wildbill/pierre7985/bigbrain. Lots of mangled syntax, use of colored fonts, CAPS, and "buffoons". But no clue, and no hope of ever getting one - simply the ability to spout recycled blither endlessly. I pointed some stuff out while he was cluttering up Skeptic Friends' forum with his drivel.