Another Moon hoax thread

[Miketmbt]

You know what would be cool..

The people who believe the moon landings are a hoax based on the videos and photos, I would like to see people recreate them on earth.. Using the methods that are assumed.. Then do a side by side comparison..

[slang]

Send an email to Mythbusters, maybe they could do a show on it!

[Miketmbt]

Yeah. They did a great show on it but someone might say the results were biased becasue they were believers when they started.

[kleindoofy]

This has already been done.

I've seen it, but I'm afraid I don't remember who did it.

[Miketmbt]

One thing I would like to se recreated is the footage of Apollo 17 astronaut falling down and righting himself by pushing off with his arms all while wearing the suit.

I can't do that in my underwear.

[Starfury]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

Yeah. They did a great show on it but someone might say the results were biased becasue they were believers when they started.

Anyone who knows how science works would say they did their due diligence, performed tests that could be repeated, and confirmed what is already known as fact: The moon landings happened.

Biased because they were believers....what a ridiculous statement.

[Jason Thompson]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

Yeah. They did a great show on it but someone might say the results were biased becasue they were believers when they started.

They might, but they'd be ignoring the fact that reality doesn't give a damn what you start out believing. They correctly showed that shadows can be made to fall in non-parallel directions as a result of uneven terrain and perspective. They correctly showed that a flag will flap around in a vacuum. They correctly showed that a footprint can be left in dry dust in a vacuum. If a hoax believer performed the same tests they'd get the same results. Conspicuously, they never do.

[Skyfire]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

I can't do that in my underwear.

Gee thanks, Mike! I didn't really need that mental image ..... and I'm about to go out to dinner too!

[Henna Oji-san]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

You know what would be cool..

The people who believe the moon landings are a hoax based on the videos and photos, I would like to see people recreate them on earth.. Using the methods that are assumed.. Then do a side by side comparison..

I did come across a website where someone had created models to demonstrate the effects of uneven ground on shadows, the lighiting effects of light or dark "ground" material, etc.

But I expect CTists would just see that as evidence that "they" know how to fake it.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

They did a great show on it but someone might say the results were biased becasue they were believers when they started.

What does belief have to do with it? I lived through it, and there was no belief involved, just an examination of evidence stretching from the beginning of the 1960's to this moment.

I think it's difficult to explain that to those who were not there.

[JimTKirk]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

One thing I would like to se recreated is the footage of Apollo 17 astronaut falling down and righting himself by pushing off with his arms all while wearing the suit.

I can't do that in my underwear.

But then you're not trying it in 1/6th gravity in an airless environment either!

[Garrison]

The Mythbusters often start an experiment with a view of what the results will be, and they are often wrong; 'Failure is always an option' Their 'belief's' are irrelevant as long as the experiments are conducted properly.

[moog]

As long as they are honest and their experiments are conducted openly I see no reason to dismiss the Mythbusters results simply because they expected particular results.

[coreybv]

Originally Posted by JimTKirk

But then you're not trying it in 1/6th gravity in an airless environment either!

I would think that trying anything at all in an airless environment while wearing just your underwear would belong firmly in the "not recommended" column...

[JimTKirk]

I'm just trying to make Miketmbt understand the near impossibility of recreating the video.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by moog

As long as they are honest and their experiments are conducted openly I see no reason to dismiss the Mythbusters results simply because they expected particular results.

Scientists almost always have an expected result when they do an experiment. It's only an issue when they fudge the data to yield the expected result.

[djinn]

I could easily be wrong (it's hard to tell in text-based communication) but I think some people are misinterpreting Miketmbt, and being unnecessarily hard on him.

When he says that the HBs would say that Mythbusters are biased because they already believe the Moon landing really happened, I think that's a fair observation. It doesn't mean he believes that, or doesn't understand the scientic method. HBs do refuse to accept hard evidence and use any specious logic to deny reality. That's why he's suggesting challenging the HBs to produce their own "fakes". It seems fairly obvious to me that he doesn't believe they could produce anything that looks like the real thing.

When he says that he'd like to see the HBs make a "fake" of the Apollo 17 astronaut in full gear pushing himself upright with only his arms, it seems fairly obvious to me that he thinks one could only do that in a (much) reduced gravity environment.

Basically, he's just saying to the HBs who think it was all faked, and filmed on Earth, "Ok, put up, or shut up".

PS - I think it's a good approach. People here (and elsewhere) have to spend far too much time and effort repeatedly debunking all the stupid "it was faked" stuff. Time to say "when you can produce faked footage of all the true footage, then we can have a sensible discussion. Until you can, we'll ignore you".

[slang]

Originally Posted by JimTKirk

I'm just trying to make Miketmbt understand the near impossibility of recreating the video.

I think that was his point by saying he couldn't even do it in ... light clothing

Originally Posted by djinn

I could easily be wrong (it's hard to tell in text-based communication) but I think some people are misinterpreting Miketmbt, and being unnecessarily hard on him.

I see people being hard on ideas and arguments regardless of who uses them, not on a person. As it should be. But yeah, it's easy to misunderstand and miscommunicate on a forum.

[chrlzs]

Originally Posted by moog

As long as they are honest and their experiments are conducted openly I see no reason to dismiss the Mythbusters results simply because they expected particular results.

Agreed. As fate would have it, that Mythbusters show was repeated here just this morning. While I always enjoy their shows, I am often critical about the way they handle some myths.. but imho they did very well on all the points they addressed. I particularly enjoyed the vomit comet bit - getting the plane to simulate 1/6 gravity was exceptionally impressive.

I can't help noticing (but this is a very unscientific observation) that the number of Apollo deniers seems to be declining (with only a small predictable increase around the 40th anniversary), and those that are left are beginning to drop many of the old claims, now that they have been thrashed to death.

I do believe that the Mythbusters have assisted in that regard, so I thank them..

[JimTKirk]

Originally Posted by slang

I think that was his point by saying he couldn't even do it in ... light clothing

Oops! My misinterpretation...

[nomuse]

And just to add to that...I know lots of people who can put themselves on their feet using just their arms. They are called dancers. I also have known circus artists who could do that (I've worked with the Pickles, and another small circus or two, and boy are those people crazy strong as well as flexible!), and martial artists. And, without meaning to belabor the point, a fair number of rock climbers can do the trick AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Including me. And I'm over forty, and not an athlete by any means.

To say it can't be done by a fit person "even on Earth" requires qualifying what it is that can't be done. As in, use only your arms, and don't flex your back any more than so-and-so amount, and don't bounce.

But this leads to two interesting points. First is that, within the frame of the usual chopped and compressed video remnant, of a man in very bulky clothing, clothing which furthermore is white and blows out all highlights on the video, how can you say his back didn't flex the magical required amount, or he didn't bounce the magical required amount? And, not knowing the internal construction of the suit, how can you say the springiness of the legs didn't aid him in the process? And have you really accounted for the pack, which is not a soft cloth hiking pack like it looks, filled with clothing and a little food, but a large rigid mass of dense machinery?

Basically, you are guessing. You are making an assumption about a motion you think you see, and then deciding it can't be done by anyone.

The other direction this breaks off is something like the jump salute. To the typical hoax believer observer, the jump salute isn't worthy of any special attention, because they again aren't looking at the details. Whereas the details in the problem of getting-to-the-feet are where lies the difference between "impossible even on the Moon" and "possible even on Earth," in the jump salute the clear detail is that the astronaut isn't bending his legs enough.

The hoax believer notices only how high the astronaut reaches. To him, that is the clue that something is wrong (aka they think he should have gone higher). They fail to notice that the astronaut is flexing a great deal less, arms and legs, then anyone on Earth would to even attempt a jump, much less a jump of that height.

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Miketmbt

You know what would be cool..

The people who believe the moon landings are a hoax based on the videos and photos, I would like to see people recreate them on earth.. Using the methods that are assumed.. Then do a side by side comparison..

Another thing I want to throw into the mix is that the Moon Hoax believers know as little about photography and film-making at they do about the space sciences.

It makes for a bit of a problem in attempting to replicate the lunar photography/video the way they say it could have been done. Do you stay strictly within the broken methods they suggest, and risk getting the same response MythBusters got from them? (Aka a general tenor of "They tried to make it look impossible by doing it the wrong way.") Or do you make it actually possible to make the pictures by NOT doing it the way they suggest, and thus prove something entirely different?

Take something as simple as the suggestion that the video was slowed down. We know the actual camera used, and we know the artifacts that a frame rate change would impose. We don't see those. So do we have to modify their requirement by adding a kind of camera quite unlike what was actually used, or even what they think was used (a little unknown, as they don't specify)?

Or say you are trying to replicate the converging/diverging shadows. Well, turn on ONE light and the shadows will already be doing what they say is impossible. How can you modify the scene to allow even a single light to cast the shadows they think it should cast, much less change all the geometry so as to allow multiple lights to all cast non-diverging shadows -- just so you can get to the point where you can test for the idea of multiple lights each casting a (single) diverging shadow?

The problem is, the hoax believers do not feel required to work out the practical measures of how to make these hoax films of theirs. And because they lack a narrative, nothing prevents them from endless modification.

Any time you show, say, that throwing a real handful of gravel into the air not only doesn't "slam into the wall of air and stop" (yes, that's how they describe the dust spurting from under the wheels of the rover), but also produces a bunch of hanging dust, they will without missing the slightest beat come back with a "But they used SPECIAL sand that didn't have any dust."

There is no aspect of the complete failure of their multiple lights and on-stage fans and giant catwalks and wires attached to PLSS and so forth that they can't endlessly modify with an array of "painted out, left in by a whistle-blower, special effects, I'm not a movie expert but I know they do it all the time in the movies."

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by nomuse

There is no aspect of the complete failure of their multiple lights and on-stage fans and giant catwalks and wires attached to PLSS and so forth that they can't endlessly modify with an array of "painted out, left in by a whistle-blower, special effects, I'm not a movie expert but I know they do it all the time in the movies."

It's the same with all the evidence. They propose magical 'radiation ovens' for making moon rocks without ever offering up a design or even an outline method. It's all just spurious rhetoric designed to confuse and suck in the uninformed.

[theydidn'tgo]

Can anyone explain the differences between these two photos posted on the NASA web site both labelled Apollo 11
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR..._apollo11.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
The first one in my opinion is either photoshopped of redacted and why would you want to redact an image of the lander.
Second why are the craters different in these two pictures.
It could just be an error on NASA's part but you would think they would only post pictures that were beyond reproach.

[nomuse]

I have no idea what you are asking, theydidn'tgo. Your first link appears to be broken.

As a venture at an answer, are you aware that LRO visited the Apollo 11 site more than once? That there are different photographs taken at different altitudes and at different times of (lunar) day, which change dramatically the look of the landscape?

[theydidn'tgo]

Try this link http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR..._apollo11.html
I am aware that they made more than one pass. The sites don't seem to match and the lunar modual is way to white.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by theydidn'tgo

Can anyone explain the differences between these two photos posted on the NASA web site both labelled Apollo 11
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...11109_apollo11

You left off part of that link, so it didn't work. Here's the correct link:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR..._apollo11.html

As the page says, the second image is an enlargement of the Apollo 11 landing area itself. That makes it easier to see it on the web page.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
The first one in my opinion is either photoshopped of redacted and why would you want to redact an image of the lander.

That page has images of the areas around several landing sites, taken when the LRO was in higher orbit. Could you be more specific about what image you are referring to, and explain what you think was photoshopped?

Second why are the craters different in these two pictures.

Again, which images are you referring to?

[Ammonia]

Here is an interesting docu about the supposed moon hoax

I wish myth busters did these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

[theydidn'tgo]

the LEM in particular looks photoshopped. The ground below the LEM is way to dark and the LEM was not made of pure white materials. From other LEM photos posted by NASA

[theydidn'tgo]

The picture of the LEM in this Photo http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...ollo11_lrg.jpg looks to me more realistic. Why the need to fake (or redact) a picture that is supposed to be taken from a closer view? In this picture I believe that there is something there that is man made.