[Dane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no scientific excellence in movie tricks and studio creation.

Perhaps not scientific excellence but certainly artistic excellence! Even the most expensive Hollywood creations still looks fake, especially when no or low gravity is involved, this despite the advanced CGI available to the artists today. Considering that they only had cardboard models etc. at their disposal back then, it may have been a greater feat to pull off the special effects than if they had actually landed on the Moon.

 

[Mr. B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah... so the Aussies were in on the conspiracy too.... along with thousands of amateur radio operators, the Soviets, etc.... all of whom tracked Apollo 11's progress.

The Soviets are definitely an "elephant in the room" with regards to these conspiracies. They were "keeping a close eye" on the Apollo program to put it mildly and they would have jumped all over the chance to prove the moon landing never happened. They never made a single accusation. Bill Kaysing, a Rocketdyne employee (Saturn V engine contractor) started this mess.

 

[Drubbing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, sure, because everybody knew in that time what the Moon looked like from the ground perspective. Please... There is no scientific excellence in movie tricks and studio creation. What should I prove to you, the possibility of faking those things up?

Did you even read this? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/po...ml#post5851956 Just the last 3 sentences will suffice.

So please, given there was international involvement directly in the landing and moonwalk itself, where the signal received from the moon was tracked by a different agency, in another country, involving thousands more people, and fed to mission control in the USA, explain to me your deduction as to how this whole thing was faked/didn't happen in 1969?

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are actually still using the reflector mirrors the Apollo astronauts left on the Moon, these mirrors are used to determine how fast the Moon drifts away from Earth but also to explore theories about gravity etc. The scientists using these mirrors, and who may only have been kids back then or perhaps not even born, these scientists are of course involved in this hoax too - in reality they are just making up the laser measurements and building their scientific carer up around that.

I just saw this in the Science Channel the other day. I had forgotten that Apollo 11 had left them, I thought it was a later mission. Excellent point.



Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, sure, because everybody knew in that time what the Moon looked like from the ground perspective. Please... There is no scientific excellence in movie tricks and studio creation. What should I prove to you, the possibility of faking those things up?

Anything can be faked. That doesn't mean it was faked.

 

[PieRat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif 3. Nobody provided here links or at least plain text explaining how the spacement suit works. Save me that drama with words "thermal transfer" as they are just words. Tell me how you make the physics working.

Either they work or all the pictures and video of spacewalks outside the shuttle, and / or spacestation must be fake as well?

NASA - The Construction and Design Elements of Spacesuit Technology

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif The last ten pages of this thread is unreadable, so I'll just sum up my thoughts, prior to that limiting myself to quick scrolling. 1. I believe we are able to land on the Moon. 2. I don't believe it happened in 1969. 3. Nobody provided here links or at least plain text explaining how the spacement suit works. Save me that drama with words "thermal transfer" as they are just words. Tell me how you make the physics working. 4. If we replace the question for "Do you come from the USA?" the bars wouldn't change noticeably, where the blue would mean Yes.

I told you to learn about thermodynamics and heat transfer because no one can explain to you how a complex problem can be solved with engineering and science if you are unwilling to learn the engineering and science! If I tell you that acceleration is the second time derivative of distance, do you believe me? It is, and I could show it by experimentation, but linking the experiment to the math requires that YOU (not me) understand the concept of a time derivative, and that requires YOU to understand the first chapter of any calculus text book. If you aren't willing to learn these concepts, then you will never be convinced, because any explanation will ALWAYS be "just words".

Let's peel away a bit of the rhetoric and get down to the underlying problem: Do you believe a properly trained engineer can solve a problem when you yourself can neither solve nor even understand the problem?

Consider a few of these questions:

- Can an engineer design a way for the human eye to see a person sitting in a sealed and completely dark room?
- Why does a shower curtain get sucked *in* to the bath when taking a hot shower?
- Is it possible for an engineer to design an object that can be heated to 1000 deg C and then picked-up with your bare hand a few seconds later?

There are plenty of things that I don't understand that I take for granted because I trust that other, smarter people *do* understand those things. I like to think that I *could* understand most of them if I really tried, but I certainly would never think they can't exist just because I do not understand them. I don't know how an LCD monitor works, but that doesn't stop me from believing in laptops. I also don't know how a plant uses Nitrogen, but that doesn't stop me from believing that fertilizing my lawn will make it greener. The guy at the nursery store said it would, and I believed him and bought the fertilizer. The size of the problem shouldn't matter - I either believe others can solve complex problems that I don't understand, or I don't. It's up to me to make the effort to learn!

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif Consider a few of these questions: - Why does a shower curtain get sucked *in* to the bath when taking a hot shower?

I'll take a shot at that just for fun.

The hot water heats the air in the shower. This creates an area of lower pressure due to convection (hot air rises). The area outside of the shower is colder, so therefore it is an area of higher pressure. If the air rises up and over the shower curtain to the area of high pressure, new air has to replace the escaping hotter air. This is where the movement of the shower curtain comes in. It is essentially blocking most of the newer, colder air from rushing in from the rest of the bathroom. The movement of the curtain to a slightly more diagonal position allows more air to rush in, competing the convection cell.

EDIT: Does anyone know if this occurs when only the cold water is used? If so, my theory is "busted". Quick, someone with that kind of curtain jump in the shower

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll take a shot at that just for fun. The hot water heats the air in the shower. This creates an area of lower pressure due to convection (hot air rises). The area outside of the shower is colder, so therefore it is an area of higher pressure. If the air rises up and over the shower curtain to the area of high pressure, new air has to replace the escaping hotter air. This is where the movement of the shower curtain comes in. It is essentially blocking most of the newer, colder air from rushing in from the rest of the bathroom. The movement of the curtain to a slightly more diagonal position allows more air to rush in, competing the convection cell. EDIT: Does anyone know if this occurs when only the cold water is used? If so, my theory is "busted". Quick, someone with that kind of curtain jump in the shower

There is some controversy on this, believe it or not.

The Straight Dope: Why does the shower curtain blow up and in instead of down and out?

Another take on it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-shower-curta

 

[Billyk]

Two words... Star Wars
If the special effects were good enough to fake the landing, you would think that Lucas Ranch would have produced something better, yes?
I mean this is our government we're talking about, you know the ones that had to fly Air Force 1 around NYC for some publicity shots. Presumably because CGI would have been too hard.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is some controversy on this, believe it or not. The Straight Dope: Why does the shower curtain blow up and in instead of down and out? Another take on it: Why does the shower curtain move toward the water? : Scientific American

Very interesting. Thank you for the links.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is some controversy on this, believe it or not. The Straight Dope: Why does the shower curtain blow up and in instead of down and out? Another take on it: Why does the shower curtain move toward the water? : Scientific American

Ding! Ding! Ding! Very good - congratulations to both of you!

When I was in college, my aerodynamics professor explained it as an example of the "Bernoulli Principle". My thermodynamics professor explained it as an example of the "Chimney Effect". The vortex theory was very interesting - I had not heard that one before.

So - what has this demonstrated? Well, I think it demonstrates that something we see everyday could actually require a rather complex scientific explanation. Everything in the universe is not always a simple explanation that can be understood by people without the proper knowledge. Sometimes, understanding something requires careful analysis, study and application of principles which are not generally known to the average citizen who isn't involved or interested in that subject. That's what scientists and engineers do...

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My responses to your four questions. Probably not enough for you, but it's my best shot.

I hear what you're saying and appreciate your time to respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need a lunar Hasselblad. Take any camera, and set it to normal daylight exposure, say 1/125s@f/16, using the sunny 16 rule. (ISO 100 for a digital camera) Also, read what he said carefully - same camera settings, not the same camera.

I suppose this one we will have to agree to disagree, I don't see how the lunar Hasselblad can be compared to a $100 Sony Cybershot. 1/125s@f/16 ? ~ f/16 would be used for scenery not something in the foreground, further more 1/125 wouldn't be used with f/16, it likely wouldn't even be sharp. Also do you really think they used ISO 100? I would guess more likely they used 1600, 3200, I'm not sure what that camera was capable of but remember there was no viewfinder, so in theory you would want to play it safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Waving a Flag on the Moon Perhaps this is a better explanation?

Unfortunately no. I am talking about the video of the flag flapping without anyone touching it. Nasa gave 5 bumbling explanations for it, needless to say it sounds like there looking for an excuse. EVA-2 Closeout (148:57:15)

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've seen Harriers land in person. There's a lot of dust, depending on conditions, but no crater. Also, depending on the depth of the lunar regolith, once the dust has blown away you're down to rock, which is much more resistant to the rocket blast. A rocket lifting off is more likely to make a crater, since it has to build up thrust. - that's why NASA has launch pads with heatproof blast pits.

Theres a couple problems with this theory; "once the dust has blown away" how would the dust blow away on the moon? Okay, so let's agree theres no blast crater, you would at the very least expect the dust under the module to have blown away but this just isn't the case as seen in pictures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The moon has no atmosphere. We have hot days on Earth because the air heats up. No air, no heat. The temperatures often quoted for the moon are surface temperatures. The side of the camera facing the Sun will get hot, but the rest of the camera is radiating heat away into space. Outer space is a pretty effective heatsink.

You addressed this but lets think about it for a second; Temperature on the moon does indeed mean the surface temperature, silver/white objects would reflect most heat, while dark/black objects (like the Hasselblad) would retain the heat. For arguments sake I will agree with your analogy of the heatsink; the side facing the sun would be upwards of 123°C, the side away from the sun would be -233°C ~ do you know what happens to plastic, metal and glass at these extreme temperatures?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If there was sufficient radiation to melt the camera, I don't think the space suit would have fared much better.

I agree with you on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can think for myself. I grew up with the space program, and was 11 at the time of the first moon landing. I firmly believe we went there, when we said we did. It boggles my mind that people can think we didn't.

You're telling me you saw it on TV when you were of susceptible age and thus non-believers boggle your mind... TV and media can have you believe anything, I appreciate that you were around at the time of landing, however this could also be deluding your belief. I'm sure that anyone that has so much as been to see a rocket launch would believe the same thing. Sometimes it helps to take a step back; Is it beyond the government to lie to us? Did they have probable cause to lie at the time?

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it beyond the government to lie to us? Did they have probable cause to lie at the time?

Of course it isn't (though "us" and "them" is a little dramatic), and of course they would have. Of course, Russia had a fairly advanced space program at the time, and they didn't seem to object. Do you think Russia had probable cause to claim it was a fake if they had any inclination that it was? Do you think the US government could have stopped them?

 

[Dane]

To the folks believing it was faked: What piece of evidence would make you change your mind and accept that men walked on the Moon in 1969?

 

[Billyk]

Quote:

I suppose this one we will have to agree to disagree, I don't see how the lunar Hasselblad can be compared to a $100 Sony Cybershot. 1/125s@f/16 ? ~ f/16 would be used for scenery not something in the foreground, further more 1/125 wouldn't be used with f/16, it likely wouldn't even be sharp. Also do you really think they used ISO 100? I would guess more likely they used 1600, 3200, I'm not sure what that camera was capable of but remember there was no viewfinder, so in theory you would want to play it safe.

For the sake of the point being made the camera does indeed make no difference here. It all has to do with the contrast ratio available with the film being used. If the exposure value, EV, is set to accurately capture the landscape and the spacesuit there is not enough dynamic range available to show the faint stars in the background all you would see is black. An example would be to take a picture of an open door to your house on a bright sunny day, you can set the EV for either the outside or the inside, if you set for the outside the inside should show as black.
The arpature or f/number and the shutter speed are actually irrelevant although the combination does represent the EV. f/16 and 125/sec is not a bad assumption, if you assume ISO 100, if it was 1600 or 3200 as you stated it would be f/16 1600/sec or f/22 800/sec, etc... Again just the EV and the contrast ratio.