[Dane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds very religious.

Make a few strategic substitutions with "The Force", "anger", "hate", and it could sound like Yoda, just rearrange the grammar a little also

 

[SonicArmada]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds very religious.

It really doesn't(at least not directly), but thanks for shortening the life of this thread as it will probably spiral down from here.

 

[Mr. B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif That sounds very religious.

Perhaps, but conspiracy theorists are typically inconsolable. You could fly one to the moon so they could see the landing sites with their own eyes and they would probably say the artifacts were put there by robotic missions.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif This shows me you haven't thought about it; Is it completely unfathomable to think of an unmanned spacecraft?

Yes. Yes, it is.

To begin, pull up the Apollo mission computer simulator. You'll see how primitive it is - not much more than a calculator. It is utterly incapable of serving as an autopilot for such a complex mission. We simply did not have the technology for that.

Which means that any unmanned mission would have had to have been controlled by radio. With lots of transmissions back and forth to keep the thing on track.

What you probably don't realize is that amateur radio is a popular hobby, with millions of hams the world over. Hams tend to take a keen interest in the space program - then and now.

Hams are always listening. Someone is paying attention to every bit of the radio spectrum right now, an hour from now and ten years from now.

Because people are always listening, it is extremely unlikely that the control signals to an unmanned craft would have gone unnoticed. If you want some corroborating evidence for this, consider the Soviet missions that didn't end so well. They had a number of missions that weren't made public for obvious reasons - the cosmonauts had been killed or lost in space. Gagarin wasn't the first man who went up. He was the first one to come back. Anyhow, evidence of all these launches was picked up by and tracked by hams. Keep in mind - these transmissions were an official Soviet state secret and they were *not* happy that people were listening in.

Had there been somethin fishy with Apollo, the hams would have picked up on it. No question.

And if you think there was some sort of conspiracy, bear in mind that radio geeks know when they're being jammed. Moreover, a lot of the radios used were DIY, so the government had about as much control over those as they would the Beta22 you built.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Haha yes I don't believe in physics or chemistry! It was a typo, thanks for pointing that out, psychics is what I meant to say. Also no need to apologize, I know how these debates get, at the end of the day we're all still friends here... just a few crazies amongst us... The exact same can be said for those who believe what they hear on the TV. Just because you believe as the masses do doesn't make you right, no more so than a sheep following another sheep.

The difference is that I *do* understand some of the science behind the arguments debunking the hoax theory. And not just because "I hear it on the TV", but because I have studied and used the math, physics and engineering concepts being discussed. I have gained knowledge and then gained understanding. I don't pick and choose beliefs to suit my views. Can you say the same?

And yes, some of this does sound religious, primarily because I was hoping that by putting this into non-scientific terms of philosophy and belief systems, that perhaps it would resonate a little for some of the folks.

Here's a good short story used in many Humanities courses: "The Man Who Saw Through Heaven" by Wilbur Daniel Steele. I'll leave the applicability to this thread to the readers...

(Edit: I apologize for some of the language used in the story I linked to - I think it was first published in Harper's Magazine in 1925, and it uses terms from a much different time that would never be acceptable today.)

 

[beerguy0]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post
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:

Quote: Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post 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.

Agree to disagree? The only thing that I agree to is that you have zero knowledge of film, photography, or cameras, nor will you listen to someone who has that knowledge. A quick Google search (what film did the Apollo astronauts use) finds this:

Photography During Apollo

Among the films they used were ISO 80 B&W film, plus custom Ektachrome in what looks to be the equivalent of ISO 64 and ISO 120. There did not exist in 1969 high speed color films, like 1600 and 3200, nor was there any need for them. They were shooting images of things in full sunlight. The Sun doesn't get any brighter than in space. You would probably need a neutral density to even attempt an exposure under those conditions. (The shutters in Hasselblads are large, and consequently probably the top speed is like 1/500 s) Furthermore, high ISO films are of very poor image quality, especially the early ones. Very grainy and noisy. They were shooting 70mm film for the best image quality - it would be foolish to even consider using high speed film.

The exposure time I guessed at is an entirely reasonable value for a sunlit scene. f/16 gives you great depth of field, which is desirable in this instance. And BTW, Hasselblads do have viewfinders - large, waist level viewfinders, suitable for use with a helmet.

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post 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)

You're on your own here.

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post 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.

Are you serious? Pick up a handful of dust. Blow on it. Watch it fly away. Mystery solved.

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post 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?

From the link I posted:

Quote:

The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by beerguy0 View Post 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.

Gee, thanks

You obviously have no understanding of science, physics, or space, and even less of photography, yet you argue with every factual statement. Learn something about what you're arguing about.

 

[billybob_jcv]

One of the things I find interesting is that the same films used by the hoax crowd to show the "flag waving" event also show very long periods where the flag is *perfectly* still, even when the astronauts are moving around. This just would not happen in the same atmosphere that supposedly also caused the wind.

Several possible explanations have been put forward for the "2:37 flag waving" - and, of course, none of them were accepted by the doubters. It could be as simple as the perspective of the camera lens not making it clear that the astronaut did touch the flag as he went by, or static attraction between the flag and the space suit caused the flag to move toward the astronaut and then oscillate, or a rock being kicked-up by the astronaut that hit either the pole or the flag. Whatever the cause, it is yet another example of the hoax proponents trying to apply earth-based observations to the moon, but not applying science appropriate to the moon - and then being totally confused and crying "hoax!"

 

[Graphicism]

Well I can't possibly address everyone so I'll just sum up and close with some final thoughts here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes. Yes, it is.

This was in response to my question "Is it completely unfathomable to think of an unmanned spacecraft?" ~ am I mistaken in thinking the Russians landed an unmanned space craft on the moon some 3 years earlier?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Which means that any unmanned mission would have had to have been controlled by radio. With lots of transmissions back and forth to keep the thing on track.

I believe your saying a radio transmission couldn't be faked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only thing that I agree to is that you have zero knowledge of film, photography, or cameras, nor will you listen to someone who has that knowledge.

Well as there is no way to test this without being on the moon with that exact camera. Take the picture of the astronaut with Earth in the background, would this be perfectly exposed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Among the films they used were ISO 80 B&W film, plus custom Ektachrome in what looks to be the equivalent of ISO 64 and ISO 120.

Thinking about it you are probably right, if indeed it was so bright then the lower the ISO the better. This may well explain no stars in the sky, but again a perfectly exposed Earth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif And BTW, Hasselblads do have viewfinders - large, waist level viewfinders, suitable for use with a helmet.

Are you sure about this... or are you also thinking they look so professionally taken they must have a viewfinder on there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are you serious? Pick up a handful of dust. Blow on it. Watch it fly away. Mystery solved.

Again the Moon is not the Earth, it would react completely differently. Thats why we have clouds of smoke in the galaxy that are light years long... they don't go anywhere because there is no wind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You obviously have no understanding of science, physics, or space, and even less of photography, yet you argue with every factual statement. Learn something about what you're arguing about.

It's not factual, why can't you guys understand that? Mr. Smith went to the moon because Mr. Smith said so! It's right here on Mr. Smiths website and in Mr. Smiths book. That's a fact!

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybob_jcv /img/forum/go_quote.gif One of the things I find interesting is that the same films used by the hoax crowd to show the "flag waving" event also show very long periods where the flag is *perfectly* still, even when the astronauts are moving around. This just would not happen in the same atmosphere that supposedly also caused the wind. Several possible explanations have been put forward for the "2:37 flag waving" - and, of course, none of them were accepted by the doubters.

And every time someone attempts to explain this it's different, The Myth Busters explanation was different from that of NASA for instance.

Well I guess this could go on forever, we can all just eagerly await 2018 when they are set to go back and see how it all looks then.

 

[MCC]

On an unrelated note, Fox claimed about 20 minutes ago that the 7 remaining shuttle missions are now suspended. They'll stay grounded until NASA can determine why foam from the fuel tank hit and potentially damaged Endeavour during launch.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif And every time someone attempts to explain this it's different, The Myth Busters explanation was different from that of NASA for instance. Well I guess this could go on forever, we can all just eagerly await 2018 when they are set to go back and see how it all looks then.

I never claimed the "Mythbusters explanation" was correct. I will claim their explanation is correct for the Apollo 11 "flag waving" where the astronauts needed to twist the flag pole into the surface, and the flag is then seen to wave around for a period of time. But you specifically mentioned the Apollo 15 "flag waving" when no astronauts appear to be touching the flag. My comments are in reference to that event.

I will also add that in addition to the Apollo 11 flag motion being caused by the twisting of the flag pole, there is also a video from Apollo 11 that contains ~40 minutes of continuous footage of the flag remaining *perfectly* motionless with the astronauts moving about their duties. Try to accomplish that anywhere on the Earth - stage, warehouse, movie set, wherever.

 

[tenzip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again the Moon is not the Earth, it would react completely differently. Thats why we have clouds of smoke in the galaxy that are light years long... they don't go anywhere because there is no wind.

*cough* *inertia* *cough*

 

[Dane]

Buzz Aldrin comments on the hoax. He clearly don't want to talk about it

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Buzz Aldrin comments on the hoax. He clearly don't want to talk about it

This is perhaps the biggest, most telling mystery of the entire controversy. Over the years all, or most, of the astronauts/astronots have been unwilling or reticent to describe their experiences on the moon, or how they felt about it at the time.

Further, the Russians did know, but typically, they kept quiet until they could turn it to their advantage. My best source said they cashed in in the the 1970's and got a killer deal on American grain in return for continued silence. True? It's just what I read. I plead history, here, not politics.

As for the Lunar Orbiter giving us definitive proof, consider the possibilities:

LO shows clear evidence of Apollo moon landings, and they really took place. Possible.

LO shows clear evidence of Apollo moon landings, but they did not take place. Possible.

LO shows no evidence of Apollo moon landings, and they really took place. Not hardly possible.

LO shows no evidence of Apollo moon landings, because they did not take place. Not happening.

Anyone who thinks about these outcomes will not doubt see clearly that this will not quell the controversy, anymore than the "catbox" image of the Face On Mars has solved that controversy, but only taken it to a new level.

 

[appophylite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is perhaps the biggest, most telling mystery of the entire controversy. Over the years all, or most, of the astronauts/astronots have been unwilling or reticent to describe their experiences on the moon, or how they felt about it at the time.

I would think that if one had to spend 40 years trying to convince the Lunar-Landing Conspiracy Theorists that they did in fact land on the moon, only to see them throw out every point of proof for it, I too would get tired about talking about it in public.

 

[billybob_jcv]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is perhaps the biggest, most telling mystery of the entire controversy. Over the years all, or most, of the astronauts/astronots have been unwilling or reticent to describe their experiences on the moon, or how they felt about it at the time.

You mean real heroes are modest? Wow, imagine that.

Have a conversation with a fighter pilot with many hours of actual combat experience, or a military test pilot who has been through incidents that would make you poop your drawers. Ask them to talk about their most thrilling, exciting and/or dangerous mission. Or, have a talk with a WWII Marine who was at Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal. See if you can get them to talk about it.