Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


you avoided the issue as usual and pretended not to understand basic english

so one last attempt , what does :

Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.

tell you about your alleged documentary

it tells me - that its a spoof

so please explain why you think the quoted sentence says anything different to you

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM

 

you avoided the issue as usual and pretended not to understand basic english

so one last attempt , what does :

Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.

tell you about your alleged documentary

it tells me - that its a spoof

so please explain why you think the quoted sentence says anything different to you

Cue FoosM dancing around trying to explain why his own source "clearly" means something counter to what it actually says.

Or he just runs away and posts random videos when he think's we've forgotten.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM

 

you avoided the issue as usual and pretended not to understand basic english

so one last attempt , what does :

Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.

tell you about your alleged documentary

it tells me - that its a spoof

so please explain why you think the quoted sentence says anything different to you

How did I avoid the issue if I just made a large post on that very issue?
Did you even read my post? Probably not.
Have you read my other two parts on the subject?
Have you read what I concluded?
No. So unless you got backdoor access to my computer stop acting like you know whats going on.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


for those who think it is not a hoax. Open your freakin' eyes. geez. I have seen better Thunderbird episodes than the one you are all talking about. oh hang on, your talking about the moon landing. sorry I was mistaken, yes they went to the moon over four decades ago and with the increased technology and knowledge of present times, man today have never been back. Pffft.... please.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

for those who think it is not a hoax. Open your freakin' eyes. geez. I have seen better Thunderbird episodes than the one you are all talking about. oh hang on, your talking about the moon landing. sorry I was mistaken, yes they went to the moon over four decades ago and with the increased technology and knowledge of present times, man today have never been back. Pffft.... please.

I went to France in 2000 and have never been back, despite my current increased financial independence and lowered proximity to it.

By your logic, I have never been to France.

Also, there were several manned Apollo missions. Not one. Several. Each producing a load of verifiable scientific data. This is elementary school knowledge.

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

for those who think it is not a hoax. Open your freakin' eyes. geez. I have seen better Thunderbird episodes than the one you are all talking about. oh hang on, your talking about the moon landing. sorry I was mistaken, yes they went to the moon over four decades ago and with the increased technology and knowledge of present times, man today have never been back. Pffft.... please.

We had a supersonic passenger plane fly in the late 60's but with improved technology we dont have them now !
Why is that ,simple costs!!!

BBC and Apollo 8

how special

BBC-TV coverage of Apollo 8 - James Burke, with Patrick Moore and Sir Bernard Lovell, report on the 1st TV broadcast from the moon - December 1968 - This is Part 1 of 3

00:38: Still photos, whats wrong with them?
02:23: What does the moon look like? "the moon is... essentially gray. No color."

Really?


2:50: "It looks like plaster of paris"




Now if you can, pay close attention to the delay between Houston and the Astronaut actors supposedly circumventing the moon. Start at 04:12

04:14 finishes asking a question.
04:16 Astronaut begins response

04:33 Astronaut ends response (doesn't even say "over")
04:34 Houston answers with "Roger"

Now keep in mind there is a three-second communications delay exists between Earth and the moon.
So 1.5 seconds to and fro. And dont forget, the normal delay in simply answering a question.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09d0c7666a8f.gif[/atsimg]
upload.wikimedia.org...

07:30 Lovell agrees that their station locks on to the signal that is bringing the Astronaut's voice. But, he does say that they cant decode the tv signals, only the voices, due to not being part of the deep space network.

07:50 Patrick Moore makes odd facial expressions then a minute later informs us that the radio astronomers can pick up signals from Apollo but visual astronomers cant. We end with Moore shaking head his emphatically stating that there is no way a telescope could "see" Apollo 8. Its just too small.

Apollo 8 - BBC Coverage 1968 Part 2 of 3

We start the video with Lovell explaining that none of the telescopes have a narrow enough beam to get the precise location of the spacecraft. They are using doppler shift to deduce velocity and acceleration of the space craft.

01:20 Moore begins a monologue on how all the experiments are entirely new, and how everything is going to plan. And how it is a tremendous triumph for American technology.

01:24 Burke is amazed that after months of preparation the Apollo astronauts are only 7 seconds behind schedule.

01:33 Moore says that he believes the Americans would not have sent Apollo 8 unless they were absolutely sure that it would be successful. And that he didnt believe in all the talk about the Russians and Americans doing things before they are ready, risking the lives of their astronauts, to win the space race.

I think Borman would disagree, "We won, it was like winning the Super Bowl"


And why was there critique in the first place?
Well because Apollo 8 was not originally a moon mission:


Lovell responds he is also impressed by Apollo 8, and now feels like there really is a chance that man can land on the moon (think about that for a second). Now check this, he further says, well there still needs to be a lot done, like the tests of the LEM and landing it on the moon!

Now when did Apollo 8 happen? 21 - 27 December, 1968
When did Apollo 11 happen? July 20th, 1969 basically seven months after.

Do you think any of these three, could think that the Americans could test the LM by landing it on the moon and be ready to land men right after within 7 months time?

Actually, NASA didnt! NASA never tested the LM by landing it on the moon, or for that matter launching from it either!

:lol

Lovell later states that he didnt think the Russians were ready to land men on the moon and expected to see launches with dogs before they would risk men. Like the Americans did, right?

04:40: Lovell explains that the Russians have had sent television images with their orbiters.

05:09: Now we get to the milk and cookies where Burke explains that there are criticisms from time to time towards the American space program and that live television feed from Apollo 8 is nothing more than just a PR stunt to keep NASA in the news and for it to keep getting it funds.

What do the Apollo 8 actors have to say about this?

We didnt go to the moon for teflon frying pans, or lunar rocks. We went to the moon to beat the dirty commies.

Wow. NASA is just a jobs program? Is that all?
And that Apollo had support because of the cold war?
So what these guys are really saying is that, manned space programs are not worth the money anymore.
Sure, they had their ticket tape parades, but now its time for the unmanned programs to take over.

I want to make this painfully clear. Many of you Apollo champions have this notion that the missions were science based, that it was the beginnings of an idealogical Star Trek. So when you see the photos and videos you think, it must be real because scientists were behind that. But scientists are behind special effects too. Your Apollo Astronauts, and therefore their bosses did not have this mindset. There was a war going on. The Cold War. And they were warriors. And in this war, like any other war, dirty tricks would be used to win it.

Christmas Eve, 1968. Apollo 8 was making history. The American astronauts had left Earth's orbit. They'd seen the dark side of the Moon. Now, on their fourth circuit around the Moon, they experienced another “first”.

“Oh my God, look at that picture over there,” Frank Borman said.

“What is it?” Bill Anders asked.

“It's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!”

And, through tiny windows, the three astronauts watched the Earth rise --- a ball of color in a sea of black and white space.

NASA had planned the mission with granular precision, but not this, not the memorializing with film. Anders realized that if there was ever a photograph worth taking, this was it. A black-and-white camera was produced. Snap! And then they took the color shot.

“Earthrise” turned out to be the most powerful photo ever taken.

It's hard to believe, but until the mid-1960s, no one really knew the color of the Earth. And although the first rockets to leave the planet gave a new sense of our home, really seeing the Earth whole wasn't a priority --- the only reason Apollo 8 went to the Moon instead of merely orbiting the earth in 1968 was that the CIA had learned the Russians were planning a lunar fly-by. That was all the motivation NASA needed; after Sputnik, beating the Russians in space was a government priority. The Moon, for our government, was “a battlefield in the Cold War.”

So there was no thought of taking pictures of the Earth. In fact, there was so little concern about photography that season at NASA that we don't have a shot of Neil Armstrong, the first man off Apollo, walking on the Moon. (The pictures you've seen are of Buzz Aldrin, the second man.)

Now back to the BBC:

05:50 Lovell remarks how its amazing that he can clearly hear the astronauts 230 thousand miles away, but is having difficulty hearing his BBC commentators.

07:26 we get a "live" image of the... moon?

Somebody says something like, "there is a chair in this room"?

Now it appears we are seeing a round moon. But I assume its a cropped image, because what happens next is baffling when you first notice it.

According to the transcripts:

The wide-angle camera lens is being masked to leave a circular field of view, probably by the filter holder that has been taped to the front of it.

08:00 One of the astronauts remarks about the brightness of the moon and says he will get a shot of the horizon. It almost appears like either the spacecraft tilted up, or the moon tilted down. Very strange effect.

According to the transcript:

[Bill tilts the camera up to look towards the southern horizon.]

Burke states that its Madrid receiving the pictures.

08:58: Then again after some wobbling, the image of the moon dramatically shifts! And we hear an Astronaut saying something about shifting the window??

According to the transcript:

071:42:15 Anders: I'll shift to the rendezvous window.
Once Bill moves the camera to window 4 the image improves markedly. The rendezvous windows were unaffected by the fogging that mars the other three.

Keep in mind, during this live conversation between Houston and apollo 8 there should be a three second delay.

071:42:35 Anders: Okay, that's the crater Brand [Danjon].
071:42:37 Carr: Roger. [Pause.]
071:42:42 Anders: Sorry, we missed Carr [Perepelkin].
071:42:43 Carr: Me too. [Pause.]

Apollo 8 - BBC Coverage 1968 Part 3 of 3

More descriptions of the moon:

071:44:10 Lovell: Say, Bill. How would you describe the color of the Moon from here?

071:44:14 Anders: The color of the Moon looks, ah, a very whitish gray, like dirty beach sand, and with lots of footprints in it.

071:44:23 Lovell: Don't these new craters look like pick-axes striking concrete creating a lot of fine haze dust? [Pause.]

071:44:38 Anders: There's some interesting features out on the other window. Let me switch windows on you now.

071:44:41 Carr: Roger, Bill. [Pause.]

071:44:48 Anders: You should see the horizon now in the top of your picture.

01:25 We have some more windows changing, and then a polarizer filter gets placed in front of the lens, though it nots not really screwed on, It doesn't appear like fingers are putting it on either!

All this time you will notice that the moon is wobbling. Its easy to notice when you scroll back and forth the video. What crap special effects.

The Apollo 8 mission was a bright spot at the end of an otherwise bleak 1968.

By the way, the Apollo 8 live broadcast won an Emmy.




www.butler.com...
history.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM

 

you avoided the issue as usual and pretended not to understand basic english

so one last attempt , what does :

Arguably, this is the crudest kind of humor in Karel's otherwise sophisticated spoof.

tell you about your alleged documentary

it tells me - that its a spoof

so please explain why you think the quoted sentence says anything different to you

Cue FoosM dancing around trying to explain why his own source "clearly" means something counter to what it actually says.

Or he just runs away and posts random videos when he think's we've forgotten.

I forgot the third option; spamming videos in an attempt to make everyone forget.

It's a spoof, FoosM. You were wrong. Admit it and move on.

Originally posted by FoosM
J.W. vindicated?

Where he has a visual arts teacher discuss perspective using
Apollo photo: AS17-136-20744

Now Youtube member AWE130 has come up with the following video on that same
subject:

You mean the same expert that says the scene isn't sloped by comparing different rocks on the photo? Also pop quiz: How many shadows does an object cast if there is 2 light sources? How about 3? Does the darkness of the shadows get affacted at all?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by FoosM
J.W. vindicated?

Where he has a visual arts teacher discuss perspective using
Apollo photo: AS17-136-20744

Now Youtube member AWE130 has come up with the following video on that same
subject:

You mean the same expert that says the scene isn't sloped by comparing different rocks on the photo? Also pop quiz: How many shadows does an object cast if there is 2 light sources? How about 3? Does the darkness of the shadows get affacted at all?

What does that have to do with a composited photos?
Address the shadow issue directly if you can.

I did. The shot in question in the film isn't even a composite. It's a single shot. Now answer my little quiz if you can.

Originally posted by 000063
Quoting because FoosM seems to have missed it. And this one too. A source Jarrah (mis)quoted said the radiation dose would be survivable. If he quoted it, and you're arguing that Jarrah is credible, then his source must be credible too. Which means he either misread or lied about the content of his source.

Alternately, he quoted a source which isn't credible, which made a mistake, which means his point about the radiation being unsurvivable is unsupported.

You, of course, have been dodging around admitting Jarrah was wrong about it. He makes a lot of points in his series; even if he was wrong about this one, he has plenty of other points. Why are you refusing to admit that he was incorrect on this one point?

And before you say "prove it", he displayed the unshielded radiation dosage. He even highlighted the part where it says "unshielded" in his video. That's about as useful for calculating the astronaut's exposure as, oh, trying to figure out how wet a naked man gets when you're aiming a hose at him, despite the fact that the guy you'll be dousing is wearing a drysuit and a raincoat.

Ok, well lets get this over with because your post is so convoluted I cant make out what your point is.

From what I can understand, you say that JW made a video where he posted the dose one would get going through the VABs at a certain inclination in an unshielded craft (whatever that means). Ok so what exactly the problem, and why are people calling JW a liar about it?

So lets take this in small chunks to find out.

What inclination do you want to use, and what is the dose per hour?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I did. The shot in question in the film isn't even a composite. It's a single shot. Now answer my little quiz if you can.

How in the world can you know that the photo in question is not a composite?

Originally posted by FoosM
Now if you can, pay close attention to the delay between Houston and the Astronaut actors supposedly circumventing the moon. Start at 04:12

04:14 finishes asking a question.
04:16 Astronaut begins response

04:33 Astronaut ends response (doesn't even say "over")
04:34 Houston answers with "Roger"

Now keep in mind there is a three-second communications delay exists between Earth and the moon.
So 1.5 seconds to and fro. And dont forget, the normal delay in simply answering a question.

The average Earth-Moon distance is 384,403 km. The speed of light is 299,792.458 km/second. So it would take a signal 1.282 seconds to go one way, on average. At this particular point in the mission, Apollo 8 was 383,926 km from Houston. That would mean a delay of 1.28 seconds one way. And keep in mind, the recording is being made at Mission Control, so there will be no delay between when we hear the astronauts and when we get a reply from Houston.

But the main problem you have with that clip is that they're playing back an edited tape. You'll notice the mission clock behind them is at 71 hours and 20-something minutes. They mention they're playing back a tape of the description of the moon, but the first portion you mention actually happened at 69 hours and 53 minutes. The tape has been edited to remove some of the delay. For instance, when the BBC broadcast starts playing back the recording that starts with "Apollo 8, Houston. What does the old moon look like from 60 miles?" to when Lovell finishes answering the question about the rays is 1 minute and 55 seconds. But if you listen to the audio as recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, that whole segment actually takes 2 minutes and 33 seconds. The BBC clipped out about 38 seconds in their playback tape.

If you look at the Honeysuckle Creek recording, you'll see there are appropriate delays:

Houston: "Uh, Apollo, Houston. Uh, Roger. Got any more information on those rays? Over."
Lovell: "Uh, Roger. The rays out of, uh, Pickering are, uh, quite faint from here; there, there's two different groups coming, going to the left. Uh, they don't appear to be, uh, have any depth to them at all, just, uh, rays coming out."

Lovell's verbal response starting with "uh" comes about 2.8 seconds after the end Houston's transmission. That makes sense. Let's say the end of the word "over" marks time 0:

"Over" was sent at 00:00.00 from Houston and received by Apollo 8 at 00:01.28
"Uh" was sent at 00:01.52 from Apollo 8 and received by Houston at 0:02.80

So there's plenty of time in there for the delay.

The end of that description, where Houston responds "Roger" at the 4:34 mark in the BBC video makes sense. There's no delay there, as the recording is being made at Houston.

Originally posted by FoosM
Wow. NASA is just a jobs program? Is that all?
And that Apollo had support because of the cold war?
So what these guys are really saying is that, manned space programs are not worth the money anymore.
Sure, they had their ticket tape parades, but now its time for the unmanned programs to take over.

I'm a huge proponent of manned spaceflight, and even *I* don't think it's worth the cost anymore. At least the cost of the Apollo program as a percentage of the total government budget isn't worth it any more. In 1966 NASA's budget topped out at 4.41% of the total US federal budget. Right now, NASA gets a much more reasonable 0.60%.

As for Apollo not being primarily science driven, I totally agree with that. It was always primarily an engineering feat, a way to show off the might of the American industrial complex. It was a way to show Russia and the world that the US could concentrate its power on seemingly impossible tasks and conquer them.

Originally posted by FoosM
08:00 One of the astronauts remarks about the brightness of the moon and says he will get a shot of the horizon. It almost appears like either the spacecraft tilted up, or the moon tilted down. Very strange effect.

The astronaut holding camera rotated it.

Originally posted by FoosM
08:58: Then again after some wobbling, the image of the moon dramatically shifts! And we hear an Astronaut saying something about shifting the window??

He moved to look out a different window. The CSM had 5 windows:



Two side windows (green arrow, one on each side of the couch), two rendezvous windows (red arrow, one on each side of the hatch, forward of the couch and facing forward), and the hatch window (yellow arrow).

Originally posted by FoosM
Keep in mind, during this live conversation between Houston and apollo 8 there should be a three second delay.

Again, the 2.56 second delay is between Houston asking a question and receiving a response from Apollo 8. There is no delay between when Houston receives from Apollo 8 and can respond.

Originally posted by FoosM
All this time you will notice that the moon is wobbling. Its easy to notice when you scroll back and forth the video. What crap special effects.

Wobbling, just like you'd expect when a person is holding it?

Originally posted by FoosM
Now Youtube member AWE130 has come up with the following video on that same
subject:

I don't even understand what "problem" this guy is trying to point out. The shadows all point in the correct direction, converging on a point directly opposite the sun direction.

reply to post by nataylor


As is usually the case, in every...and I mean every...instance where a *hoax* propagandist writes or says there is a "smoking gun evidence" of the time delay being *wrong*, it can be easily pointed out how they use either misunderstood material as *proof*, they don't understand that some segments are recordings of only one side ---either in Mission Control, or the Astronauts' audio --- or, the attempt to make *their* case is so couched in distracting fluff, pomp and circumstance, that most casual readers will accept, uncritically....thus, furthering the ignorance of the *hoax* pushers, ad infinitum........

(insert >sigh< here....)

reply to post by nataylor


UTube user "AWE130" is, sadly, a bit of a joke. I would wager that even Jarrah White is embarrassed by these videos, and probably wishes they would stop.

On the other hand, they are a grand testament to the dearth of science understanding displayed by their ilk.

I have noted the rather "famous" image there, used before in one of Jarrah's ridiculous videos, and by many other *hoax pushers* before.....that photo is addressed in a Phil Webb video, I shall go hunt it down, now.......


Can't find Phil Webb's....he has many to sift through. This one, though, is on the same subject. It (from a non-American, apparently. Bonus!!) thoroughly rebuts the claims of a *particularly noisy moon hoax conspiracist* on UTube........one who should just shut up and go get a science education, and learn, for a change:

Originally posted by FoosM
Now Youtube member AWE130 has come up with the following video on that same
subject:

here is an exercise for you - take a picture with multiple light sources and see what happens

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

here is an exercise for you - take a picture with multiple light sources and see what happens

I get a nice photo. Whats your point?
What does that have to do with composited photos?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
Now if you can, pay close attention to the delay between Houston and the Astronaut actors supposedly circumventing the moon. Start at 04:12

04:14 finishes asking a question.
04:16 Astronaut begins response

04:33 Astronaut ends response (doesn't even say "over")
04:34 Houston answers with "Roger"

Now keep in mind there is a three-second communications delay exists between Earth and the moon.
So 1.5 seconds to and fro. And dont forget, the normal delay in simply answering a question.

The average Earth-Moon distance is 384,403 km. The speed of light is 299,792.458 km/second. So it would take a signal 1.282 seconds to go one way, on average. At this particular point in the mission, Apollo 8 was 383,926 km from Houston. That would mean a delay of 1.28 seconds one way. And keep in mind, the recording is being made at Mission Control, so there will be no delay between when we hear the astronauts and when we get a reply from Houston.

But the main problem you have with that clip is that they're playing back an edited tape. You'll notice the mission clock behind them is at 71 hours and 20-something minutes. They mention they're playing back a tape of the description of the moon, but the first portion you mention actually happened at 69 hours and 53 minutes. The tape has been edited to remove some of the delay. For instance, when the BBC broadcast starts playing back the recording that starts with "Apollo 8, Houston. What does the old moon look like from 60 miles?" to when Lovell finishes answering the question about the rays is 1 minute and 55 seconds. But if you listen to the audio as recorded at Honeysuckle Creek, that whole segment actually takes 2 minutes and 33 seconds. The BBC clipped out about 38 seconds in their playback tape.

Im trying to understand what you are getting at here NAT.
The numbers I have come from a NASA validated website.
Its NASA's transcripts. These are their numbers:

04:33 Astronaut ends response (doesn't even say "over")
04:34 Houston answers with "Roger"

Lets be conservative and say the delay is two seconds. One second going, one second coming back.
Where do they fit a two second delay between one second?