Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001


How you determined that NASA was "too stupid" to understand the concept of sorting and archiving photographs is beyond me. Obviously they understood the concept: they hired someone to do it!

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

 

Anyway, can somebody tell me what that "flag" is supposed to be before I conclude its a "flag" used in movies?

I'll bite, on this outlandish reach for the absurd. Hopefully, someone (or two or three) with much more cinematography and lighting experience will be able to chime in, with their perspective.

By the way, how are you able to make such long posts? Did ATS change their policy?
You just joined, correct?

reply to post by FoosM

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

Evidently, you have never worked in a bureaucracy.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

Evidently, you have never worked in a bureaucracy.

Oh gee, so its just fortunate that they remembered to hire astronauts.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by webstra
Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

Especially the 15 seconds of the Apollo 11 is fantastic, every 15 seconds a photo, during the first flight !

You're using Jack White's numbers I see. Those calculations of his are heavily skewed. The Apollo 11 EVA was 2h31m long. For some reason Jack White decides to take the 31 minutes and use that to calculate the photos per minute (PPM), instead of using the whole 2h31m. To quote myself from a few years ago:

originally posted by jra
But back to Jack Whites PPM calculations. His method makes no sense. With Apollo 11 for example, I see no good reason why he takes the 31 minutes out of the total 2h31m EVA to calculate the PPM (other than to skew the results to his liking of course). Seeing as how the 121 photos were taken throughout the entire EVA, it would make sense to use the full 2h31m time for the calculation don't you think?

From JACK WHITE:


Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)

Apollo 11....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:
Apollo 11...subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos

Apollo 11.....121 photos in 031 minutes........3.90 photos per minute

(A closer look):

Workload
Jack White's critic demonstrates that he is in a muddle about what he is trying to prove by recommending the ideal method for ascertaining accurately the time available for photography. While not doing it himself, due to the amount of time it would take, he thinks is necessary to note each shot relative to the mission elapsed timings. Taking this advice to heart and also checking the tasks of each astronaut against their individual EVA timings (3) does indeed take hours.
It also produces the following result:

The Apollo 11 EVA workload was ............2hrs 03 minutes
The time allocated to photography was........... 28 minutes
The average time to point-and-shoot .......121 photos was 13.88 seconds
The average time to point-and-shoot .......122 photos (2) 13.77 seconds

These figures demonstrate two things:

a) The role of astronaut photography in this mission was minimal, and most of it was of the point-and-shoot variety. Which begs the question regarding those carefully composed shots.

b) There is a difference between a time and motion study as per Jack White, demonstrating the time available for photography within a mission, and the dissenter's demonstration of the moment within that mission during which that photography took place.

Using the second demonstration as a response to the first is to merely demonstrate these differences, and saying that "White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography" is a false premise. Yet this statement turns out to be virtually correct when it comes to evaluating the amount of time required for the EVA workload. It would appear that this critic may have done all these calculations and then muddled his paperwork.

As a result of the foregoing, it is clear that Jack White's conclusion of a reserved time of 31 minutes for the Hasselblad still photography across the Apollo 11 EVA, was virtually spot on. We are down to 28 minutes.

In any event, the crux of the matter is that on average across all missions, one photograph had to have been taken every 50 seconds even if Apollo astronauts were doing nothing but photography while allegedly on the Moon.

www.aulis.com...

reply to post by FoosM

From JACK WHITE:


Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)

Apollo 11....Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:
Apollo 11...subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos

Apollo 11.....121 photos in 031 minutes........3.90 photos per minute

It's deja vu all over again:

Page 75

reply to post by FoosM

The cameras did not have viewfinders. How would he know maps were "sneaking" into the frame?

The simple fact that Jack was not looking into a viewfinder means that he could see a broader field of view of what was going on around, beside and in front of the camera. To include the odd times that a map or item moved into the lens field of view, he was surmising. Recall, during this photography session, they decided to drive the Rover in a circle, so each Astronaut was seated in his respective seat. Commander Cernan was driving, and as is customary for American automobiles (as well as most in the World, UK, Australia, Japan etc are exceptions) the driver's side was the left.

Therefore, Jack Schmitt was seated in the right seat. The obstruction in the camera view, in only one frame, was to the left of the photo. It's likely that the object was moving up and down, from momentum as the Rover moved over the uneven terrain, and Jack thought more than one picture might have been taken when the object was in the lens view. As it turned out, only happened that one time. but, point is, he suspected it might have been more than once.

This is simple to understand, and logical....once you take a moment to envision the setting, and understand and learn about the actual facts of equipment that was there. Also, a bit of personal life experience, such as actually having used a camera in one's time on Earth, might help. This isn't rocket science.....(that part is far more complicated, but not that difficult to grasp with a little education).

And how could they "sneak" into the frame if they are fastened?

I was coming to that. "Fastened" how? Bolted down, laying flat? No, no place for that. Secured by a lanyard? Yes. So, again....driving over rough terrain could cause items to move, it is certainly not hard to comprehend, it is something we experience here in Earth's gravitational field, when in a moving vehicle, right? Lunar gravity works same way, only different rate of acceleration when the object is falling under the 1/6g influence in the Lunar gravitational field. Else, anything can be affected, and accelerated by an outside force (moving vehicle, hand, arm, foot, etc) at any rate, just as on Earth. Only the unimpeded free-fall rate is different, in differing gravity values. On any planet. (Proviso: A planet with, say....an extremely dense atmosphere, far more than what we are accustomed to, would therefore have an added effect on an object's fall, as there would be terminal velocity fluid resistance issues, etc....).


As to the "maps" in that one photo frame...another possibility could have been Cernan's cuff checklist pages, impinging into the lens field of view.



Cuff checklist on his left wrist (probably Cernan is right-handed). The drive controller "joy stick" was a T-shaped handle, in the center console (so it could be operated from either seat).

Or, Jack was holding the Traverse Map in his left hand, and operating the camera controls with his right. So he would have been aware also if he thought the map he was holding had moved into the camera view accidentally...would explain why he sort of laughed about it, in the transcript.

Here is a Boeing (the contractor who built the things) photo of the center console:




To put into better perspective for all to see, here is an illustration of the entire vehicle, left rear quarter overhead angle:




Considering that the Hasselblad camera was mounted on Jack's suit at the chest level, then anyone can use their abilities in 3-dimensional visualizations (if they possess that skill....some people tend to be slightly deficient in that area, as I've noticed in my lifetime) to imagine themselves sitting in place of the Astronauts, to get a "feel" for what it would look like to an adult normal-sized Human.

(All of this is far more difficult to explain, in writing, than it is to just realize the reality, and grasp it immediately and intuitively. Try writing down the instructions for tying shoelaces for example, without using any pictures or illustrations, to get a sense of the problem....)

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

Evidently, you have never worked in a bureaucracy.

Oh gee, so its just fortunate that they remembered to hire astronauts.

It's fortunate that they remembered where the picture room was!
Let's put this into perspective again... for DJ.

NASA didn't sort out the LO pictures. NASA left those pictures scattered, unsorted, uncatalogued in a dusty room and in an office. NASA shifted the responsibility for sorting these pictures to a contractor in 1967. That contractor, Ed Nixon at Bellcomm, hired an Egyptian geologist to sort and catalogue those pictures.

Why did they hire that guy Farouk el Baz when there was probably 100's of geologists in the USA who would have loved to participate in the space program, and who could have done the sorting just as easily?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA didn't sort out the LO pictures. NASA left those pictures scattered, unsorted, uncatalogued in a dusty room and in an office. NASA shifted the responsibility for sorting these pictures to a contractor in 1967. That contractor, Ed Nixon at Bellcomm, hired an Egyptian geologist to sort and catalogue those pictures.

NASA also puts its dirty feet up on the sofa and drinks orange juice straight out of the carton. You talk about NASA as though it were bad roommate. I'm not going to defend their institutional lack of of detailed through-planning. Each box in the flow chart had its own objectives and prerogatives; designing the bus, designing the optics, testing the hardware, launching, monitoring, etc. Somewhere in a box near the top, someone forgot that they might need an archivist. During the time that this oversight was being corrected, different individuals accessed the "product" according to their own whims, leaving it where they would. El Baz fixed all that.

Why did they hire that guy Farouk el Baz when there was probably 100's of geologists in the USA who would have loved to participate in the space program, and who could have done the sorting just as easily?

Because whoever they chose would be that guy, and you would be 100% convinced that he was "in on it."

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001


How you determined that NASA was "too stupid" to understand the concept of sorting and archiving photographs is beyond me. Obviously they understood the concept: they hired someone to do it!

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

If there were "400,000" involved in the Apollo program it's incredibly bizarre for a newly hired, Egyptian geologist to be handed the task of sorting all the LO photos in 1967.

The first moon shot (Apollo 8) was only 14-15 months away.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

They were too stupid to have that person there prior to receiving the photos for sorting and archiving.

Evidently, you have never worked in a bureaucracy.

Oh gee, so its just fortunate that they remembered to hire astronauts.

It's fortunate that they remembered where the picture room was!

Let's put this into perspective again... for DJ.

NASA didn't sort out the LO pictures. NASA left those pictures scattered, unsorted, uncatalogued in a dusty room and in an office. NASA shifted the responsibility for sorting these pictures to a contractor in 1967. That contractor, Ed Nixon at Bellcomm, hired an Egyptian geologist to sort and catalogue those pictures.

Why did they hire that guy Farouk el Baz when there was probably 100's of geologists in the USA who would have loved to participate in the space program, and who could have done the sorting just as easily?

SJ, do you know how many times Farouk was mentioned during Apollo 17 mission?
A search in the transcript reveals at least 15 times!
Out of the 400K people working on Apollo, how important was he?

If we get short of film or something, Farouk says the last part of this orbital science photos, after
you get to the end of the run and change to 1/125 of a second, is kind of marginal for photography
anyway.

Say, Ron, this is Houston. And there's no more scheduled o_oital science photos. We can't seem to run down Farouk to see if he has anything up his sleeves. _nere are a couple of passes with black and white coming up; one next rev, and then a couple just prior to TEI.

And you can tell Farouk that - that crater out on Fecunditatis that I've got a picture of, that we worked on back at the Cape and studied quite a bit, has got all the attributes of everything he told
me about it.

- - these Flight Plan changes I've got for you coming up later will be all some items Farouk has on camera pictures on the - that spot Jack thought he saw the light spot and a few other changes.

I guess even though the start time we passed and everything is the time, Farouk wanted to remind
you that when you pass Eratosthenes is a good time to be looking into the heart of Copernicus,
there. If you'll remember from the map, there.

I sure hope we - If - Why don't you check with Farouk and see if our pan camera coverage covers
that - that crater? I think it probably did.
That's an interesting one to take a look at any- how.

Ro_er. G00d show, Ron. - Farouk just came out and said a real good show. He's real excited about
what you saw there, and we're real pleased with it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

, I was just a nobody, I was one of those 400,000 people who worked on Apollo...for NASA... for manned space flight... "

Ed Nixon caught using the 400,000 fallacy. But he was a very special. He hired Farouk el Baz at Bellcomm in 1967. el Baz personally sorted and organized and archived all the lunar orbiter photos because NASA was too stupid to understand the concept of sorting, organizing and archiving photos in 1967.

What is the "400,000 fallacy?" Is it some sort of logical fallacy, as in "400,000 people have visited the monument this year, therefore it does not exit?"

The "400,000 fallacy" is used by Apollo cheerleaders. This"400,000" figure is most often used to argue the Apollo fantasy as follows:

"There were 400,000 people working on Apollo.
They were all honest and brilliant, dedicated and patriotic.
If Apollo was a hoax conspiracy then all 400,000 were part of the conspiracy.
And since nobody has blown the whistle in 40 years - therefore -
Apollo must be true."

Or.

"There were 400,000 people working on Apollo.
They were all honest and brilliant, dedicated and patriotic.
If the Apollo moon landing was a hoax conspiracy then it would be discovered by engineers and scientists.
And since no engineer or scientist has blown the whistle in 40 years - therefore -
Apollo must be true."

400,000 is a fallacy because in reality only 34,000 were employed for NASA directly.

NASA's budget was highest in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo which involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Source en.wikipedia.org...

The Apollo moon hoax conspiracy was coordinated by a very small group of determined men... each held key decision making positions... and taken collectively as a group of insiders - these men had access to all areas.

These men had a double mission - to beat the Russians to the moon and to do it before the end of the decade.

El-Baz: Like some of the astronauts themselves, we really did not either see or feel the incredible impact on history at the time. We just wanted to make it to the Moon before the Russians; it didn’t matter where or how.

Everybody was charged with this race, because our view, it had a reflection on our ability as a nation. Whenever once in a while the argument would call for any discussion about let’s do this, let’s not do that, or we can do that, immediately you would hear somebody say, “Guys, listen, we’re not going to let the Russkies beat us. What the hell is this? We got to do this, we got to do it right, we got to do it on time.” They would say that with gumption, so this was certainly part of this whole thing.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

 

The cameras did not have viewfinders. How would he know maps were "sneaking" into the frame?

The simple fact that Jack was not looking into a viewfinder means that he could see a broader field of view of what was going on around, beside and in front of the camera. To include the odd times that a map or item moved into the lens field of view, he was surmising. Recall, during this photography session, they decided to drive the Rover in a circle, so each Astronaut was seated in his respective seat. Commander Cernan was driving, and as is customary for American automobiles (as well as most in the World, UK, Australia, Japan etc are exceptions) the driver's side was the left.

If Jack had a good view of the situation, why didnt he simply stop the map from coming into view of the camera?
Or, not take the photo if the maps came into view of the camera. Why sit there and waste precious photos with a map cutting off a portion of the shot? He could have simply reached out with his hands to keep the maps steady. Dont you think?

Originally posted by FoosM
SJ, do you know how many times Farouk was mentioned during Apollo 17 mission?
A search in the transcript reveals at least 15 times!
Out of the 400K people working on Apollo, how important was he?

Good findings! He was clearly in the Top 5. And Farouk's work with Apollo matches up nicely with multiple Nixon connections. The way he was hired in 1967 is one connection. His zooooooom to the upper echelons of Apollo is another connection. The "King" they called him.

It's very, very odd for NASA to put the newly hired Egyptian geologist (a contractor) in so many vital positions:

From 1967 to 1972, El-Baz participated in the Apollo Program as Supervisor of Lunar Science Planning at Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T that conducted systems analysis for NASA. During these six years, he was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee for the Apollo lunar landing missions, Principal Investigator of Visual Observations and Photography, and chairman of the Astronaut Training Group.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM

And how could they "sneak" into the frame if they are fastened?

I was coming to that. "Fastened" how? Bolted down, laying flat? No, no place for that. Secured by a lanyard? Yes.

No.

Originally posted by DJW001
Because whoever they chose would be that guy, and you would be 100% convinced that he was "in on it."

Not necessarily. Farouk el Baz was groomed into that position by Ed Nixon. el Baz rises to the upper echelon of Apollo Program during the Nixon administration. All the lunar landings happened under Richard Nixon. Farouk held enormous influence in several key areas of Apollo.... in fact.... he was selected, he was groomed and promoted throughout the years of Apollo.

reply to post by FoosM

SJ, do you know how many times Farouk was mentioned during Apollo 17 mission?
A search in the transcript reveals at least 15 times!
Out of the 400K people working on Apollo, how important was he?

As your own source explains:

From 1967 to 1972, El-Baz participated in the Apollo Program as Supervisor of Lunar Science Planning at Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T that conducted systems analysis for NASA. During these six years, he was secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee for the Apollo lunar landing missions, Principal Investigator of Visual Observations and Photography, and chairman of the Astronaut Training Group.

In other words, he was the man who decided what photographs they needed to explore potential landing sites. It would have been exactly the same were he a Norwegian named Sven. Incidentally, you do know why they called him "The King" don't you? (Hint: he didn't do Elvis impressions.)

Originally posted by DJW001Incidentally, you do know why they called him "The King" don't you? (Hint: he didn't do Elvis impressions.)

Please enlighten us.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

400,000 is a fallacy because in reality only 34,000 were employed for NASA directly.

NASA's budget was highest in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo which involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Source en.wikipedia.org...

The Apollo moon hoax conspiracy was coordinated by a very small group of determined men... each held key decision making positions... and taken collectively as a group of insiders - these men had access to all areas.

What difference does it make whether they collected their paycheck from NASA or from Grumman? All of them had access to plans, specifications, tolerances. Any of them would know if what they were being asked to produce were in some way suspicious. Even the seamstresses at Playtex would wonder why they were being asked to make one set of "museum quality" space suits and another set of "special effects ready" space suits. What's more, in addition to the 400,000 who were producing equipment capable of being flown, you would need an army of special effects artists, model builders, cameramen, set construction crews, etc. Here's a partial list of personnel involved in 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Art Department
Brian Ackland-Snow .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Martin Atkinson .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Frank Bruton .... property master (uncredited)
Wally Bull .... master plasterer (uncredited)
Chris Burke .... stand-by painter (uncredited)
R. Burton .... engineering draughtsman (uncredited)
Roy Cannon .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Roy Carnon .... scientific design specialist (uncredited)
Reg Carter .... stand-by carpenter (uncredited)
Peter Childs .... draughtsman (uncredited)
John Fenner .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Alan Fraiser .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Dick Frift .... construction coordinator (uncredited)
Anna Garrett .... art department typist (uncredited)
Henry Gomez .... stand-by plasterer (uncredited)
John Graysmark .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Les Hillman .... moon construction engineer (uncredited)
Jack Holden .... set dresser (uncredited)
James Holmes .... stand-by stagehand (uncredited)
Tommy Ibbetson .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Bill Isaacs .... production buyer (uncredited)
P. Jarratt .... engineering draughtsman (uncredited)
Theresa Kendall .... art department secretary (uncredited)
Phil Lanning .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Malcolm Legge .... stagehand carpenter (uncredited)
Robert T. McCall .... conceptual designer (uncredited)
Jumbo Miall .... drapes (uncredited)
Liz Moore .... designer: Star Child (uncredited)
Olivier Mourgue .... interior designer: Discovery (uncredited)
Stan Odgen .... plasterer's laborer (uncredited)
G. Payne .... moon construction engineer (uncredited)
Anthony Pratt .... sketch artist (uncredited)
Tony Reading .... draughtsman (uncredited)
John Rose .... technical illustrator (uncredited)
John Siddall .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Wallis Smith .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Penny Struthers .... art department assistant (uncredited)
Alan Tomkins .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Gus Walker .... TMA-1 construction manager (uncredited)
Frank Willson .... draughtsman (uncredited)


Special Effects by
Stanley Kubrick .... special photographic effects designer
Stanley Kubrick .... special photographic effects director
Ron Ballanger .... special effects technician (uncredited)
Les Bowie .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Colin Brewer .... special effects coordinator (uncredited)
Ted Creed .... special effects engineer (uncredited)
Bob Cuff .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Roger Dicken .... special effects artwork (uncredited)
Wally Gentleman .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Denis Hall .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Jimmy Harris .... special effects (uncredited)
Fred Heather .... special effects (uncredited)
Graham Hooper .... special effects stills printer (uncredited)
Garth Inns .... special effects (uncredited)
Brian Johnson .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Valerie Kent .... special effects department secretary (uncredited)
Antonio Margheriti .... special effects (uncredited)
Dan McGowen .... special effects stills printer (uncredited)
Curly Nelhams .... special effects (uncredited)
Hilary Ann Pickburn .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
George Pollack .... special effects coordinator (uncredited)
Douglas Potts .... special effects model maker (uncredited)
Joy Seddon .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Charles Staffell .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Delia Tindall .... special effects department secretary (uncredited)...

More here.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Please enlighten us

Funny... I thought you were the expert on the historical background of the period.