reply to post by Ove38
I'd rather have you tell me what YOUR ideas are about this video, rather than just showing me what some other person says about it, but I suppose i
could just respond to the video...
First of all, this guy says the astronaut's arm is not bouncing around as much as the camera. I think this could be due to the well-known fact the
space suits were thick and the arms were a bit stiff. We have all seen film of astronauts walking around on the moon, or astronauts working in
spacesuits outside the space station, and it is obvious that the arms of the spacesuit create a certain level of stiffness. This stiffness would
probably prevent the astronaut's arm from bouncing around so much while driving the rover.
The second point made in the video was about the texture of the soil, looking different in the foreground than it does in the background. Perhaps I'm
not getting this guys point, but it seems from my experience that dirt in near my eyes ALWAYS has a different-looking texture than dirt far away from
my eyes -- which is due to being able to see closer things in greater detail than things that are far away.
I mean, it's actually quite obvious that things far away from my eyes will look a bit different than things up close.
-- could you please explain to me why YOU don't feel that the texture of soil in the foreground should look different than the texture of
the soil in the background? Please explain to me why YOU think this is evidence of a hoax.
His third point was that it looked as if the footage was filmed on Earth, but just slowed down. However, by looking at the way the soil churned up by
the rover wheels behaved, that does not seem to be the case. On Earth, dust would not just fall along a parabolic/ballistic path like it does in the
video. It would suspend a bit in the atmosphere. We don't ever see any dust ever suspended in the "air" in the Moon videos, because there is no air
on the moon. Rather, the dust just falls along its parabolic trajectory.
I suppose you could argue that it could have filmed in a vacuum chamber on Earth, and that's why the dust does not hang in the air, but without any
extra evidence supporting that claim, then it could just as well have been filmed on the moon. There is a lot more corroborating evidence this was
filmed on the moon than there is corroborating evidence that this was filmed in a vacuum chamber.
The guy in the video really didn't provide a lot of evidence for his speculation -- just a lot speculation. I mean, I wish this guy would have
discussed the point of the stiff spacesuits and provided me with detailed evidence telling me that the stiffness would not matter. However, he chose
to ignore discussing suit stiffness, which tells me he either didn't think of it, or he intentionally chose to ignore it.
The same goes for the soil texture in the foreground as opposed to the background. Maybe the point about the soil texture had nothing to do with a
person/camera being able to see greater detail of things closer to the eyes/camera lens, but considering he did not even bring up that point makes me
again wonder why not?
One more thing...
If (according to hoax believers) NASA had a large enough studio in which to film the moon landings, and they had a rover, and they had the astronauts
in the studio in space suits, then why bother making the rover RC and putting dummies in the Rover? Why not just film a real astronaut driving the
real rover in the studio?
The whole concept behind an RC rover makes no sense, even if they filmed the whole thing in a giant studio.
edit on 9/21/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)