Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the kind of laughable nonsense put about by those who've never heard of any other space telescope than Hubble and don't understand the relationship between NASA, ESA, JAXA and the Russian space agency. It rests on the notion of NASA as super dominant power that the others have to run to whenever they need 'space stuff'.

This one always cracks me up as well. What did NASA have over all the worlds Astronomerss before they had Hubble?

If they keep the images from hubble just for those who take the Apollohoax Oath, why do they then relase them to the general public? I am sure I can see Hubble Images and I never agreed to support any Apollo Hoax. I'm not even an Astronomer.

To think that Sir Patrick would agree to anything so loughable is to know nothing about Sir Patrick.
 
Last edited:
It would behave the way it shows in this video at the 00:50 time mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

It wouldn't come to a quick stop as the Apollo flags do at the 1:55 time mark.

More Fatfreddy88 blah blah.

Here is that footage speeded up 150% and an alaysis done on various aspects. The flag moves ridiculously fast even at that speed, Schmitt does a little hop but is not falling back to the surface quick enough and the momentum in the flag is absorbed by the flagpole rotating. The astronauts cross over numerous times, so there cannot possibly be wires. :boxedin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

I await your obfuscation or avoidance eagerly.
 
The many motion artifacts of Apollo TV

(from post #8203) It's already been determined that the flag started moving before he got close enough to it to touch it.
No, it hasn't.

It's important to remember the various artifacts of the Apollo TV system, especially as they relate to motion. Younger readers who may know only CCD cameras, LCD TVs and digital cable and broadcasting may be unfamiliar with these artifacts.

The Apollo TV system was entirely analog. As did all TV at the time, it used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in both the cameras and the viewing screens. CRTs use electron beams ("cathode rays") accelerated by high voltage and usually steered by magnetic fields to scan the imaging target in the camera or the face of the viewing screen.

This high voltage is regulated but not perfectly. With a sudden change in scene brightness, the average beam current also changes and the high voltage can fluctuate. This causes the beam electrons to be deflected more or less than normal by the magnetic fields. This is visible as a momentary change in the size of the image, a phenomenon called blooming. It can happen in either the camera or the viewing screen.

When Dave Scott walks in front of the flag, the scene brightness changes very quickly and there does indeed seem to be a small amount of blooming that makes it look as though the corner of the flag is moving. The picture may actually just be changing size momentarily.

The other major artifacts in the Apollo TV system have to do with its unusual representation of color. Unlike the NTSC system used in the United States until just a few years ago, or the PAL and SECAM systems used elsewhere, Apollo used a field sequential color system. Fields were successively exposed through blue, green and red filters (in that order) and transmitted as though it were a black and white signal. A special scan converter on the ground stored these images on a rotating magnetic disk and constructed a standard NTSC signal for broadcast. It is vital to understand that any given NTSC frame, which normally would be comprised of red, green and blue images exposed at the same time, actually consisted of blue, green and red fields exposed 1/60 sec apart. This often caused moving objects to break up into colored "confetti".

Another complication is the effect of interleaving on the rendition of still frames used for analysis. Even in NTSC, the two fields that make a frame are taken 1/60 sec apart, so still-framing a moving object often results in it "vibrating".

And still more motion artifacts would be introduced if the NASA Apollo TV archives were, as it seems, placed on film and then converted back to video.

The bottom line is that unless one is willing to analyze all these artifacts and complications along with a detailed generation history of the video being analyzed, one simply cannot conclude that the Apollo 15 flag actually moved a split-second before Dave Scott touched it. Since he clearly did touch it, Occam's Razor says that's why the flag moved; it's unnecessary to concoct any additional reasons.
 
I'm trying to educate you, on my own time
Even if it "appears" to be an effort wasted on the likes of Freddy, I, (for one) appreciate your (and others) effort.
I'd like to second this. Between here, the ApolloHoax board, and Baut, I've learned a great deal about Apollo and spaceflight in general from people like STS, Jay, KA9q, Bob B., and others. Thanks all! :)

I guess I should "thank" the HBers too; without their nonsense none of this would have been possible. ;)
 
I'd like to second this. Between here, the ApolloHoax board, and Baut, I've learned a great deal about Apollo and spaceflight in general from people like STS, Jay, KA9q, Bob B., and others. Thanks all! :)

I guess I should "thank" the HBers too; without their nonsense none of this would have been possible. ;)


+1
 
...........The other major artifacts in the Apollo TV system have to do with its unusual representation of color. Unlike the NTSC system used in the United States until just a few years ago, or the PAL and SECAM systems used elsewhere, Apollo used a field sequential color system. Fields were successively exposed through blue, green and red filters (in that order) and transmitted as though it were a black and white signal. A special scan converter on the ground stored these images on a rotating magnetic disk and constructed a standard NTSC signal for broadcast. It is vital to understand that any given NTSC frame, which normally would be comprised of red, green and blue images exposed at the same time, actually consisted of blue, green and red fields exposed 1/60 sec apart. This often caused moving objects to break up into colored "confetti".

Interesting. I did not know that. Makes sense though. I would expect this would require a lot less processing than NTSC thus smaller, lighter cameras, and I suspect immune to phaseing problems inherent in older NTSC productions and tramsmission systems.

Another complication is the effect of interleaving on the rendition of still frames used for analysis. Even in NTSC, the two fields that make a frame are taken 1/60 sec apart, so still-framing a moving object often results in it "vibrating".

In fact I use a program that converts NTSC frames into JPEGs. It does this quite well but in fast moving sequences its still bad.


And still more motion artifacts would be introduced if the NASA Apollo TV archives were, as it seems, placed on film and then converted back to video.

No to mention aspect ratio changes. Though this may not have much to do with this thread's topic.
 
:sdl:

ETA - As a non-participant in these discussions, I too would urge Fab Five Freddy to take sts60's advice and actually think. For what logical reason could space engineers, and heck, just about everybody, think that Freddy is wrong? Why would that be?

FatFreddy88 - Do you typically ignore stuff like this? You seem to think that there is a vast audience of lurkers. I am one of those folks. Could you answer the question please?
 
I would suggest that offering FF88 any link whatsoever is a total waste of time. Proof of this can be found at the bottom of that page in the comments, where he leaves his spamming card like a small piece of bovine droppings wherever he goes. <Shakes head at the obsessive :gasp:delusion>

Never mind. One day we will all be gone and the Moon landings will still be in the history books. If Freddy wants to waste his life on this delusion that is his decision.
 
Well, in a fit of, something, I decided to see what our departed friend was up to. He's taking a beating as TotallyStokedDude at YouTube. And he hasn't budged an inch.
 
When I went back as a sock puppet, I was unable to post the info. They seemed to have changed their way of doing things just for you so you could make your point.

Or maybe, just maybe, the bolded part explains why. You really think they didn't know from the start who you were?

I'll bet you couldn't get that posted at ApolloHoaxNet.

You just can't admit you were wrong about it not being able to be posted at BAUT can you?
 
Well, in a fit of, something, I decided to see what our departed friend was up to. He's taking a beating as TotallyStokedDude at YouTube. And he hasn't budged an inch.


What an utter joke. It's clearer than ever that the "doctor" should be seeking some medical attention himself.
 
You just can't admit you were wrong about it not being able to be posted at BAUT can you?
He was wrong about not being able to post it at apollohoax, too; see my earlier post. FF88/davidc/rocky routinely says things which are not so.
 
Well, in a fit of, something, I decided to see what our departed friend was up to. He's taking a beating as TotallyStokedDude at YouTube. And he hasn't budged an inch.
The world's sceptics thank you for your service, and trust you didn't lose too many brain cells in the process. :D
 
Seems to me that the flag movement is due to electric fields from static charges.
 
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.
 
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.
I really doubt the willfully ignorant could get much harder to convince than they are now.
 
Which reminds me - hey, David C/FatFreddy88/etc.: you've said you live in Madrid. So I guess you're not far at all from Fresnedillas, are you? Just thought I'd ask while waiting for you to answer my questions.
 
It's probably just as well that Apollo happened before photographs were easily fakeable.

Any future human endeavours that come close to its audacity will have a much harder time persuading the wilfully ignorant they actually happened.


I've seen claims that most of the photos are fakes created during the 1990s with Photoshop--basically all the ones that didn't appear in Life at the time. :rolleyes:
 
Now, how in the world would you know that? What a puzzler.

I noticed on the Spurs forum that somebody signed on as Fatfreddy88 with the express purpose of annoying him (he is "cosmored" there). But, although he uses different handles at different times, he doesn't (AFAIK) pretend to be different people.
 
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.
 
Last edited:
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.

No disrespect taken; the conspiracism phenomenon is clearly a psychological one regardless of what the specific theory is about.

We engineers can certainly respond to the questions that discuss the engineering involved with Apollo. And I've discovered that a number of lurkers prefer learning about Apollo engineering this way rather than from some dry technical manual. But in terms of convincing proponents, no -- the belief in a hoaxed Apollo does not derive from any sort of evidence, hence cannot be challenged by evidence.
 
After having gone fairly deep in the the hoax claims and seeing the mountain of evidence of the landings, I'm starting to think that the moon hoax theory is probably better off being handled by psychiatrists than aerospace engineers.

*edit* No disrespect to any engineers, but it seems no amount of verified scientific evidence is going to convince some people. It's not about scientific evidence, it's about them.


Welcome, HLP. A point that I and others have made, here and elsewhere, many times: We don't spend time and energy debunking conspiracy theories because we expect to convince the true believers of the error of their ways; we do it mainly for the benefit of those who might come across the conspiracists' garbage and wonder whether any of it might have merit.

Another reason is that conspiracists regularly [Rule 10] on the graves of victims (in this case, all the astronauts who've given their lives in pursuit of space exploration) and some of us feel that someone should attempt to hold them accountable for this.

The foregoing aside, I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes enjoy using or watching others use certain conspiracists as rhetorical chew toys.
 
No disrespect taken; the conspiracism phenomenon is clearly a psychological one regardless of what the specific theory is about.

We engineers can certainly respond to the questions that discuss the engineering involved with Apollo. And I've discovered that a number of lurkers prefer learning about Apollo engineering this way rather than from some dry technical manual. But in terms of convincing proponents, no -- the belief in a hoaxed Apollo does not derive from any sort of evidence, hence cannot be challenged by evidence.

I've learned a great deal from observing engineers such as yourself taking the time to answer questions and I appreciate that.

I've noticed that most hoax proponents never seem to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that every single engineer in the world not only disagrees with their claims, but can readily prove those claims wrong.

In my opinion, this point was especially proven over at IMDB.
 
Welcome, HLP.

The foregoing aside, I'd be lying if I said that I don't sometimes enjoy using or watching others use certain conspiracists as rhetorical chew toys.

haha!


Thanks!

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. As I've gotten older, I have a much stronger appreciation of the space exploration achievements of the last 50 years and I get a little annoyed at people deriving claims from out of context information with little to no understanding of it.
 
I've learned a great deal from observing engineers such as yourself taking the time to answer questions and I appreciate that.

I consider education part of my profession. The more people know about what we do, the more they'll help us help them.

I've noticed that most hoax proponents never seem to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that every single engineer in the world not only disagrees with their claims, but can readily prove those claims wrong.

I agree; most are uncomfortable with the notion that there can be well-reasoned opposition to their belief. An article of their conspiracist "faith" is that anyone who disputes the conspiracy theory does so only out of ignorance. Hence when someone offers a reasoned objection, they shift horses and say that the expert must be ideologically or politically compromised. In other words, anyone who disagrees must either be stupid or evil.

In my opinion, this point was especially proven over at IMDB.

I think that's why that particular proponent essentially "punched out" of the debate by posting one of his characteristically foul-mouthed rants that he knew would be deleted by the moderators. That gave him an excuse not to take the debate seriously, since he could play the censorship card. In any case, that hoax claimant is back safely at YouTube where he can control the debate, and he now has the departed Patrick1000 to keep him company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom