IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags apollo hoax , moon landing hoax

Reply
Old 24th July 2019, 01:58 PM   #2001
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I wouldn't expect DSLRs to be. I expect their sensors to be calibrated to match the response of film so that similar techniques can be used in both types of cameras. But CCD sensors used for astronomy can be made to be very sensitive, so I'm told. The problem then is noise. By the time you've accumulated enough light on the sensor to register a star, other sensor elements will have accumulated enough charge by other means.



The astronauts at the time mentioned that even consumer cameras had exposure aids that could have been used to improve their picture-taking experience. The Hasselblad 500/EL was not one of them, but presumably it was chosen for other reasons.

The mechanism you describe sounds like in-camera HDR photography. There are plenty of software packages that can produce high dynamic range photos given a series of photos taken at different settings. Some of them produce very good results. You can achieve dramatic artistic effects, or you can use it sparingly and mimic the dynamic range of the human eye, which generally exceeds that of either film or CCD.

I believe someone else mentioned the stacking technique. That gets rid of CCD noise. You take several long-exposure photos. The noisy pixels are not expected to be the same from shot to shot, so the ones that appear in all the shots are presumed to be stars.
That someone - who mentioned stacking - would be me, an astronomer.

I’ll write more on this later.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2019, 05:57 AM   #2002
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 6,437
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That someone - who mentioned stacking - would be me, an astronomer.

I’ll write more on this later.
And I'll be grateful for it! But perhaps that would be in another thread.

I have often taken close up pictures of the Moon with my iPhone, but I have always wondered why the Moon looks so much sharper to the naked eye than on these photos. Now I have read that the eye does not register atmospheric disturbances, but the short exposure time of a camera sees a slightly blurred image, and "professional" amateurs stack at least 40 pictures of the Moon to get a sharp picture.

So it is not just in low light situations that stacking is needed.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 08:53 AM   #2003
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,001
This would take us a long way from the topic of this thread, and would have little to do with any conspiracy theories, at least directly.

How about I start a thread in the SMM&T board?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 09:43 AM   #2004
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,990
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
This would take us a long way from the topic of this thread, and would have little to do with any conspiracy theories, at least directly.

How about I start a thread in the SMM&T board?
That sounds like a good idea. But while we're on the subject of astronomy, Apollo, and "Why no stars?" we should pause to remember the great Bill Kaysing (not an astronomer) who declared that the lunar surface photos contained no stars because NASA knew they couldn't get the stars in the right places and even amateur astronomers would know instantly that the photos were fake because the stars were in the wrong places. I just have to ask why NASA can't have retained a few of these astronomers to ensure the stars were in the right places in photographs. And why just leaving the stars out altogether was someone's idea of a good solution, if astronomers would supposedly expect to see stars.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 11:25 AM   #2005
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,528
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That sounds like a good idea. But while we're on the subject of astronomy, Apollo, and "Why no stars?" we should pause to remember the great Bill Kaysing (not an astronomer) who declared that the lunar surface photos contained no stars because NASA knew they couldn't get the stars in the right places and even amateur astronomers would know instantly that the photos were fake because the stars were in the wrong places. I just have to ask why NASA can't have retained a few of these astronomers to ensure the stars were in the right places in photographs. And why just leaving the stars out altogether was someone's idea of a good solution, if astronomers would supposedly expect to see stars.
It certainly seems that the people making arguments about stars have very little experience with photography. At night on earth, it takes a long exposure to get stars to show up depending on aperture and sensitivity (or film speed for film photography). Since there is no atmospheric scattering on the moon, it should be possible to take photo of stars during the lunar day, but of course, an exposure that would show stars would completely overexpose sunlit ground, and a photo exposed to show detail on the sunlit ground would not show stars. This should be pretty obvious to anybody with any experience with photography beyond quick snapshots with a point-and-shoot.

Similarly for eyes. I would think that if you were looking through a clear helmet lens (If I am not mistaken, the helmet lenses used on Apollo were darkened to protect the eyes of the astronauts.), if you had your eyes shielded from sunlit ground, and allowed them time to accommodate, I would think that you would be able to see stars on the moon in the daytime. However, if your eyes are adapted to sunlit ground, you're not seeing any stars.

OTOH, I remember at least one moon hoaxer who claimed that different shadow angles (due to perspective and irregular terrain) meant that there were two light sources. My immediate reaction to this was, "no, dummy; if there were two light sources, everything would be showing two shadows" (should be obvious to anyone who hasn't spent there entire life in Mom's basement, which is lit by a single light bulb), so we are not dealing with people who know much about anything at all.

Last edited by CORed; 26th July 2019 at 11:29 AM.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 12:16 PM   #2006
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
It certainly seems that the people making arguments about stars have very little experience with photography. At night on earth, it takes a long exposure to get stars to show up depending on aperture and sensitivity (or film speed for film photography). Since there is no atmospheric scattering on the moon, it should be possible to take photo of stars during the lunar day, but of course, an exposure that would show stars would completely overexpose sunlit ground, and a photo exposed to show detail on the sunlit ground would not show stars. This should be pretty obvious to anybody with any experience with photography beyond quick snapshots with a point-and-shoot.

Similarly for eyes. I would think that if you were looking through a clear helmet lens (If I am not mistaken, the helmet lenses used on Apollo were darkened to protect the eyes of the astronauts.), if you had your eyes shielded from sunlit ground, and allowed them time to accommodate, I would think that you would be able to see stars on the moon in the daytime. However, if your eyes are adapted to sunlit ground, you're not seeing any stars.

OTOH, I remember at least one moon hoaxer who claimed that different shadow angles (due to perspective and irregular terrain) meant that there were two light sources. My immediate reaction to this was, "no, dummy; if there were two light sources, everything would be showing two shadows" (should be obvious to anyone who hasn't spent there entire life in Mom's basement, which is lit by a single light bulb), so we are not dealing with people who know much about anything at all.
I ran onto a fella critiquing his video, and I said the same thing about shadows. He asked what my experience was with cameras, "because anyone that had knowledge of photography would know what's wrong with the images". I answered truthfully very little experience and he banned me. Some people don't really think about "what they "know""
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2019, 03:38 PM   #2007
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I ran onto a fella critiquing his video, and I said the same thing about shadows. He asked what my experience was with cameras, "because anyone that had knowledge of photography would know what's wrong with the images". I answered truthfully very little experience and he banned me. Some people don't really think about "what they "know""
Um, what has lights casting shadows got to do with knowledge of photography? Even someone who has never picked up a camera knows that sources of light cast shadows.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 07:02 AM   #2008
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,159
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That sounds like a good idea. But while we're on the subject of astronomy, Apollo, and "Why no stars?" we should pause to remember the great Bill Kaysing (not an astronomer) who declared that the lunar surface photos contained no stars because NASA knew they couldn't get the stars in the right places and even amateur astronomers would know instantly that the photos were fake because the stars were in the wrong places. I just have to ask why NASA can't have retained a few of these astronomers to ensure the stars were in the right places in photographs. And why just leaving the stars out altogether was someone's idea of a good solution, if astronomers would supposedly expect to see stars.
I've pointed out to a number of people advancing that theory that it would actually have been very easy to produce the stars in any faked photos, and they would have matched perfectly because they would have been images of the real stars.

NASA could have easily created a catalog of star images from mountaintop observatories. Knowing the claimed landing sites they could then have selected the correct background stars for any photograph, and easily composited them into the convenient black sky hold-out areas in the images. It would have been one of the easiest and cheapest parts of the whole hoax.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 08:46 AM   #2009
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
I've pointed out to a number of people advancing that theory that it would actually have been very easy to produce the stars in any faked photos, and they would have matched perfectly because they would have been images of the real stars.

NASA could have easily created a catalog of star images from mountaintop observatories. Knowing the claimed landing sites they could then have selected the correct background stars for any photograph, and easily composited them into the convenient black sky hold-out areas in the images. It would have been one of the easiest and cheapest parts of the whole hoax.
But you're using facts! That's cheating! You can prove anything that's even remotely true with facts!

__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:34 AM   #2010
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,917
one., the hoaxers are smart enough to do all that they did, down to having friggin rockets launch, but they aren't smart enough to out stars in the sky in moon pictures
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 09:43 AM   #2011
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,668
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
I've pointed out to a number of people advancing that theory that it would actually have been very easy to produce the stars in any faked photos, and they would have matched perfectly because they would have been images of the real stars.

NASA could have easily created a catalog of star images from mountaintop observatories. Knowing the claimed landing sites they could then have selected the correct background stars for any photograph, and easily composited them into the convenient black sky hold-out areas in the images. It would have been one of the easiest and cheapest parts of the whole hoax.

This was one of my earliest exposures to moon hoax "theories." When I read Bill Kaysing's claim I got the impression that he believed the star field on the moon would somehow appear different because the stars are being viewed from a different position. This of course ignores the fact that such a difference in position is vanishingly small compared with the distance to even the closest star, and that therefore the appearances of the starfield on both the earth and the moon are identical to the naked eye.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 10:04 AM   #2012
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,159
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
This was one of my earliest exposures to moon hoax "theories." When I read Bill Kaysing's claim I got the impression that he believed the star field on the moon would somehow appear different because the stars are being viewed from a different position. This of course ignores the fact that such a difference in position is vanishingly small compared with the distance to even the closest star, and that therefore the appearances of the starfield on both the earth and the moon are identical to the naked eye.
I worked out once that if you reduced 1 AU to 1 foot, Proxima Centauri would be 52 miles away.

I've also run across numerous people who seem to think that with no atmosphere the stars should be "many times brighter than on earth". To which I respond by pointing out that even at sea level, earth's atmosphere is about 98% transparent to visible light, and there is essentially zero perceptible difference between star brightness on the moon and what you'd see on a clear, moonless night on, say Mauna Kea.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 10:13 AM   #2013
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43,373
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
This was one of my earliest exposures to moon hoax "theories." When I read Bill Kaysing's claim I got the impression that he believed the star field on the moon would somehow appear different because the stars are being viewed from a different position. This of course ignores the fact that such a difference in position is vanishingly small compared with the distance to even the closest star, and that therefore the appearances of the starfield on both the earth and the moon are identical to the naked eye.
plus the moon orbits the earth so how different is the position anyway?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 11:47 AM   #2014
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 13,870
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
plus the moon orbits the earth so how different is the position anyway?
Any parallax caused by the moon going around the earth in a half million mile wide orbits rather pales into insignificance compared to the earth and moon's 186 million mile wide orbits of the sun. And even that 6-monthly stellar parallax is so small that there is no chance whatever of its registering on any Apollo photography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

"The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and also the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7685 ± 0.0002 arcsec.[4] This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away."

For perspective (lol) the cameras used on the moon had a wide angle lens with a field of view of about 90° side to side. That's 324000 arcseconds across the width of a photo. And you'd be looking for at most a 0.001 arcsecond shift in position of proxima centauri from the moon's point of view compared to earth. If you could see it, which you couldn't. And if the alignment was just so, which I have no idea.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 28th July 2019 at 12:12 PM.
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2019, 12:33 PM   #2015
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Posts: 5,668
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
plus the moon orbits the earth so how different is the position anyway?

Yeah, even before I joined the old BA forum, I emailed Jay and asked him "Doesn't the moon pass through the same position previously occupied by the earth (with respect to the sun) several times a year?" Jay responded that in fact the star field looks virtually the same from everywhere in the solar system.
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
--Carl Schurz
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2019, 04:46 PM   #2016
The Common Potato
Muse
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
I worked out once that if you reduced 1 AU to 1 foot, Proxima Centauri would be 52 miles away.
This might keep you happy for a while. If the Moon Were Only 1 Pixel - A Tediously Accurate Scale Model Of The Solar System Scroll right a bit then click on the c to get things moving.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 29th July 2019 at 04:50 PM. Reason: Sort out link
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 10:06 AM   #2017
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,159
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
This might keep you happy for a while. If the Moon Were Only 1 Pixel - A Tediously Accurate Scale Model Of The Solar System Scroll right a bit then click on the c to get things moving.
One of my favorites.

There's another one where you retreat from the sun at the speed of light, putting to rest any sci-fi notions of stars streaking by at light speed. Even in the 1 AU = 1 foot scale model, the speed of light would be just 1.5 inches/minute.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Last edited by Foster Zygote; 31st July 2019 at 10:09 AM.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 05:38 PM   #2018
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,917
Here's my simplistic version of the solar system. Just treating all orbits as circular, I just wanted to give some perspective of how far away Pluto is. The sun is a speck in the middle. The smallest ring is Mercury

__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

Last edited by pgwenthold; 31st July 2019 at 05:39 PM.
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2019, 06:46 PM   #2019
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Yeah, even before I joined the old BA forum, I emailed Jay and asked him "Doesn't the moon pass through the same position previously occupied by the earth (with respect to the sun) several times a year?" Jay responded that in fact the star field looks virtually the same from everywhere in the solar system.
Using Celestia, I headed out about 10 ly from Sol and the changes weren't that huge. Sure trained astronomers might pick up a few changes, a number of those being significant, but I doubt that many laymen could.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 11:19 AM   #2020
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,031
A bit of thread necromancy in “honor” of cosmored/fatfreddy/etc.: the strident Apollo hoax true believer who said he lived near Madrid. It so happens the Madrid DSN station was the one that reacquired the Artemis 1 spacecraft after it passed behind the moon, preparing to enter Distant Retrograde Orbit.

That guy was a piece of work. Anyone who disagreed with him for any reason at all was automatically a liar. He literally refused to accept that anyone else could honestly believe the Apollo missions occurred.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 11:33 AM   #2021
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,633
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
It so happens the Madrid DSN station was the one that reacquired the Artemis 1 spacecraft after it passed behind the moon, preparing to enter Distant Retrograde Orbit.


I'm looking forward to a new generation of whackjobs denying that Artemis is really going to the Moon. I'm 99% sure part of their evidence will be, "The pictures look just like the Apollo photos!"
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 12:39 PM   #2022
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
A bit of thread necromancy in “honor” of cosmored/fatfreddy/etc.: the strident Apollo hoax true believer who said he lived near Madrid. It so happens the Madrid DSN station was the one that reacquired the Artemis 1 spacecraft after it passed behind the moon, preparing to enter Distant Retrograde Orbit.

That guy was a piece of work. Anyone who disagreed with him for any reason at all was automatically a liar. He literally refused to accept that anyone else could honestly believe the Apollo missions occurred.
I only had one encounter with him, not sure now where it was but it was a place he was subsequentially banned.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 01:55 PM   #2023
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,815
There is a well known Australian moon hoax proponent who is part of a Facebook group where many such people gather to show off just how dumb they are.

His current stance is that it is a genuine mission, and is defending it against all-comers, which is massively hilarious.

Another admin on that group, who claims to work for the Chinese Space Agency (he doesn't) and is a physicist (he isn't), holds that Artemis is genuine, will land on the moon and once it does NASA will 'come clean' about Apollo. He claims China knows it's a hoax and is going along with it for some nonsense reason or other.

The rest of the drooling slack-jawed morons in that group, and elsewhere, are as wrong about this mission as they are every other space bound object, and it's a miracle they can feed themselves unaided.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2022, 08:16 PM   #2024
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I'm looking forward to a new generation of whackjobs denying that Artemis is really going to the Moon. I'm 99% sure part of their evidence will be, "The pictures look just like the Apollo photos!"

Oh, but the evidence is already overwhelming. Their real-time website is so CGI generated, it's comical. Seems even cheaper than the Apollo missions' supposed films, except they finally added stars. From:

https://www.nasa.gov/specials/trackartemis/

Screenshot (27).jpg

Screenshot (28).jpg



Okay, back to reality. Even pretending to be a hoax supporter in my first paragraph left me feeling shameful, dirty, and a bit nauseous. This is still a neat site to monitor the progress of the mission.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 12:19 AM   #2025
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,815
Whenever my dog sees another dog on the TV she instantly starts barking in rage at it, then stops when it goes off screen. Space-deniers when they see the words "telemetry driven animation"...
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 04:25 AM   #2026
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,159
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
There is a well known Australian moon hoax proponent who is part of a Facebook group where many such people gather to show off just how dumb they are.
Is that Jeran, or Jerran, or however it's spelled?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 04:53 AM   #2027
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,815
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Is that Jeran, or Jerran, or however it's spelled?
It's the blunder from down under, Jarrah.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 07:47 AM   #2028
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
It's the blunder from down under, Jarrah.
I just glanced at some YouTube video where he is begging his supporters for $2,000,000 to buy his grandmother's home. Couldn't stomach sticking around to learn any more.
MBDK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 07:55 AM   #2029
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by MBDK View Post
I just glanced at some YouTube video where he is begging his supporters for $2,000,000 to buy his grandmother's home. Couldn't stomach sticking around to learn any more.
Jarrah, grifter at best.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 08:36 AM   #2030
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,159
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
It's the blunder from down under, Jarrah.
Ah yes, that's it.

Last I saw of him he'd apparently been taking college courses in physics, or something, and was affirming new space exploration missions like the Mars landers, but was still obstinately refusing to admit he got it so embarrassingly wrong about Apollo.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 09:44 AM   #2031
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Somewhere on the forums that I visit, an individual suggested a flight back to A12 and capture the Surveyor 3 with the descent stage of the LM still setting on the Moon. I would agree with that, but it is unlikely in my opinion that NASA will undergo a mission to a place it already visited. The only aspect that would be new, bring back pieces of Surveyor 3, again, and pieces of A12 to understand what 50+ years of radiation damage has occurred to both.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2022, 11:56 PM   #2032
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,815
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 08:21 AM   #2033
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
Yes it could have been there.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 09:45 AM   #2034
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,990
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
That might have been me on Apollohoax (different name there!). While Apollo 12 isn't as spectacular (or maybe as geologically interesting) as elsewhere, we do have two objects where we know exactly how long they've been there. The chance to study their degradation seems sensible if you're looking at establishing a permanent presence.
We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 10:00 AM   #2035
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/mic/ldef/

Quote:
However, as a result of LDEF's unexpectedly long exposure time (5.7 years) and the heightened awareness of the man-made debris collisional threat, it was decided to utilize the entire spacecraft as a meteoroid and orbital-debris detector. The Meteoroid and Debris Special Interest Group (M&D SIG) was organized to achieve this end.
So what was the final analysis of the material on the spacecraft? Was it what was expected? More?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 12:14 PM   #2036
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,990
The LDEF findings are extensive and hard to summarize succinctly. But atomic oxygen emerged as the primary factor in whether materials survived or were degraded to the point of engineering concern. Some materials performed exceptionally well beyond expectations; others did not.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 01:25 PM   #2037
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Oxygen being the extender of the degrader?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2022, 05:04 PM   #2038
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,157
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We did a whole massive spacecraft for this back in the early STS era: the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). Its job was to expose various materials (both human-made and natural) to the space environment for a prescribed period. Then the Challenger accident happened and it had to stay in orbit for far longer than intended.
Thanks for this! I thought I was aware of all the missions NASA had flown in the last forty years or so, but your comment was the first time I'd ever heard of this one.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Blue Mountain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2022, 07:18 AM   #2039
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,031
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Oxygen being the extender of the degrader?
Degrader. Atomic oxygen is very reactive. We had a materials science satellite which required exceptional cleanliness on one side; before release, the Shuttle crew would use the arm to point that side into the velocity vector (sort of like sticking your head out of the window of your car while going down the highway) to let the monatomic O “scrub” the area.
sts60 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2022, 09:45 AM   #2040
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Degrader. Atomic oxygen is very reactive. We had a materials science satellite which required exceptional cleanliness on one side; before release, the Shuttle crew would use the arm to point that side into the velocity vector (sort of like sticking your head out of the window of your car while going down the highway) to let the monatomic O “scrub” the area.
I know that oxygen is very reactive, however I didn't think much is in free space around the Moon to degrade materials.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.