|
Post by Grand Lunar on Nov 12, 2008 9:04:36 GMT -4
So you acknowledge that what the non-hoax proponants believe is reality and what you believe is not?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 12, 2008 11:13:17 GMT -4
So, Let me see if I get this straight. 1- The only explanation people here can provide for the multiple reflections on the visor in the video below is that there are multiple reflections of the sun on multiple layers of the visor assembly, right? Why do you expect an alternative explanation, or why do you disregard the one already offered? And why not? The regolith is quite clearly compressible and holds a form well. Do you expect the astronayuts to be slipping and sliding with every step and scuffing out all their footprints? Do you not think the boot makers might have designed the sole of the boot specifically NOT to do that, just like running shoes are designed to grip the surface of a track? The characteristics of the regolith were not a surprise thanks to Surveyor missions. Since you have done nothing to indicate what your own expertise is in any field, perhaps it might be premature to start deriding the expertise found here. And what is it that you already know that specifically does not fit the multiple reflections from multiple surfaces idea? Why should that be required? You can see multiple reflections of multiple surfaces in everyday life. Check out of train windows. Even a single sheet of glass gives you multiple reflections, one from each surface. What is so special about the Apollo helmet assembly that precludes this possibility? Cut but not eliminate. The Sun is the brightest source by far, and would be expected to override most things like reduced reflections and such like. It was designed to attenuate the visible light for the astronauts, but that still doesn't mean it was safe to look directly into the Sun with it down, because it wasn't designed to attenuate the light that much. Why is it always someone else's responsibility to find these facts? Why not yours to show that the multiple reflection model is not suitable in this case? Again, why do we have to look through all the footage to find this and not you? You have been helped. You're just not accepting it. The derision comes as a result of your inability to explain why you do not accept the answers given.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 12, 2008 13:01:16 GMT -4
The only explanation people here can provide for the multiple reflections on the visor...
No, that's by far the best explanation. You just dismiss it out of hand without giving any reason why. With a best-explanation in hand, there is little need to look for any others. But if you have an alternate theory, then present it and we'll discuss it.
Since it is clear that the astronauts are never seen (on film) walking slowly, making extremely short steps and being extremely careful not to disturb the regolith around their boots while lifting and planting their feet, we have to conclude...
Begging the question. You simply assume that's the only way well-defined footprints can be made.
Answer this question: is a footprint created on the foot's landing, or on its takeoff?
Is that all the great expertise one can hope to find on this forum?
The expertise on this forum also includes the customary rhetorical methods and puerile debate tricks used by hoax believers to try to prevail on a basis other than the strength of their arguments. People who are accustomed to the dishonest debate methods of conspiracy theorists are expertly telling you what's wrong with your argument. You want everyone to overlook your passive-aggressive approach that lets you credibly complain about your supposedly shabby treatment.
My expert analysis of your claims is that you haven't presented a single shred of evidence for anything you've said.
How about a clear explanation of how those supposedly multiple reflections on multiple reflective surfaces work in this case? Any sketch? Any detailed light path?
Straw man. Insufficient information in the photo to do that defensibly. You have rejected any such explanation categorically. Tell us how and why.
You know, things like verifiable facts.
What verified fact allows you to reject the interreflection explanation categorically? What verified fact allows you to claim the astronauts' locomotion is inconsistent with what you observe the footprints to be?
Those questions derive from your very first post. You had the burden to supply them at that time. Shifting that burden now is untimely.
Shouldn’t this be easy to find considering the huge amount of footage we have? Of course the resolution won’t be the same as the picture above, but anything with clear imprints made live will do.
Then it shouldn't be hard for you first to find video of astronauts moving less than a couple of feet per step and leaving behind well-defined footprints that are visible at that video resolution. When you have thus demonstrated that it is reasonable to expect to find the evidence you seek (i.e., well-defined footprints in the video at all), then you can lay burdens of proof on others to find it.
I'm thoroughly disappointed with your inability or unwillingness to supply any evidence to support the presumptions on which your questions are based. You bear the responsibility first to substantiate the expectations behind your questions; then you can oblige others to respond.
I come here to see if proper science is actually capable of explaining all the stuff that I feel is awkward about the Apollo missions.
Hogwash. You're adopting the same "I'm just asking questions" approach as nearly every other hoax believer does. That's so you can try to play the sympathy card when your subtle debate points are caught and revealed. This is a debate board. Either debate or leave and don't debate. But don't think you can get away with the passive-aggressive approach. We're well acquainted with it.
Anyone more interested in showing the beauty of the Apollo missions and the science behind it instead of wasting time derisively dismissing people who do not seem to grasp the “reality” of it?
Nice rhetoric. You haven't expressed any appreciation for the science and beauty of the answers given so far. You say you're not interested in them. You reject them without giving any reason. You foist off any burden of proof onto someone else.
When you can demonstrate the willingness to provide reasons behind your own claims, then you can complain about the tenor of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 12, 2008 15:50:42 GMT -4
1- Is anyone here knowledgeable enough about Apollo 14 to explain what is the nature of the objects that are causing the reflection on the visor in this footage? www.youtube.com/watch?v=680E6FprCHM (see at time 0:30) If you are really interested in what the astronaut was doing at the time and what was therefore likely to be in a position to be reflected, I suggest you try the ALSJ. As he is getting close to the camera, it is quite possible that the reflection is of whatever the camera was attached to at that point in the EVA. The LM?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 12, 2008 16:05:51 GMT -4
Anyone more interested in showing the beauty of the Apollo missions and the science behind it ... I happen to have an entire website devoted to teaching much of the science behind the Apollo missions: Rocket and Space TechnologyThis it my real interest. Debating this moon hoax stuff is largely a distraction.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 12, 2008 21:08:09 GMT -4
Ok, I suppose it is time for a summary so we can eliminate 95% of the empty rhetoric that was posted and concentrate on the two topics. Here is the extremely scarce relevant (but still not very useful) information received on this forum so far: *Reflection(s) on visor in the movie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=680E6FprCHM (see at time 0:30) Still pending: - Detailed explanation on how the different layers of the visor assembly can generate 4 discernable clustered spherical “aberrations” from a single light source that is apparently the sun (as seen at 0:30)? - Is there any other object reflecting on the visor that is contributing to these 4 discernable clustered spherical “aberrations”? - Is there any other pictures or movies showing similar multiple reflections of the sun in an astronaut’s visor, on the moon? - Is the gold outer layer down in this video? Information provided so far: - “As he is getting close to the camera, it is quite possible that the reflection is of whatever the camera was attached to at that point in the EVA. The LM?”. (gwiz) - The multiple reflections on multiple layers is not necessarily the only explanation for those spherical aberrations, but it is the best. (JayUtah) - Insufficient information in the photo (the movie) to explain the reflections with a light path drawing. (JayUtah) - The gold outer layer of the visor assembly will cut, but not eliminate the multiple reflection effects. The sun is so bright that it will override this gold outer layer reflection suppressing property. (Jason Thompson) - “The double reflections are caused by the Sun reflecting off of both the outer and inner visors.” (LunarOrbit) *Clear, well defined imprints as seen in: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co....e_U.S._Flag.jpgStill pending: - Is there any footage of an astronaut on the moon moving for a greater distance than two or three feet while leaving clear, well defined imprints behind (must be seen live). Information provided so far: - According to Count Zero, Apollo 12 apparently has some very helpful footage, but no direct link or information on how to get to it was provided. Count Zero also mentions other examples, but without clear indication of what footage he is referring to, one cannot judge on the validity of it. Count Zero, would you be nice enough to post a direct link to a video example with the time at which the said behaviour is supposedly recorded live? Thanks! Anything else worth mentioning? ews
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 12, 2008 21:15:58 GMT -4
Ok, I suppose it is time for a summary so we can eliminate 95% of the empty rhetoric that was posted and concentrate on the two topics. Why don't we dispense with your empty rhetoric and get down to the reasons you think the Moon landings were faked. You claim to "already know" why the missions were faked so why not tell us? Enough dancing around the minutia of a few seconds worth of video and your lack of research into the footprint "issue". You've been given answers to your questions that you refuse to accept because they don't match your preconceived notions. You've been given information as to where to find video footage, yet you refuse to do any of your own research, instead demanding that we provide the answers. Apollo is accepted historical fact. You have the burden of proof to prove your assertions that it was faked. So lets start with you telling us why you believe the Moon landings were faked? What evidence do you have? What proof - if any - can you provide? Cz
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 12, 2008 23:10:29 GMT -4
How about a clear explanation of how those supposedly multiple reflections on multiple reflective surfaces work in this case? Any sketch? Any detailed light path? Why should that be required? You can see multiple reflections of multiple surfaces in everyday life. Check out of train windows. Even a single sheet of glass gives you multiple reflections, one from each surface. What is so special about the Apollo helmet assembly that precludes this possibility? Here is a photograph showing a good example. Note the woman's reflection in the window to the right.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Nov 12, 2008 23:12:56 GMT -4
At first I didn't bother to look at the video, so I made this world-class diagram to explain the principle of multiple reflections After looking at the video though, I don't really see the point. The quality is so low, frankly the first time I watched it I thought we were seeing the astronaut's face through the visor. I had to watch a second time to be sure that was the "anomalous" reflection being discussed. It could be anything. There is stuff way more suspicious in pictures and videos from the trip I made last month, particularly the stop in Vegas
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2008 2:33:42 GMT -4
I'm sure that ews is just wanting someone to say multiple lightsources, so I'll just point out here:
multiple lightsources = multiple shadows!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 13, 2008 2:47:26 GMT -4
Anything else worth mentioning?
You've listed everything you expect everyone else to do. You've omitted everything that would ordinarily be your burden of proof, which was clearly spelled out.
The only thing worth mentioning at this point is your ham-fisted attempts to avoid any personal responsibility for any of your views or claims. Please tell us why you should be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 13, 2008 7:11:12 GMT -4
Here is the extremely scarce relevant (but still not very useful) information received on this forum so far: Explain the basis of your dismissal of this information as 'not very useful'. Asked and answered, but you just won't listen. A detailed explanation is not required when the phenomenon can be observed in everyday life. This is NOT a situation unique to Apollo. Last night I saw two Moons through my window. Why? Because the light was being reflected off the different layers of glass and producing a separate and very clear image of the Moon. Why do you expect us to know the full details? You've provided a low quality video clip and you expect us to do all the legwork of explaining to you, but apparently anything short of a full detailed diagram of exactly where the astronaut was, what he was doing and what was around him is inadequate. Well tough. Maybe, maybe not. I frankly haven't the time to review it all to find out. If you can't tell, how do you expect us to know? The answer is 'probably'. And your responses to said information? Why don't you try engaging rather than dismissing everything? Why do you think that a link is going to be helpful? You, along with most other HBs, seem incapable of understanding that a) the image quality of the TV was quite low anyway, and b) the quality of a compressed video clip on the web is going to be too low to be of use anyway. I had this argument with another HB in an earlier discussion, and the resolution of the debate hinged on the fact that there were details in the original footage that were lost because of the compression required to put it online. How about your proper responses to the points already offered, like why you don't accept them and what you propose instead?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 13, 2008 8:40:06 GMT -4
Ok, I suppose it is time for a summary so we can eliminate 95% of the empty rhetoric that was posted ...
Requests for you to be more forthcoming are not "empty rhetoric." They are requests for more information so people can engage in a conversation that will more fully address your questions. Your reluctance to actually talk about what you see and why you believe it has something to do with faking a moon landing is suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 13, 2008 9:01:03 GMT -4
While we are at it, can anyone provide a movie where an astronaut on the moon is moving for a greater distance than two or three feet while leaving clear, well defined imprints behind? Shouldn’t this be easy to find considering the huge amount of footage we have? Of course the resolution won’t be the same as the picture above, but anything with clear imprints made live will do. Yes indeed, Spacecraft Films provide movie film, voice transmissions and TV transmissions from all the Apollo missions on DVD, and you can examine still photos in approximately 900 x 900 pixel versions, plus high-resolution versions, at the [url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html ]Apollo Lunar Surface Journal[/url]. Have you examined the entire Apollo 11 EVA coverage? The 16mm camera has a wide-angle lens and is too high up in the LM for footprints to show clearly, and the TV coverage is also necessarily fuzzy, but we can see plenty of footprints being made and in turn examine them in the still photos. In the DVD we can view the 16mm film and TV transmission both onscreen at once and mostly synchronised within about one second of each other. A good example is when Neil Armstrong carries the TV camera and tripod out to its final resting place. He does it in a combination of walking slowly forward and at times walking sideways. Some of the sideways footprints are very clear in still photos AS11-40-5872 to 5875 (see the high-resolution versions in particular), to the point where at one time an HB freaked out over the "extra-large" footprint which was actually two footprints, one on top of the other. Others freaked out at the "footprints that lead nowhere" because of their ignorance of Neil stepping sidways. Few HBs are famous for doing proper in-depth research. In the 2002 version of the DVDs (thanks, fellow ApolloHoax member AJV for the gift) we can view Neil Armstrong emerging from the LM's shadow with the camera and tripod at 0:35:23 in the EVA coverage on Disc 2. At 0:35:35 it looks as if he treads on the camera cable, and at 0:41:30 he places the tripod in its final position after doing a panorama for Houston. At 0:42:17 (GET 110:02:53) CapCom Bruce McCandless says, regarding the TV camera, "Okay, that looks good there Neil," and at 0:42:20 we get the added bonus of his voice returning to earth from the moon. This happens often throughout the EVA and the timing of each return is probably of great interest to those who can measure it properly and accurately. I don't know exactly why we hear McCandless's voice returning, but wonder if it is tied in with Buzz setting his microphone wrongly and cutting out his first word(s) whenever he spoke. Also of interest, at 0:44:07 we hear: 110:04:43 Armstrong: I noticed in the soft spots where we have footprints nearly an inch deep that the soil is very cohesive and it will retain a - will retain a slope of probably 70 degrees along the side of the footprints.and while Neil says that, at 0:44:16 Buzz Aldrin kicks the contingency sampler handle offscreen in the 16mm film. This is probably accidental, the same as when we earlier see Neil accidentally knock it over after inserting it vertically into the lunar soil. At 0:58:15 while McCandless and Mike Collins discuss a P22 Auto Optics Pad at GET 110:18:39, Buzz Aldrin fulfills one of his many planned tasks by deliberately kicking dust on the left of the screen in the 16mm film. Then he moves out beyond the flag, closer to the TV camera and kicks dust and describes what it does. He is not onscreen in the TV image, but we can see the dust scudding three-quarters of the way across the screen when he kicks it. Parts of Buzz can also be seen on the extreme left of the 16mm film as he sets up his famous bootprint photos, which you can also inspect -- AS11-40-5876 to 5880 -- and the TV transmission shows the eight "coke bottles" he creates during his mobility experiment. You can read all the voice transmissions and the many explanations in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal via the link at the bottom of every page here.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 14, 2008 1:19:35 GMT -4
By the way, while I am waiting here for some real arguments based on accessible footage that we can all analyse together and discuss, anyone knows of a good forum or newsgroup where people actually make attempts to back up their claims about Apollo missions? That would be of great help. I think I might have misjudged the agenda of the regulars who post here.
Alternatively, would posting this sort of topic in the “Reality of Apollo” section be better? I’m still not clear on which section to use when one is just seeking to get more information on Apollo missions to verify some facts that he feels doesn’t quite make sense. I’m not yet into trying to convince anyone of anything, I just want facts. People here seem to want me to elaborate on something that is not completely understood as far as I am concerned. Why would anyone do that?
Spare one or two individuals who seem to want to help (but still provide no evidence of their claims), it looks like this section is an amusement park for kids who just want to run in circles toying with the latest HB bad guy. Pretty sad place if you ask me…
|
|