|
Post by BertL on Mar 22, 2010 18:00:55 GMT -4
But am not happy with some of the photography work[...] Well, they weren't exactly there to take pretty pictures to bring home. They went in the name of science, not in the name of tourism.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 22, 2010 19:24:34 GMT -4
One of the things I heard about this was that Fred Haise said he actually saw the landing site but couldn't see it because it was 'in darkness'. I would like to quash that one..save you the trouble. The trouble has already been gone to. The simple fact of the matter is that the people who claim there is something odd about Fred Haise's claim to be able to see the landing site take no account of the actual timing of when he said he could see it. It was actually some time into the return journey, when the landing site was just emerging from the terminator (i.e. at about the intended landing time) and was therefore fully lit. True, he was several thousand kilometres from the Moon at that time, but that's still plenty close enough to be able to make out the features of the landing site. This business of Fra Mauro is so significant to Aulis that they actually use a diagram of it, showing the site in darkness at the time Apollo 13 looped around the Moon, on the cover of early editions of the book. They don't bother to check facts, like how the actual mission differed from the planned timeline, and when certain things were said to have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 22, 2010 19:26:49 GMT -4
Thanks fellas, I wanted to see if I was dealing with amateurs or not. Forgive me if I do not take that comment at face value. This is a public forum. You could have read any of the existing posts to assess that, instead of starting off with a massively wide-of-the-mark comment. If you are here to discuss the subject, fine, but don't yank our chains when you do it. You won't get a great reception.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 22, 2010 19:58:22 GMT -4
Forgive me if I do not take that comment at face value. This is a public forum. You could have read any of the existing posts to assess that, instead of starting off with a massively wide-of-the-mark comment. If you are here to discuss the subject, fine, but don't yank our chains when you do it. You won't get a great reception. OK, apologies...head in shame no more chain yanking....yes yes no one likes a smart-ass. I've just spent the last hour or so reading some other threads (particularly your 'out of isolation' one) , and realise that this is a genuinely good forum with some smart people on it. The point about Frau Mauro - I searched on the term and found nothing on the forum, so figured I could come up with something new. Genuinely pleased that it appears common knowledge....even though the hoax sites cite this as a big thing. Using a simple ephemeris program I was going to show the Moon at 20 degrees 47 minutes into Sagitarrius and the Sun at 04 degrees 42 minutes into Taurus putting the landing site comfortably into daylight at the projected landing time.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2010 20:06:47 GMT -4
Actually, a lot of us are amateurs. Doesn't mean we're all ignorant, though.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 22, 2010 21:53:31 GMT -4
The trouble has already been gone to. The simple fact of the matter is that the people who claim there is something odd about Fred Haise's claim to be able to see the landing site take no account of the actual timing of when he said he could see it. It was actually some time into the return journey, when the landing site was just emerging from the terminator (i.e. at about the intended landing time) and was therefore fully lit. It's important to realize that, had the mission gone as planned, Apollo 13 would have been in lunar orbit for about 26 hours prior to the landing. The HBs are apparently ignorant of this fact and fail to take into account that the sunrise terminator would have moved about 13 degrees in longitude between the times of lunar orbit insertion and landing.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 22, 2010 22:27:44 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 22, 2010 23:37:54 GMT -4
Genuinely pleased that it appears common knowledge....even though the hoax sites cite this as a big thing. What does that tell you about hoax sites? It tells me that they either don't do any research or verification, or that they are intentionally omitting vital information in order to deceive people.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 23, 2010 1:05:05 GMT -4
But am not happy with some of the photography work, and a few other bits and pieces... A few of us here have years and even decades of experience in photography, some of it professional, so ask away once you've done your homework. It gets a bit tedious for us to have to answer the same-old same-old over and over and over and over for people who don't do their own research... Firstly, go to fellow-member JayUtah's website Clavius -- there's a link at the bottom of every page here -- where he analyses most of the popular photographic "anomalies." Also look up Thomas Bohn's marvellous website. He is a keen amateur who simply did his own experiments and published the results, which is something that few hoax-promoters have done: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htmAs he says on his home page: If you're familiar with Bennett and Percy's work at Aulis, have you simply laid straightedges along the tree shadows that are published in their book, Dark Moon? Doing that will quickly prove what nonsense they talk.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 23, 2010 6:19:06 GMT -4
Kiwi, thanks for the info on Aulis, Clavius and Telus - I'm not as schooled in hoax theory as you think. I remember watching the moon landings as a 10 year old kid on our first tiny colour tv. I was enthralled. I'd heard about conspiracy theories over the years but never gave it much thought until a friend of mine recently gave me some DVDs to watch. I'm sure you've all seen or heard of them... What Happened on the Moon A funny thing happened on the way to the moon Was it a paper moon
Some of it was quite convincing, some of it not. But it put in some skepticism and I'd like to lay it to rest. So I'll have a plough around Clavius and see if it answers some of the questions I have.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 23, 2010 6:54:54 GMT -4
... I'm not as schooled in hoax theory as you think.... So why did you choose capricorn1 as your screen name?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 23, 2010 6:58:54 GMT -4
Firstly, I don't think the choice of screen name is relevant. It's a matter of personal choice. Secondly, he did say it was watching that movie that made him start thinking of the hoax in the first place. Now why should the fact that Capricorn 1 shows a total failure of a hoax make any difference to the notion that it was what set him looking at the subject?
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 23, 2010 7:08:20 GMT -4
Firstly, I don't think the choice of screen name is relevant. It's a matter of personal choice. Secondly, he did say it was watching that movie that made him start thinking of the hoax in the first place. Now why should the fact that Capricorn 1 shows a total failure of a hoax make any difference to the notion that it was what set him looking at the subject? I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Mar 23, 2010 7:23:22 GMT -4
I guess the same reason the site owner chose appollohoax?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 23, 2010 7:29:12 GMT -4
The original site owner was a hoax believer. He was converted by the discussions on this forum and changed his position to support the reality of Apollo. The board is now owned and run by someone else. Given the size and population it was not worth changing the name.
|
|