ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: beedarko on September 19, 2014, 09:07:00 PM
-
I hadn't seen this until today, and it's absolutely brilliant. I completely geek out over this stuff.
The guys at Nvidia use the new Maxwell GPU to render global lighting scenarios in real time, and decided to apply that process to the Apollo 11 landing site photos. They focus specifically on the famous shot of Aldrin descending the ladder as taken by Armstrong - a favorite of hoaxters due to their belief that Aldrin should be in shadow. They also address a few other claims, including the oft-quoted "no stars" issue.
I think this documentary provides a nice respite from silly ghost claims and "whispers" from the anonymously challenged.
Enjoy.
-
I was duly impressed by the nvidia crew. I was not so impressed by the HB who just couldn't resist the usual sprouting of nonsense 2 posts in. The TV rebuttal in the comments is I.
-
That is awesome, thank you. This is what REAL photo analysts can do!
-
Heh, I was pretty damn sure Armstrong's suit would provide some answers why Apollo and the Mythbuster's photos diverged. They still busted the myth, but this does one better.
-
That is awesome, thank you. This is what REAL photo analysts can do!
I was especially pleased with how they produced a 3D version of the scene as if it had no reflected light qualities at all, and then compared that to the rendering with realistic lighting properties like reflection and refraction, etc.
Most hoaxters are fairly one-dimensional in their thinking, which might explain why they seem to more easily identify with the flat illumination example. The interviewee also said this more simple style of lighting is common in 3D gaming, which produced another minor "aha" moment.
-
It is just a matter of time before the dimwit hoaxer responses start rolling in. Perhaps Armstrong's ghost can enlighten us further?
-
It is just a matter of time before the dimwit hoaxer responses start rolling in. Perhaps Armstrong's ghost can enlighten us further?
Please God, no.
edit: The Blunder has discovered it, and is apparently "crying foul". ::)
-
Oh look he-must-not-be-named showed up. And lo and behold, with swiss watchmaker-precision, he is crying foul. Good thing, though, otherwise, as I stated, I'd be unable to set my watch accurately without it.
oops. beedarko I see you updated your post just as I was adding mine.
-
That was so cool my monitor fogged up!
I see people commenting on you-know-who having seen this. I can just imagine how he is trying to disassemble it. Once upon a time this would have provoked him into making about a ten-video series. That's a video I'll actually want to watch, as long as he doesn't talk too much.... Alas, I have little hope of that. :-/ I thanked him once for using titles instead of audio narration. From now on, my name for him will be Wunder-Blunder.
I've seen that clip of Bill Kaysing before, but I must not have been paying attention. Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits. In fact, I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert.
Looking forward to more from these Nvidia people.
-
Oh look he-must-not-be-named showed up.
(...snip)
Where?
-
Open the video on it's youtube-page, you'll find him right there.
-
I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert.
He didn't do so well on that part either - he died there.
-
I've seen that clip of Bill Kaysing before, but I must not have been paying attention. Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits. In fact, I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert
You know, that is one of the claims which I never quite understood, i.e what was the reason they made this claim? It is self defeating
If real astronomers would have tumbled to the stars being in the wrong positions, then with all the alleged extensive fakery going on, it would be the simplest thing for them to make fake stars in the correct positions, right?
Well, no, there is a problem with that too. If the alleged fakers had made stars visible in those lunar surface photos, real photographers would have said "Oi, you should not be able to see stars in those photos due to the f-ratio required to exposed the surface."
So, a lack of stars does not prove anything, but the presence of a star field would be a dead give-away of fakery.
-
Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits.
That one just amazes me. All they would have to do is think for a few seconds about how far the earth moves in its orbit around the sun compared to hpw far away the moon is to realize the stars wouldn't look any different! You don't even need a calculator.
-
And when you look at the low light photography done during Apollo missions that did capture stars, they are exactly where they should be :)
-
I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%. I think he should just hold his hands up and say "Fair dinkum, I was wrong on this one".
Will he?
Naaaah!
-
If real astronomers would have tumbled to the stars being in the wrong positions, then with all the alleged extensive fakery going on, it would be the simplest thing for them to make fake stars in the correct positions, right?
As I understand things angular parallax can be used to gauge the distance of stars to a distance of about 100 parsecs. That is using Earth based telescopic observations, oh but wait, that is also assuming a baseline of 2AU's. The Moon is only 250,000 miles away so that there would be very few stars indeed that showed any angular parallax. WOW no wonder NASA didn't show any stars.. :) :)
I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space, even with the sun visible. I think that Science Fiction writers, including my favourite Isaac Asimov, always stated that this would be the case, basically they were wrong. Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?
-
I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space,
The presumption of atmospheric attenuation is usually cited. Conspiracy theorists believe that from Earth, most of starlight is absorbed by atmosphere.
Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?
Possibly. Kubrick knew stars wouldn't be visible. He was a master photographer, and really more of a cinematographer than a director. And he knew they wouldn't appear to move. But he intentionally violated science in favor of cinematic effect for the Discovery scenes by showing a visbible, moving starfield behind it. He needed some way to convey the impression of motion. That's still why they do it today.
-
I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%.
Yeah that has to be it. ::)
-
(snip...)
Possibly. Kubrick knew stars wouldn't be visible. He was a master photographer, and really more of a cinematographer than a director. And he knew they wouldn't appear to move. But he intentionally violated science in favor of cinematic effect for the Discovery scenes by showing a visbible, moving starfield behind it. He needed some way to convey the impression of motion. That's still why they do it today.
I think it's unavoidable for filmmakers to show stars moving in the background. If I made a movie, I would probably do it myself...begrudgingly.
In one of my videos on the errors in the moon segment of "2001," I showed a scene of the shuttle flying across a plain. I noted that even though Kubrick did show some stars in the sky, he seemed to be trying to split the difference between popular conceptions and reality.
-
(snip...)
Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?
I'm sure that's it. There are also the artists' conceptions people see in books, magazines, etc. In addition, I think there is a general mis-perception about the actual brightness of stars, and the fact that they unconsciously apply their dark-adapted perception of stars to other visual contexts. They aren't aware of how much the "exposure" of their eyes changes from dark surroundings to brighter ones.
Great to see you here. Looking forward to future conversations.
-
I've seen that clip of Bill Kaysing before, but I must not have been paying attention. Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits. In fact, I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert
You know, that is one of the claims which I never quite understood, i.e what was the reason they made this claim? It is self defeating
If real astronomers would have tumbled to the stars being in the wrong positions, then with all the alleged extensive fakery going on, it would be the simplest thing for them to make fake stars in the correct positions, right?
Well, no, there is a problem with that too. If the alleged fakers had made stars visible in those lunar surface photos, real photographers would have said "Oi, you should not be able to see stars in those photos due to the f-ratio required to exposed the surface."
So, a lack of stars does not prove anything, but the presence of a star field would be a dead give-away of fakery.
Kaysing thought it would be impossible to fake the star positions, but he thought it would be "remarkably easy" for NASA to fake microscopic zap pits in meteorites found on earth.
-
I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space, even with the sun visible. I think that Science Fiction writers, including my favourite Isaac Asimov, always stated that this would be the case, basically they were wrong. Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?
Its not only film-makers. The New Scientist magazine is currently carrying an advert for (IIRC) subscriptions. It features an image of Curiosity on the Martin landscape, with the Sun beaming into the camera, complete with lens-flare. In the background is a massive star-field. I grimace everytime I see this advert!
-
Open the video on it's youtube-page, you'll find him right there.
Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?
-
Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?
I have the same problem..
-
Open the video on it's youtube-page, you'll find him right there.
Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?
I just checked again, and his comment is no. 2 from the top. Could it be because he has blocked you? Can you see his comments on other videos?
-
I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%. I think he should just hold his hands up and say "Fair dinkum, I was wrong on this one".
TBFDU claims he helped the Russians with their photographic comparison study of this image. I'd be curious to know if they measured the albedo of "their" Neil Armstrong:
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/f5kr9.jpg)
Will he?
...respond to probing, relevant questions with detailed, honest answers?
Naaaah!
:-[
-
Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere. I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?
I noticed a few of my posts, asking questions of TBFDU, were gone quite soon after creation. I'm not that familiar with the modern day YouTube, so I don't know if it's possible for another user to censor one's comments, but for now I'll attribute it to this "glitch" and just repost them. I'm looking forward to his responses, which I'm certain will be prompt, courteous and on point. ::)
-
If enough users report your comment as spam, it will disappear. I have had it happen a lot of times in threads with many hoaxers - my comments are dropped or invisible to other users. I have tested this with another youtube account (a "dead" one - one I only use for testing).
-
If enough users report your comment as spam, it will disappear. I have had it happen a lot of times in threads with many hoaxers - my comments are dropped or invisible to other users.
Interesting. I don't think my disappearing posts would qualify as spam - they only contained questions to JW about how he arrived at his albedo figures, and whether he believes Nvidia was coerced by NASA to produce these results. Oh, and also why his Russian team had factored in no equivalent to Armstrong's suit in their simulation.
Do you suppose some might equate "spam" to "high discomfort level of posed questions"?
-
I don't think youtube really cares what the comment contains. If enough users (or perhaps the same user enough times) flag a comment as spam, it disappears. Youtube cannot manually review every comment flagged as spam and evaluate it.
-
I don't think youtube really cares what the comment contains. If enough users (or perhaps the same user enough times) flag a comment as spam, it disappears. Youtube cannot manually review every comment flagged as spam and evaluate it.
I wasn't insinuating any wrongdoing on Youtube's part, other than perhaps the odd software glitch which has gone unaddressed. No I think it's more likely that someone or a small group simply didn't like the content of my messages. Of course if that's the case, I have no way to prove it, and those on the HB side typically don't find it necessary to come out from under their protective cloak of anonymity long enough to admit to such deeds.
-
Open the video on it's youtube-page, you'll find him right there.
Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?
Oh, well, piffle!http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/Smileys/default/angry.gif
That might be it. I'll have to open a new account to test that. I didn't know that being blocked would prevent me from seeing someone's comments.
I just checked again, and his comment is no. 2 from the top. Could it be because he has blocked you? Can you see his comments on other videos?
-
That one just amazes me. All they would have to do is think for a few seconds about how far the earth moves in its orbit around the sun compared to hpw far away the moon is to realize the stars wouldn't look any different! You don't even need a calculator.
Well, actually...
Although the stars would be in the same relative positions, the earth and moon have very different axial orientations. The earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic normal while the moon is only about 1.5 degrees. I.e., Polaris is not the moon's North Star. You'd have to account for this in locating stars in the lunar sky.
In 2000, the moon's north pole pointed at approximately RA 270 degrees (18 hr), dec +66.54 deg. That's in the middle of Draco, and unfortunately there aren't any bright stars nearby.
-
That one just amazes me. All they would have to do is think for a few seconds about how far the earth moves in its orbit around the sun compared to hpw far away the moon is to realize the stars wouldn't look any different! You don't even need a calculator.
Well, actually...
Although the stars would be in the same relative positions, the earth and moon have very different axial orientations. The earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic normal while the moon is only about 1.5 degrees. I.e., Polaris is not the moon's North Star. You'd have to account for this in locating stars in the lunar sky.
In 2000, the moon's north pole pointed at approximately RA 270 degrees (18 hr), dec +66.54 deg. That's in the middle of Draco, and unfortunately there aren't any bright stars nearby.
Given the level of complexity that the hoax must have been capable of attaining, it would still have been a breeze to model the lunar starfield using a planetarium. The flip-side to Kaysing's comment that it would have been really easy for astronomers to know the stars positions viewed from the moon were wrong, is that they must have known where the stars should have been. And if they knew that, then it would be relatively simple to fake them.
To be honest, I don't know why hoaxers keep on repeating this claim anyway. It's very easy to refute, and very easy for anyone to verify for themselves.
-
Indeed. Like the alleged need for a crater under the LM, the visibility of tracks from and under the rover, and crosshairs 'behind' objects, one must ask why NASA didn't simply fake it this way if this was how it was supposed to be. Even Percy's insistence on whistleblowers does not cut it, as surely NASA would be watching these people for possible goofs, intentional or otherwise.
-
TBFDU claims he helped the Russians with their photographic comparison study of this image. I'd be curious to know if they measured the albedo of "their" Neil Armstrong:
(http://oi58.tinypic.com/f5kr9.jpg)
This photo is astonishing. They've gone to great lengths to eliminate the effect of the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong. I assume they used this reconstruction to claim the original picture was faked?
-
Given the level of complexity that the hoax must have been capable of attaining, it would still have been a breeze to model the lunar starfield using a planetarium. The flip-side to Kaysing's comment that it would have been really easy for astronomers to know the stars positions viewed from the moon were wrong, is that they must have known where the stars should have been. And if they knew that, then it would be relatively simple to fake them.
As I said earlier (you may have missed it) they could have faked a lunar star-field, but if they were trying to make a convincing hoax, why would they? It may be convincing to the general public for whom might seem intuitive that there ought to be stars visible, but it would be a dead give-away to any serious photographer, who would immediately be suspicious if stars were visible in a photograph of a bright sunlit landscape taken with 1 - 10 millisecond exposure times.
To be honest, I don't know why hoaxers keep on repeating this claim anyway. It's very easy to refute, and very easy for anyone to verify for themselves.
Nor do I when you consider that a visible starfield would be proof of a hoax. The absence of stars is neither here nor there as proof of hoax goes, but it is certainly what any photographer would expect to see!
-
This photo is astonishing. They've gone to great lengths to eliminate the effect of the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong. I assume they used this reconstruction to claim the original picture was faked?
They use this reconstruction to accuse the Mythbusters of having faked their image.
-
Thought it would be easy for the antipodean detractor to pull apart the software and hardware and show how it is wrong. No good saying he made a film about it. I made a film at an air show but that does not make me a pilot.
-
Oh please Tedward. It is blatantly -obvious- that you are not JW, otherwise your video would have made you a pilot, ATC, and baggage handler all rolled into one.
-
They use this reconstruction to accuse the Mythbusters of having faked their image.
JW's personal experiment was done with the intent to discredit NASA, and the conditions of that 'recreation' were even less faithful than the Russians, as his little blacked-out diorama completely blocked 270 degrees of incoming light.
When asked why he didn't at least include some kind of analogue to simulate the bounce reflection of Neil Armstrong's suit, his reply was, "I didn't think there was any need to".
-
When asked why he didn't at least include some kind of analogue to simulate the bounce reflection of Neil Armstrong's suit, his reply was, "I didn't think there was any need to".
Because he doesn't understand the problem. This is why he gets the wrong answer.
-
Well, at least he figured out light bounces. I've talked with hoaxies who think that requires an atmosphere.
(How they think they see, I do not know.)
-
Well, at least he figured out light bounces. I've talked with hoaxies who think that requires an atmosphere.
That will be the same hoaxies who think rockets won't work in space because there is no air for the exhaust to push against ::)
Go figure!!
-
Don't they know the New York Times retracted that statement?
-
Don't they know the New York Times retracted that statement?
Yeah, but they think they got it right the first time.
I've run into a surprising number of people who claim rockets can't work in vacuum. I still wonder how many of them are just pulling my leg.
-
Its funny how people attribute all sorts of special properties to something they have no experience with. We've had HBs that thought air filled tires would explode in a vacuum. Including one that thought that "fact" proved the lunar rover was fake? As a 4 or 5 year old kid paying attention to the Gemini program, I thought it was the vacuum of space that made the astronauts weightless. The vacuum seems to be a magical state for some people.
-
Especially absurd since the rover tires weren't even air filled, instead they were made from an open wire mesh.
-
Its funny how people attribute all sorts of special properties to something they have no experience with. We've had HBs that thought air filled tires would explode in a vacuum. Including one that thought that "fact" proved the lunar rover was fake? As a 4 or 5 year old kid paying attention to the Gemini program, I thought it was the vacuum of space that made the astronauts weightless. The vacuum seems to be a magical state for some people.
I think that "Earthly" experience leads some hoax believers to come to erroneous conclusions, especially in the understanding of Lunar Surface temperatures. Another thing that misleads "some" protagonists is the fact that the Moon keeps the same face to the Earth. They fail to understand and the accept the reality of a "Lunar" day and cannot understand the fact, that the moon does in fact have a rotation.
An area where HB's tend to talk total BS is in their understanding of radiation, in particular particle radiation in the VAB's. The background radiation levels from the solar wind and Cosmic radiation was probably a bigger concern for NASA at the time, but the old HB's do like their VAB nonsense.
-
Especially absurd since the rover tires weren't even air filled, instead they were made from an open wire mesh.
IIRC that was a short lived "fact" on one of those long continuous single page web sites. The owner backed off that claim, once the error was pointed out. Likely because it was a huge visually identifiable gaff that all but the most credulous would notice.
-
The space shuttle tires were filled with air. That used to be one of my interview questions: Why don't they pop in the vacuum?
-
As were the MET 'Lunar rickshaw' tires. Well, nitrogen, but still pressurized, yet I have yet to hear a specific complaint regarding them from conspiracy theorists.
-
As were the suits and spacecraft. Even if 1 atm of difference were enough to rupture a normal tire, do they think NASA could build an airtight spacesuit but not an airtight lunar tire?
The idea that tires would necessarily burst in a vacuum is just nutty no matter how you look at it.
-
IIRC the tires on the SR-71 were pressurized to about 300 atm. Not sure about the shuttle tires. I doubt 1 more atmosphere of difference would be significant.
I had an HB try to argue on GLP recently that the pressure difference would be too great in a vacuum for the fuel and air tanks on Apollo. I tried to explain that one more ATM difference wouldn't be significant but he didn't get it because again, it was GLP. :)
-
IIRC the tires on the SR-71 were pressurized to about 300 atm.
PSI, but yes. The 1 atm pressure difference is negligible.
-
IIRC the tires on the SR-71 were pressurized to about 300 atm.
PSI, but yes. The 1 atm pressure difference is negligible.
Yes, PSI. Oops.
-
Must admit I thought it was a tyre with air in it, though assumed it was somewhat different to a car, and not exploding. The wire tyre was really an elegant choice.
-
Its funny how people attribute all sorts of special properties to something they have no experience with. We've had HBs that thought air filled tires would explode in a vacuum. Including one that thought that "fact" proved the lunar rover was fake? As a 4 or 5 year old kid paying attention to the Gemini program, I thought it was the vacuum of space that made the astronauts weightless. The vacuum seems to be a magical state for some people.
Here is another one for you.
I talked to someone a few weeks back who is not really a hoax believer, they are just someone who I put in the category "the Americans didn't really go to the moon, did they?". Most of you will know the type, they have just seen the odd thing mentioned on the internet, and probably don't much care one way or the other.
Well, this particular person seemed to think that weightlessness in orbit is caused by weaker gravity because they are further away from the earth. I tried to explain about how an object in orbit is "always falling" towards the earth, but its forward speed is such that the point where it is falling to is always beyond the horizon due to the curvature of the earth. (I would like to find a better way to explain this sometime)
I asked her to imagine that we had a spacecraft with an unlimited fuel supply that was able to stay 500 miles up over the same spot on the earth (using its rockets to keep it there). Would the occupants feel weightlessness? She said yes because the astronauts in the ISS were only a couple of hundred miles up and they feel weightless.
When I said, "how about the people on the top floor of a 500 mile high tower building", I saw the penny drop!
-
There was a neat little experiment that shows how things in freefall are 'weightless'. Take a paper or Styrofoam cup poke a hole near the bottom and fill it with water. Then, drop it from some height. You will see that the water doesn't pour from the cup while it's falling. Now explain that the spaceship is like the cup, only it's falling around the Earth so fast and so high it never hits the ground.
-
"always falling" around the Earth. By the time you get to where you should hit the ground has curved away underneath you. It's the celestial mechanical equivalent of the Shepard Tone.
-
There was a neat little experiment that shows how things in freefall are 'weightless'. Take a paper or Styrofoam cup poke a hole near the bottom and fill it with water. Then, drop it from some height. You will see that the water doesn't pour from the cup while it's falling.
There's a more fun way. Visit Six Flags Magic Mountain in California and ride the Superman: The Escape ride. (I think it was modified and renamed a few years ago.) It's about the best design for a zero-g ride I can think of short of an airplane ride. It certainly beats all the alternatives on a dollars-per-0g-second basis. It's especially good at demonstrating that weightlessness doesn't depend on velocity; you're weightless going up as well as coming down.
-
The space shuttle tires were filled with air. That used to be one of my interview questions: Why don't they pop in the vacuum?
On Columbia, they did.
-
I had an HB try to argue on GLP recently that the pressure difference would be too great in a vacuum for the fuel and air tanks on Apollo. I tried to explain that one more ATM difference wouldn't be significant but he didn't get it because again, it was GLP. :)
I guess you could ask this person why the fuel tanks on unmanned spacecraft don't explode in a vacuum. Do they think some special technology prevents fuel tanks from exploding that can't be used on a manned spacecraft?
-
As were the MET 'Lunar rickshaw' tires. Well, nitrogen, but still pressurized, yet I have yet to hear a specific complaint regarding them from conspiracy theorists.
I imagine very few HBs have heard of the MET. That would require research beyond Youtube and hoax web sites.
-
People who haven't done a lot of research might be forgiven for thinking the Apollo LRV used rubber tires, since the 1g trainer did use them and it appeared in a lot of photos.
-
I had an HB try to argue on GLP recently that the pressure difference would be too great in a vacuum for the fuel and air tanks on Apollo. I tried to explain that one more ATM difference wouldn't be significant but he didn't get it because again, it was GLP. :)
I guess you could ask this person why the fuel tanks on unmanned spacecraft don't explode in a vacuum. Do they think some special technology prevents fuel tanks from exploding that can't be used on a manned spacecraft?
They were one that also tries to argue that any space travel is impossible because the vacuum sucks away all the gas before it can do any work. They weren't too worried about actual logic.
-
They were one that also tries to argue that any space travel is impossible because the vacuum sucks away all the gas before it can do any work. They weren't too worried about actual logic.
One of those people who think DirectTV is transmitted by secret high altitude balloons, then?
-
I guess you could ask this person why the fuel tanks on unmanned spacecraft don't explode in a vacuum. Do they think some special technology prevents fuel tanks from exploding that can't be used on a manned spacecraft?
The SM cryogenic oxygen tanks each massed more than 200 lbs empty. As part of my in-depth research on Apollo 13, I discovered a description of how they were made. Obviously they're not your garden variety propane tanks.
Heck, I've got a stick of ordinary Schedule 40 PVC pipe that I use for dusting the crown molding, and it's rated to 600 psi for temperatures below 73 F. Not that I would use it in space, but if you didn't care about design margins or leakage or thermal embrittlement or any of the other reasons we choose different materials, you could use it as the fuel line for the lunar module APS.
-
They were one that also tries to argue that any space travel is impossible because the vacuum sucks away all the gas before it can do any work. They weren't too worried about actual logic.
Or science, apparently. The exhaust gas does so much more work in a vacuum without that pesky ambient atmosphere to impede its escape from the nozzle.
-
People who haven't done a lot of research might be forgiven for thinking the Apollo LRV used rubber tires, since the 1g trainer did use them and it appeared in a lot of photos.
Indeed Sam Colby reproduced a few of those photos to make exactly that point. When it was pointed out that the 1-g trainer and the flight articles used different tires, Colby posted low-resolution photos of the LRV on the lunar surface such that the mesh was not terribly visible.
The MET indeed used rubber tires, and rubber tires could have been used on the LRV but for the requirement (not applicable to the MET) that it be a human-rated vehicle. Mission success was enhanced by using tires that would not be susceptible to punctures that would render the LRV inoperative and invoke the walk-back contingency.
-
One of those people who think DirectTV is transmitted by secret high altitude balloons, then?
Or high-flying aircraft, or any number of improbable and impractical theories. Billions of dollars a year is expended on commercial spacefaring worldwide, which has nothing to do with protecting these alleged ideological sacred cows.
-
People who haven't done a lot of research might be forgiven for thinking the Apollo LRV used rubber tires, since the 1g trainer did use them and it appeared in a lot of photos.
That was basically my thought when I first started to wonder at the hoax and why. In my ignorance it was "sure, why the hell not if engineered correctly", not "it cannot be done". Of course you live and learn as the saying goes.
-
One of those people who think DirectTV is transmitted by secret high altitude balloons, then?
Or high-flying aircraft, or any number of improbable and impractical theories. Billions of dollars a year is expended on commercial spacefaring worldwide, which has nothing to do with protecting these alleged ideological sacred cows.
NetFlix is sent via all those antennas hidden in plain sight - VOR's, dinjaknow? :)
-
One of those people who think DirectTV is transmitted by secret high altitude balloons, then?
Or high-flying aircraft, or any number of improbable and impractical theories. Billions of dollars a year is expended on commercial spacefaring worldwide, which has nothing to do with protecting these alleged ideological sacred cows.
My favorite is the guy on the David Icke forum that believes low altitude satellites are possible but not anything in or past the Van Allen belts. His theory for geostationary satellites was a large constellation of low satellites that are networked and switch to active when they are in just the right position. Nevermind the fact that different satellites would have to be active at the same time for different people around the world due to line of sight issues, or that there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of satellites to simulate a single geostationary bird that way. And why he thought satellites couldn't get past the Van Allen belts? Because he didn't think radio waves could penetrate the belts either. IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.
-
Nevermind the fact that different satellites would have to be active at the same time for different people around the world due to line of sight issues...
Reminds me of the elaborate concoction Mike Dinn and some other communications expert said would have to be the case to simulate communications from the lunar-bound spacecraft in order to fool the folks at the ground stations. IIRC, Dinn said he could never get it to work for all cases, but even to approximate it took an extensive setup.
Because he didn't think radio waves could penetrate the belts either. IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.
Elect that man to Congress!
-
IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.
Well, if the alleged problem is that the "space radioactivity" generated noise, it wouldn't matter if the satellites were above or below it, the receivers would still pick up all that "radioactive noise".
In actual fact, charged particles ("space radiation") can actually block radio signals, but only if the frequency is low enough and the particle density is high enough. This is what happens to the HF ("shortwave") spectrum in the ionosphere. Signals below the critical frequency are reflected, signals above it get through with a little extra delay. This delay is usually one of the largest residual error sources in GPS even though it operates well above the critical frequency.
The charged particle densities in the Van Allen belts are far too low to have much effect on radio signals that make it through the ionosphere. What matters is the volumetric density of the charged particles, not their individual energies.
Charged particles trapped in a magnetic field can also generate radio noise because accelerating a charged particle generates a photon. Jupiter is a well-known radio noise source for this reason. The earth does it too, but is much weaker.
-
My favorite is the guy on the David Icke forum that believes low altitude satellites are possible but not anything in or past the Van Allen belts. His theory for geostationary satellites was a large constellation of low satellites that are networked and switch to active when they are in just the right position. Nevermind the fact that different satellites would have to be active at the same time for different people around the world due to line of sight issues, or that there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of satellites to simulate a single geostationary bird that way. And why he thought satellites couldn't get past the Van Allen belts? Because he didn't think radio waves could penetrate the belts either. IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.
Anyone remember "Let Me Enlighten U"?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?81998-two-absolute-definitive-answer-proving-man-on-the-moon-is-not-a-hoax/page3&p=1382028#post1382028
-
Oh noes - the blunder has trashed the NVidia claims!!!
What's more - our old pal Adrian is getting in on the act!
-
I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?
-
I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?
From JW's synopsis:
In summary, NVIDIA claims that Buzz Aldrin was illuminated in shadow primarily by light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's spacesuit and to a lesser part the lunar surface.
However, comparing NVIDIA's cgi image of Aldrin solely lit by the lunar surface with real life experiments taken on surfaces with the same albedo as the moon - not to mention photographs from Chang'e 3 and Lunokhod which show shaded objects in darkness unless the sunlit landscape is overexposed - it becomes clear that NVIDIA has upped the albedo setting on their cgi lunar surface to be far greater than the 0.12 claimed in their video. The actual albedo they used is probably 0.4. This is further evident by the fact that NVIDIA's cgi image with the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's suit is only marginally brighter than without him.
And the claim that Neil Armstrong was the light source can be debunked by the fact that in the Apollo 12 telecast Pete Conrad had to stand right up close to the ladder or MESA to cast significantly bright reflections on his LM's ladder - and that's even with the landscape overexposed! Not to mention the fact that the first pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder were allegedly taken when Neil Armstrong was almost completely shrouded in the LM's shadow. As shown by the corresponding telecast. And yet Aldrin looks exactly as bright as he did in the later photos.
I'm impressed he thinks Apollo 12 is real...
-
I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?
There's no voiceover, just badly-spelled captions. Although there is part of a pro-hoax belief song continually played over it that gets annoying. The singer sounds like Tom Lehrer. Was he a hoax believer? Depressing if he was.
Anyway, Adrian's claim is that the 'bright light source' at Armstrong's position was a spotlight, not Armstrong.
His reasoning is that
a) Armstrong is standing in the shade of the LM and obviously nothing that's in the shadow of something else can reflect light and
b) the spotlight is turned on before Armstrong steps off the ladder, as seen in film taken by Buzz Aldrin from the hatch, which appears to show the Lunar surface brightening slightly. It also shows a slight shift in the angle of the LM's shadow and a burst of light in the top left corner of the shot, which would suggest, to me, that something, or someone, on the LM moved slightly, allowing more sunlight into the picture.
The pictures taken by the TV camera on the boom arm showing the light source at Armstrong's position also, again to me, I might be wrong, show that it moved slightly to the right like, you know, someone stepping sideways to get a better picture.
-
As an addendum to my previous post ; I was obviously critiquing Adrian's video, which had the good sense not to use a voiceover. Having just watched a few seconds of Jarrah's, I wish he'd done the same.
-
a) Armstrong is standing in the shade of the LM and obviously nothing that's in the shadow of something else can reflect light
I explained to him a long time ago that one can prove Armstrong was standing in sunlight from the lens flares in several of those pictures. They wouldn't be there if he was in shadow.
Obviously, this simple logic had no effect.
-
What is the lunar albedo as a function of phase angle? It's a lot brighter around zero degrees -- the opposition effect -- but JW steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge this point. I think he knows he can't refute it.
-
The pictures taken by the TV camera on the boom arm showing the light source at Armstrong's position also, again to me, I might be wrong, show that it moved slightly to the right like, you know, someone stepping sideways to get a better picture.
It is NVIDIA was so nice to cut the video at exact the right time to give the fake moon landing believers something to shoot at (and us probably a good laugh? ;) ).
This is a video where you do see the 'bright light' is indeed Neil Armstrong:
(you can even see Armstrong's reflection is Aldrin's helmet)
-
And in his Hasselblad photos of Aldrin descending the ladder, you can see Armstrong's suit reflecting off the aluminized Kapton covering the side of the LM descent stage.
-
What is the lunar albedo as a function of phase angle? It's a lot brighter around zero degrees -- the opposition effect -- but JW steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge this point. I think he knows he can't refute it.
He can't. We typically consider albedo at zero and at 5-degree phase angles. However for maria surfaces the 5-degree albedo is around 12-14 percent. As to his response, it's just wishful thinking. "They got results that dispute my belief, therefore they must have fudged the numbers."
In the TV footage Armstrong is clearly standing in the sun during Aldrin's egress.
-
I was about to say, "oh, that's exactly how I would light the scene -- ERS right where the camera is, motivated by nothing, and fire that instrument up in the middle of the shot."
But then I got thinking a little. And I've actually done it. I call it "opera spots" and it involves using an actual follow-spot (not Ellipsoidal Reflector Spotlight) fuzzed out with diffusion and often dulled down with lavender or blue gel, focused on the head and shoulders of an actor so you can see a little facial expression in what is otherwise a textured, strongly-colored, key-lit chiaroscuro stage picture.
(And, yes, your spot-ops will hate you for it).
Sigh. They can't even see how much he is UNDERLIT? I guess they never spent that class time in estimating lighting angles off a picture.
-
The singer sounds like Tom Lehrer. Was he a hoax believer? Depressing if he was.
Is; he's still alive. And given the "Wernher Von Braun" song, I should be greatly surprised.
-
He could add two more verses to "The Elements" by this point.
-
Oh noes - the blunder has trashed the NVidia claims!!!
I've only just noticed this. I had a quick watch, and it's the usual mish mash of logical fallacy and hand waving. Seems he believes in the authenticity of the A12 landing footage to dismiss the A11 footage. He did this a lot with LRO, he used the Apollo evidence to disprove the LRO evidence. Go figure how that works.
Astrobrant2 took him to task over this 'minor' discrepancy in his thinking. So desperate to prove the Apollo landings are a hoax he tries to use the evidence of Apollo to disprove Apollo. It's like a dog chasing its tail.
He's like a living and breathing version of Gollum. If anyone tries to steal his precious he'll spit his brand of vile nastiness. Looks like those trying to steal his precious this time have amassed nearly 1 million views from their video.
-
He's like a living and breathing version of Gollum. If anyone tries to steal his precious he'll spit his brand of vile nastiness. Looks like those trying to steal his precious this time have amassed nearly 1 million views from their video.
Bit harsh on Gollum though eh?
-
Bit harsh on Gollum though eh?
Don't know what is worse to make sense of, Gollum's riddles or Wunder Blunder's videos. ;D
-
Gollum's riddles made perfect sense. ??? Bilbo answered them, after all.