Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[advancedboy]

Hello, my name is Advancedboy. I would like to participate in the forum by having a neutral discussion , as far as it is possible to be neutral. I would like to start with offering some often discussed Apollo hoax arguments that either are strong or weak in supporting any of the sides.  Let`s start with the weak arguments. By weak arguments I mean legitimate proof from the indicted party that stands incoclusive by any side.
 Not in particular order.  C-rock. It is a very weak argument to prove hoax, as the letter  `c` doesn`t have  any tangible caligraphy, or distinct man-made features to stand as conclusive. It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour, but it is irrelevant, as the c-rock  is too obscure as an evidence, and could be a part of the original rock.  Could it be a letter c inscribed  to denote the center. it could, but in this case it is irrelevant.
Hammer /feather experiment. Unfortunately the video is of such a poor quality, that it makes the possibility to haox it  quiet easily, that is why I discarded it as  a weak argument. It wouldn`t require neither sources nor special skills to fake this shot by having a lead or  read this ( osmium filled) falcon feather and a plastic hammer with a balance weight at one end to make it fall` convincingly`.
Background lighting. It is a weak argument as light could change its intensity depending on angle it falls. if the surface is uneven it makes the angle variable thus indicating various light saturation. As I presume that NASA had been tinkering with contrast of the pics, it is inconclusive if the  light patch, where astronauts seem to stand in floodlights, is from background surface ondulation or additional lighting. Here is a pic of a helicopter I designed and built, as I am striving to become an industrial designer. As you can see the light slightly changes from place to place, and if started messing around with contrast or exposure curves of RGB, you would get patchy surface. Astronauts illuminated in darkness is a completely different topic.
Another issue is parallel shadows. It is a fallacy to consider that shadows should be parallel. They are subject to perspective as any other object depicted. And they can seem almost parallel only if they are very close together. If you shoot a pic from a lower angle , being closer to ground, the more visible tha perspective will be, the same will ahppen with  different lenses that will create barrel, pincushion or fisheye effect. here in the pic with chopper you can put a ruler and see that shadows are not parallel either, yet it oesn`t mean that all Apollo shadows stand scrutny and are conclusive. There are more to come, maybe you could add som more of your own points that stand as weak argument? Thank you!

[nomuse]

I'd prefer to stay away from weak arguments.  Weak arguments tend to be used as scoring points by the Apollo Deniers, aka; "You are unfair by bringing up these straw man arguments no-body uses any more!"  Even if the person who brought them up was that same poster, two days ago.

Except I don't find any strong arguments.  My personal sorting algorithm is roughly three categories;

1) Easy to show why it is wrong.
2) Complicated, and thus showing it wrong is a lengthy task.
3) Inconclusive by nature (such as arguments about motives, or that involve advanced aliens.)

In re the hammer...as per Newton, unless your feather is light enough to be buoyant, both are going to experience the same acceleration from gravity.  Making one out of osmium and the other out of plastic isn't necessary.  The problem is one of air resistance; the feather, regardless of material, is going to react to atmosphere in more complex ways than the hammer is.  In any case, it isn't a demonstration of lunar gravity -- it is "merely" a demonstration of vacuum.

By the by, I posted a picture in the last iteration of this board of a rock that WAS clearly marked with a "C."  I found it at my gym.  It was made of plastic and bolted to a wall.  In no place where I have worked professionally; stage, opera, or independent film, have I seen a piece of scenery marked like that.  It is just so far outside any standard practice to believe the hoax would do this produces far more questions than it answers.

[Jason Thompson]

Hello, my name is Advancedboy.

Welcome to the forum.

C-rock. It is a very weak argument to prove hoax, as the letter  `c` doesn`t have  any tangible caligraphy, or distinct man-made features to stand as conclusive. It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour, but it is irrelevant, as the c-rock  is too obscure as an evidence, and could be a part of the original rock.  Could it be a letter c inscribed  to denote the center. it could, but in this case it is irrelevant.

It is not claimed to be a hair on the negative. The Apollo film stock did not produce negatives. The developed film provided a positive image which was then duplicated. The 'C' has been shown to be more than likely a hair on the plate of the copier, just as other images show signs of dust and scratches from the copying process. There are published versions of that picture which do not include the C at all. Moreover, the bit that no hoax argument will ever tell you, there are two photographs of that rock, and one of them has never appeared with a C present on it at all.

And the notion that marking a set or prop in such a conspicuous way is standard practice in Hollywood is simply absurd.

Hammer /feather experiment. Unfortunately the video is of such a poor quality, that it makes the possibility to haox it  quiet easily, that is why I discarded it as  a weak argument. It wouldn`t require neither sources nor special skills to fake this shot by having a lead or  read this ( osmium filled) falcon feather and a plastic hammer with a balance weight at one end to make it fall` convincingly`.

All of which are postulated with no evidence whatsoever. The issue is not that they fall together and convincingly, it's that they fall slowly, and the rest of the footage includes elements that clearly indicate this is being done in lower gravity. People occasionally propose slowed down video, but this is inconsistent with the rest of that pice of footage.

[ChrLz]

Let`s start with the weak arguments.

??

No.  Let's not.  And your very first one gives a good indication of why....

It can`t be a hair on negative , as that would have opposite colour

As already pointed out, that was positive, not negative film.  It was taken on a variant of Ektachrome 160, a very well known slide, not negative, film.  Slides (aka transparencies, positives) aren't negatives - and they do NOT get reversed for printing.  So it would NOT have the opposite colour.

So that 'weak' argument was not so much weak, it was completely wrong even at the most basic level.

WE *know* that there are some very silly arguments, and some very silly people out there (thankfully a dwindling number) who simply haven't got a clue on these topics.

So why would we want a long list of such inanities?

If you have something you wish to debate, fine, but start with your best and most well-researched.

[Glom]

Moreover, the bit that no hoax argument will ever tell you, there are two photographs of that rock, and one of them has never appeared with a C present on it at all.

Indeed.  I believe the C-rock photo is AS16-107-17446.  But AS-16-107-17445 was taken just before it and also shows the same rock.

[Echnaton]

The problem with "weak arguments" such as "if the hammer was made out of this and if the feather was made out of that," is that they are no arguments at all.  One could use such speculation to argue for any position on any question.

[advancedboy]

By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues. I consider any argument weak that  is easy and cheap to fraud. For example, famous `worldwide sounds ` can be dismissed as such videos are extremely easy to be faked. While a 47 floor high building collapsing with implosion  from office fires having a freefall pattern is a different category of discussion. I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture, or if there was another picture that didn`t have a letter c. It would be easy to erase it anyway. So it doesn`t matter. C-case dismissed.  And the Falcon punch, sorry, i mean falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up. At first I wanted to point out weak arguments and only then proceed to heavier stuff.
   Another weak argument case- Hasselblaad crosses. As they used these cameras anyway, why would they need to attach any crosses, even being so sloppy as to draw them behind astronauts or scenery. This is a case of overexposure, most likely. What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?
What else would you consider a weak argument case?

[ChrLz]

...we can move on...

So you're just going to throw more out there, without even acknowledging that the very first one you threw was completely wrong?

And you happily admit that you "don't care about the details"?

Bye Bye.  Count me out of this 'thread'.

[Jason Thompson]

By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues.

This subject has been discussed and ebated over decades. A number of us have been doing so for a long time. We are familiar with the weak arguments. We don't need to use them as a preamble. If you have anything you consider a 'strong' argument then just get on with presenting it please.

I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture

You shold, because you used it as a counter-example to the argument. If you don't care about how you can be wrong on details or indeed any other part, what exactly do you hope to gain from a discussion?

This does matter, because if you are willing to be dismissive of corrections how are we expected to believe you will discuss any heavier subject properly?

because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up.

Not without leaving obvious artifacts on the image, no. The way that colour TV footage was collected and processed means we can be very sure that such techniques have not been used.

What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?

You can have as much fun with that as you like, but why do you think there would be any sensible conclusion to be drawn from failing to find a dark line on a dark background? And what would you use as your source image?

Playing with photoshop settings does not a convincing analysis make.

What else would you consider a weak argument case?

Frankly, every argument I have ever heard for Apollo being faked is weak. They all fail for lack of support or appeal to anonymous authorities, or common sense, or some other such basic error. Not one of them stands up to the slightest scrutiny. if you have any that you believe do please present them and stop wasting time with the 'weak' stuff.

[Luke Pemberton]

What else would you consider a weak argument case?

What do you define as a weak argument in the first place? 'Debunking' the Apollo hoax shows that all the arguments are weak. Those that propose them have no expertise in the fields that they comment on in the first place, and pulling away their layers does not take much work for those that understand their field.

For instance, Ralph Rene's radiation argument is very weak, one only has to read his pamphlet, 'NASA mooned America' to see his hand waving and ridiculous argument. Yet in hoax circles, the radiation argument is viewed as the trump card - a strong argument. It's just those that the peddle the argument have a lack of understanding to actually pick through the data and science, and realise what they propose is flawed.

I refuse to accept that there are weak and strong arguments to support the hoax, as it means I acknowledge there is some merit in the theory, when it has been systematically debunked. The hangers on to Bill Kaysing's bloated and stinking hoax carcass are just desperate wannabees that put their ego before their ability to reason and listen. As far as I am concerned, there are some individuals in the hoax community that have nothing but vitriol and venom, and really are a waste of good genetic material. Harsh I know, but I really don't care much for them or their friends. They have little to offer humanity.

[Andromeda]

I agree with Jason and Luke.  The arguments I consider weak are those that claim Apollo was fake, because they are without exception based upon faulty reasoning, bad science and lies.

[VincentMcConnell]

There's nothing really here to debunk. You just rated the most over-used, nonsensical and common hoax claims by the order of "weak" or "strong". To tell the truth, I don't even really understand the point of this thread...

[gillianren]

I think what we have here is another person operating on the assumption that we're all new to hoax conspiracism and that it will take but a single point to make us all change our minds.  It will inevitably turn out that there is not a single point which can be raised and not have half the people here go, "Not that old chestnut!"

[Luke Pemberton]

It will inevitably turn out that there is not a single point which can be raised and not have half the people here go, "Not that old chestnut!"

Keeping the nut theme, but that sums up my feelings in a nutshell. In my view, the hoax theorists play radiation as their trump card. Anyone that has a knowledge of the space environment and the physics of ionising radiation can peel away its layers very easily.  If their 'strongest' argument is so weak, then it shows just how little they can critically think. They enjoy promoting themselves as critical thinkers. Sadly, they have limited critical thinking skills, as that involves looking at the other evidence in an unbiased manner. They simply refuse to listen and explore the problem from first principles, so their theory falls down until they are ready to do that. It's not about the merit of the various arguments, it is how they are prepared to construct their arguments.

[nomuse]

By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues. I consider any argument weak that  is easy and cheap to fraud.

Gah! No.  This is the second incarnation of this board, meaning there are two decades on the Internet alone of discussion about the early, stupid, obvious hoax claims.  I don't want to hear about "No stars" any more.  I didn't come for that, there is nothing interesting to learn in discussing it.

And this is starting to look a whole lot like one of those weird ungainly meta-arguments certain people get into when they want to come into an established board and put down everyone there with their superior wit.  Frack it.  I'm not playing, and I suggest no-one else play, either.

For example, famous `worldwide sounds ` can be dismissed as such videos are extremely easy to be faked. While a 47 floor high building collapsing with implosion  from office fires having a freefall pattern is a different category of discussion.

Let's not go there, either.  As an example, fine, but...

I don`t care if there was a negative or not of the c-rock picture, or if there was another picture that didn`t have a letter c. It would be easy to erase it anyway. So it doesn`t matter. C-case dismissed.

Then why bring it up?  Again, this seems like some sort of labored meta-game.

And this is a poor way to dismiss the argument, also -- one that does not bode well for your process.  Yes, it could have been there originally, and erased or corrected.  Given enough people, given enough access, given a big enough conspiracy, you can defend anything.  Maybe NASA re-rendered the scene on their secret supercomputers running advanced 3d software.  Maybe they jumped into their secret antigravity flying saucers with some period cameras and re-shot the picture on site!

No; this is a stupid and futile way to proceed.  If you are going to bring up a question, then make an effort to see if it can be answered WITHOUT dragging in stardust-powered invisible pink unicorns.

  And the Falcon punch, sorry, i mean falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up. At first I wanted to point out weak arguments and only then proceed to heavier stuff.

And this is the point in your post where I really, really started to get suspicious.  Make the argument or don't make it.  What you are doing here is pretending not to think it is a good argument so you can drag the suspicion back out later.

If you were honest, you'd look at the actual argument.  And then you would discover (as some people on this forum have the technical expertise to explain IN DETAIL) why "slowing the video" is a non-trivial task.

By pretending you don't care to discuss it, you are shutting out the easy refutability, and leaving it as an open question.  It is exactly like a lawyer getting something he shouldn't have in front of the Jury, then sitting back and smirking as the judge instructs them to forget what they just heard.

   Another weak argument case- Hasselblaad crosses. As they used these cameras anyway, why would they need to attach any crosses, even being so sloppy as to draw them behind astronauts or scenery. This is a case of overexposure, most likely. What would be more interesting is to play with extreme RGB settings yet be unable to find these crosses in the lunar air/background darkness. How much fun would be that?
What else would you consider a weak argument case?

What would that prove?  Emulsions are not infinite.  Like homeopathy, eventually you reach a point where not a single (exposed) molecule remains.