Faking the moon landings

[cambo]

“the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists”

Point taken.

“To me, they got gravity wrong”

“Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant”

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”

It certainly is, what’s your point?

“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough”

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

“Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?”

Oh I’ve seen them, so what makes them stand out for you?.

“Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set”

It had wheels, what the hell are you on?

“Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts”

If you say so, but again, what is your point?

“Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio

The studio? The stage including backdrop scenery is no more than a hundred yards across, and that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic. It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways across the stage in front of a false panoramic backdrop. Either way, it’s fake.

“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”

So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

“That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.”

Please specify, and we’ll discuss it.

“Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies”

It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be. Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates. And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

“Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick”

Which bit did I get wrong, oh clever one.

“Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.”

And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before? Were they TV transmissions or just sound broadcasts? Get a grip!

“You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.”

Explain what twenty people couldn’t manage to do, taking into account the obvious simplicity of the footage. What do you mean by “full concentration”? If a mistake was made, they would just reshoot.

“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

“And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict”

Is that a fact, or are you just making your own assumptions? So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

“all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools”

It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.

[Luke Pemberton]

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

That views in that link are an assemblage of nonsense written by the lay person.

Of course how gravity it works is only a theory, not one disputes this point. However, as explained, the theories fit observation accurately, and have been tested and verified to high degrees of certainty. The Michelson Morley experiment that provided the foundation for SR and the leap to GR has been tested to high levels of precision. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are considered equivalent in recent tests to extremely high precision.

There are also aspects of Einstein's theories that fall over in highly curved space time. We also don't have a theory of a force carrying particle for gravity in the standard model. Gravity does not fit well into that model as it is extremely weak compared to the other fundamental forces, yet acts over much longer distance.

I raise this quote:

We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.

This is nonsense, it's a case of the cart leading the horse. As explained, Einstein's equations are field equations. They adequately describe the fields produced by gravity at a local scale. However, they do not provide solutions or boundary conditions to the universe. The metrics that cosmologists use are based on theoretical ideas, and the metric has to obey a set of boundary conditions that are consistent with the field equations. Dark matter is proposed to explain inconsistencies between the observed expansion of the universe and the theoretical expansion.

It may be the case that GR has to be modified if dark matter proves to be a dead end, but a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws and Einstein's equations for local gravity. This would not mean that LEO missions and deep space probes are consigned to the hoax bin because there are issues of representing gravity at the galactic scale. Throughout history there are many examples of theories that have bee refined, but they still have to incorporate the previous theory that has held  true in the limit.  In the early 20th century, physics was turned upside down by quantum mechanics. This didn't consign Newton's equations to the bin.

[molesworth]

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

I presume you're referring to the Rosetta mission here?  (A mission I took a great deal of interest in for several reasons, and which is still producing a lot of very interesting science.)

What exactly is so unbelievable about being able to compute the effects of close passes to planets, and use that information to manoeuvre a spacecraft to its final destination?  It's basically an extension of simple ballistics, which was developed for figuring out how to fire cannons to hit targets several hundred years ago...

If you're going to dismiss such fundamental maths and science, then there's really no way to explain anything to you...

[molesworth]

Picking a nit... 

Dark matter is proposed to explain inconsistencies between the observed expansion of the universe and the theoretical expansion.

Isn't it dark energy that's proposed as an explanation of the peculiarities in the expansion rate?

I thought dark matter was initially proposed to explain anomalies in galactic rotation curves, although there's now lots of additional evidence for it.

[MBDK]

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

Your logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance is duly noted.  This site does not provide a course for you  in celestial mechanics, nor would it necessarily prove to be anything you could understand, anyway.  The step-by-step successes and failures of every space program were all caused by the unbending physical laws of the universe.  With each of those successes and failures, lessons were learned, understandings made, and verifiable calculations rigidly proven.  Minor course corrections and other contingency maneuvers are also part of the plan for every mission.  The macro-cosmic scale gravitational mysteries have yet to be seen to influence our micro-cosmic journeys through the solar system.  Just because you don't understand how the math and science works does not mean other people don't, or more accurately, that MANY other people don't.  Other than the fact that the math is too hard for you to comprehend in the slightest, you have no argument here.  You just don't know enough to explain your claim in realistic numbers.  I say that confidently, because if you DID have such knowledge, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim, unless you were flat-out lying.

[Luke Pemberton]

It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be.

If your argument comes down to perception then you have no argument.

Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates.

Except Percy offered 2x rate based on perception and the 1.67x rate was worked out following a complete blunder. You are aware of that right? You are aware that Jarrah White claimed the 2x speed, made a complete and utter fool of himself, and then was forced to perform a monumental u-turn with the 1.67x speed.

So, I ask again, do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach? This process is not based on perceptions, but an attempt to formally apply science. My question about consistency is not simply about perception, but the circular logic of this particular claim.

And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

I saw the sarcasm. Don't make assumptions about my failure to interpret your writing, I refused to respond in kind to your obvious and transparent attempts at sarcasm. As explained, you came to board on the pretext that we were addressing the seriousness of a hoax, so I addressed your seriousness in honesty and good spirit. Keep up will you? If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.

And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

You are a member of the board, you claim the landings were hoaxed. I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims. My justification is based on forum rules and the spirit of your claim. I have a right ask to ask questions that are pertinent and relevant to the Apollo hoax. That is the topic addressed at this forum. Please answer the questions. If LO does not judge the questions justified and relevant, then I'll retract them.

[AtomicDog]

“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!

[Luke Pemberton]

I thought dark matter was initially proposed to explain anomalies in galactic rotation curves, although there's now lots of additional evidence for it.

That is correct, although some scientists believe that the existence of brown dwarfs which are difficult to detect might offer an insight into the extra mass. Further, as you know, there are regions in space where gravitational lensing occurs but there is an abscence of 'normal matter' to account for the lensing.

This was my previous discussion earlier in the thread.

Scientists believe the percentage of normal matter in the universe cannot account for its expansion and propose that dark matter may exist to overcome this discrepancy. There is also a proposal that as the universe expands, dark energy is created. This is linked to the interpretation of the cosmological constant and the vacuum potential. Dark matter has been proposed to explain why observations do not fit with the model, not that the theory is incorrect.

In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks 

[AtomicDog]

Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?

[bknight]

“the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists”

Point taken.

“To me, they got gravity wrong”

“Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant”

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”

It certainly is, what’s your point?

“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough”

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

“Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?”

Oh I’ve seen them, so what makes them stand out for you?.

“Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set”

It had wheels, what the hell are you on?

“Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts”

If you say so, but again, what is your point?

“Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio

The studio? The stage including backdrop scenery is no more than a hundred yards across, and that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic. It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways across the stage in front of a false panoramic backdrop. Either way, it’s fake.

“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”

So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

“That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.”

Please specify, and we’ll discuss it.

“Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies”

It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be. Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates. And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

“Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick”

Which bit did I get wrong, oh clever one.

“Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.”

And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before? Were they TV transmissions or just sound broadcasts? Get a grip!

“You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.”

Explain what twenty people couldn’t manage to do, taking into account the obvious simplicity of the footage. What do you mean by “full concentration”? If a mistake was made, they would just reshoot.

“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

“And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict”

Is that a fact, or are you just making your own assumptions? So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

“all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools”

It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.

If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us.

[molesworth]

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

Well, reading through that Quora page gave me a completely different impression than your very selectively cherry-picked quotes above.  Did you actually read, or more importantly, understand, the point being made repeatedly about the nature of a scientific "theory" as opposed to the use of the word in common parlance?

If all you got from those answers, most of which are very carefully thought out and well presented, is that "gravity's just a theory and we've no idea if it works the same everywhere" then I think you really need to spend a bit of time learning the basics of science, the scientific method, and exactly what is meant by words like "theory", "hypothesis" etc.

And to provide perspective, we can be pretty certain that we don't know, and likely will never know, all of the details of how gravity works.  Just as Einstein advanced on Newton's ideas (although Newtonian theories are fine for landing on the Moon or rendezvousing with a comet) we can expect further refinements in the future.  That's an essential part of doing science - new ideas supersede older ones, new theories expand and refine older ones, and nothing is ever "set in stone".

And relevant to the debate - I live quite close to St Andrews, which is a bit of a hotbed for research into alternative theories of gravity, such as MOND.  At the local astronomy club we've regularly had speakers visiting to explain their work, and to discuss the implications.  These however are people taking a careful and scientific approach to their research, not just going "I don't think the theory's right, so I'll make up some weird nonsense to replace it." but developing mathematical frameworks and models, running simulations, making observations of what's happening on large scales in the universe.  And they must, at every step, look at whether their ideas match observed reality - to paraphrase Feynman "If your theory doesn't match observed reality, it's wrong!"...

[molesworth]

In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks 

Ah, I haven't heard about this, hence my confusion.  It's a bit late to start now, but I can see me spending some time on Sunday looking into the latest dark matter / dark energy research 

[Luke Pemberton]

In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks 

Ah, I haven't heard about this, hence my confusion.  It's a bit late to start now, but I can see me spending some time on Sunday looking into the latest dark matter / dark energy research 

It's known as the dark fluid. It's a minefield with proposals that dark energy is connected to the Higg's field, dark matter are super symmetric particles, dark matter are neutrinos, WIMPs...  I'm no expert, but if the Higg's field was the connection between the standard model and GR, that would be mind blowing!

[cos]

“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

How are we "told to see"? I can see that the dust describes a parabolic path. It is unlike anything you can observe in an atmosphere (such as on planet Earth). I KNOW (as a result of my education NOT faith) that this can only be in a vacuum. You say it is sand. Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim. Now that is a very low bar. Go on, break the HB tradition, do an actual experiment to prove your hypothesis and bring the whole house of Apollo tumbling down.

I won't be holding my breath.

“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

So you are saying that they launched the probe to fake the topography of the moon? Hmmm.. how did the funding proposal for that go? "We'd like to launch a probe to map the moon. Only we are going to have to fake it in order to match terrain shown by the Apollo missions". "Great idea! Here's $100M".   Simpler to not bother, perhaps?

[nomuse]

“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!

Plus he had PLENTY of support. If Kubrick was anything, it was meticulous. There's lots of documentation about the consulting he did with technical experts (and futurists). The visible Earth in the Clavius shot is obviously an intentional error made for dramatic effect, just as he asked for a craggier, more dramatic moonscape than the very good information and skilled depictions (such as Chesly Bonestall) described.

Oh, yeah. And Kubrick would let, "...small step for man..." get into the final cut?