Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous

[JayUtah]

Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them.

No.  You're being chastised not because you have a different view than everyone else, but because you approach all your debates about your different views in a highly dishonest fashion.

This is just a friendly debate (at least the way I see it).

Stop trying to get people to go easy on you.

[JayUtah]

I respect your decision.

A pointless thing to say when you have no choice but to obey it.  There's no chance you will be able to schmooze your way out of your restrictions.

I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.

Until you get backed into a corner and then run away.  Then you come back after things cool down, change the subject, and pretend your prior failures never existed.

I have attempted to answer people's questions.

No, you haven't.  You've been singularly evasive.  The last time we tried to drag you back to the LM stability issue, you ignored everything that was said in the thread and tried to start that whole discussion over again de novo.  Enough gaslighting; it doesn't work on us.

I have only so much time in a day. It is me against 100. At least it feels like that to me. And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory.

Whiny excuses.  We're not interested.  When you pretend to be some sort of scientist or engineer, you're treating on the territory of people here who have professional qualifications and experience in those things.  If you can't walk the walk, be man enough to admit it and accept the correction of your betters.

I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments. Yes, some of my views clearly don't conform to most view's here.

No.  As much as you might want to believe you're being persecuted for your beliefs, you're simply being constrained to act like a responsible adult.  All this ham-fisted play at social engineering isn't helping you.

But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.

No.  You don't act at all like you think you are almost certainly wrong.

[molesworth]

... I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory.

No, you're being held to the standard required to debate these issues.

You're making claims which question the science and engineering involved in planning, building and executing the Apollo (and presumably other) missions.  You therefore need to address the science and engineering properly, and in particular you need to respond to questions with something more than "it doesn't look right to me".  There are people on this board who have spent their lives studying or working in these fields who'd be more than happy to help you learn more about their respective fields, but you need to show a willingness to learn, and to admit that your guesses and impressions might be wrong.

You're also questioning the motives and honesty of a huge number of people who worked on Apollo, and by association, everyone who has worked on, or currently works on, spaceflight.  Again, without any evidence of this huge deception.  Perhaps you can understand the reaction you get to this approach.

[onebigmonkey]

You'd also get more credit if you had the balls to say "I don't believe we went" instead of keeping up the wide-eyed innocent JAQ nonsense. No-one believes it, no-one's fooled by it.

If you make a claim, back it up with evidence. No-one here has to take your word for anything. Show your working. It's that simple.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Lunar Orbit

I respect your decision. But I would like to point out I have only created 5 new topics in the 9-10 months I have been a member.

As has already been made clear, it is not the number of topics that is the issue but your habit of starting a topic, then abandoning it with unanswered qestions once you get painted into a corner, then coming back with new ones as if the old ones never happened.

I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.

Quality, not quantity is the issue, as you well know.

I have attempted to answer people's questions.

No, you have ignored or evaded people's questions. Such as the one about LM stability using the memo you presented as evidence, and your refusal to provide the other paper you claim exists proving that the RCS system requires perfect balance to function properly.

I have only so much time in a day.

Then use that time appropriately to answer your outstanding questions before bringing new topics to the table.

And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard.

Higher than what? You are being held to the same standards as anyone else when it comes to this forum. Answer your questions.

I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments.

This is frankly irrelevant. You don't get to avoi your own responsibilities in regard to defending your claims just because you're nice about it. Do you want a reward for basic decency now?

But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.

This blanket statement doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to defend your specific claims or else retract them.

If your time is so limited I suggest you spend it going back over your existing threads and answering the outstanding questions as you have been asked and now instructed to do. That is how actual reasoned discussion works.

[beedarko]

as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.

In that case you should be devoting 99% of your energy to a good faith study of the sciences behind the Apollo program.

[Zakalwe]

I have only so much time in a day.

Then why do you chose to spend that time on conspiracy nonsense? if you were acting in good faith you would be approaching this differently. As it is, you are following the tactics of scores of other conspiracy nutjobs that have had a go on the pages over the years.

It is me against 100.

LOL...the odds are worse than that. Much, much worse.
It is you against a huge body of evidence, against tens of thousands of documents (most of which can't be find with a simple Google search); against the eyewitness reports of thousands of people; against qualified and recognised professionals that work in the very fields that you are disparaging; against the laws of motion, thermodynamics, mathematics and physics; against 400,000 workers who were part of the program, many of whom are still alive and active.
But you plough on, you lone seeker of the truth* 




*That was sarcasm, just in case you missed it.

[onebigmonkey]

I have only so much time in a day.

Of course we're all sat around like firemen on shift, tapping our pencils, calibrating slide rules, sighing out of boredom waiting for the "Fresh meat" klaxon to go off...

[mako88sb]

Hi Lunar Orbit

But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.

Yet you posted this on another thread of someone who is obviously a firm believer in the the hoax nonsense:

"Read Think Repeat,

I am on your "team""

Care to explain why you are on the hoax believers "Team" despite you saying "that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong."?

[gillianren]

But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life.

Nope.  To me, life is about acknowledging that you're wrong--not that you could be but are--when the evidence shows you're wrong, because how else do you learn anything?  There's no "agree to disagree" on fact.  I don't agree that vaccines cure autism, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, or that we didn't land on the Moon.  In all three cases, going to actual documentation shows that there's right and wrong involved.  Be it double-blind studies, the words of the people actually involved, or the literal tons of evidence of events as they happened, you're going to have to show that all the facts as we know them are wrong, and you are nowhere near close enough to make there even a sliver of doubt.

[jfb]

Please address Jay's questions in the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch thread before starting any new discussions. 

[onebigmonkey]

jrk has made much in his DAC footage posts about the use of a mirror, finding it to be suspicious for some reason or other. I decided (because that, jrk, is what inquiring minds do) to look into it a little more.

This is the 16mm mounting we're used to seeing - the famous image from inside the LM:



It's on what is obviously a mount that allows for a degree of flexibility in where the camera is pointed; the LM could land on sloping ground, it might end up with a window in the sun, or be pointed vertically downwards to film the ascent back to orbit.

It's also somewhat intrusive, liable to be knocked.

Here's a view of the camera, and you can see the important part fitted to the side of the it:



That attachment allows it to slide inside a grooved mount, where it can be gripped securely. I've circled the part doing the gripping in the Apollo 11 image.

The camera mount for the CSM was in the rendez-vous window, which was angled upwards so that they could view the rendez-vous and docking. Here's a photo of Apollo 9's, but they are all the same:



It's more important here to know that your camera is pointing in the right direction. The position of the mount means that the camera can be mounted flush with the CSM body - nicely out of the way. It's good design for a small space. How to they resolve the problem that the lens is not pointing of the window?

Answers on a postcard...

[ApolloEnthusiast]

But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life. Case in point. You rightly point out the earth is in the background in last few frames of A11 DAC rendezvous footage. It is also in some corresponding A11 photos too. But are you suggesting because the earth in the Apollo photos matches weather satellite pictures at the time, these photos and film by deduction have to be real? I would highly object to that. Clearly if you were going to fake something like this, one would ensure to use current satellite photos. They are not going to use photos from 1965. I don't think you can use this argument as proof the film/photo is real. But that's life. You made your point, I made mine.

As others have mentioned, we don't agree to disagree about things that are factually wrong.  In this specific instance, you object to the match between images of Earth in A11 footage and weather satellite photos being used as evidence that the mission happened.  You suggest that making sure they match is an obvious part of faking something like this.

Do you understand that this footage was broadcast live?  Matching images in a live broadcast with images from weather satellites, that also corresponds with reported weather at the time, simply isn't possible.  Either it really is live, and there is no way to get the images you need, or it is filmed ahead of time and there's no way to know in advance what the weather is going to be.  The only reasonable conclusion from matching images in both the footage and the weather satellites is that both images were captured at the same time, which is essentially proof of authenticity of the A11 footage.

You don't get to "agree to disagree" with that.  You can either agree and admit error, disagree intelligently and provide some kind of reasoned counterpoint, or you can stick your head back in the sand and insist on believing things that are demonstrably false.  But don't expect anyone to give any legitimacy to the third choice.  If you choose that you plant yourself firmly within the ranks of the conspiracy nuts you have disavowed several times already.

[onebigmonkey]

To be fair for a moment, obviously the 16mm and Hasselblad images weren't transmitted live, but there are many cases where Earth was filmed live on TV in a number of the missions, often with those images then appearing on the next day's front pages. The live images were more often than not broadcast in advance of the satellite images being taken. The USA were not the only ones who had access to the satellite images, and the Soviets also had their own satellite programme that would instantly have exposed them as a fake if the weather patterns did not correspond.

Claiming that they would obviously have faked the Apollo images by using the satellite data is, frankly, just a lazy and desperate cop-out and adds yet another layer of complexity to the alleged hoax. Now we have to introduce a team of people poring over black and white images from weather satellites (or by Apollo 17 the colour Landsat ones), painstakingly assembling a collection of photographs and 16mm footage that accurately portray not just the view of Earth is seen in cislunar space, lunar orbit and the lunar surface, but also how the weather patterns change over time, the position of the terminator, a whole range of features that need to be 100% accurate in order for the hoax to work.

Just handwaving it away and saying "oh well we just have to agree to differ" does not amount to a meaningful explanation for the meteorological exactness of the Apollo imagery of Earth, it's just an empty distraction.

How did they fake the images? Who did it? Where? When? They can only have taken the Earth images  during the mission timeframe, so how many people would have been involved in the rapid turnaround of 16mm and 70mm images?

[Jason Thompson]

Just handwaving it away and saying "oh well we just have to agree to differ" does not amount to a meaningful explanation for the meteorological exactness of the Apollo imagery of Earth, it's just an empty distraction.

Because that's all he has. Assuming he's not just trolling, he just shows the same total failure of reason as every other hoax believer. Here's a simple decision tree:

Situation: Something looks wrong to me

Option 1: FAKE!

Option 2: Maybe my expectations and understanding are flawed so I should learn a bit more about how this was done and reassess.

Hoax believers either don't even consider option 2, or they think a bit of googling and web browsing with some high-school science is actually enough for option 2.