Brilliant debunk video of hoax claims - HBs take note (if you can)

[Jason Thompson]

There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon.

Except it doesn't match up perfectly at all. The only time the motions of the guy in the suit in the Mythbusters episode matches with the guy on the Moon is during the 'vomit comet' exercise where they simulat 1/6th gravity in a diving plane.

A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up.  The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth.  The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer.  I hope NASA didn't say that.

You hope? Was the basic research needed to say that's exactly what they do say and what they did beyond you?

The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth.

Why not?

The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.  Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.

That is only true for Apollo 11. What about the five other landings? Or the orbital video from other missions?
 

The proof is not in analyzing what NASA has provided,

Yes it is. No serious investigation draws conclusions from what is not available before first analysing what is available.

If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.

Standard conspiracy theorist rhetoric. NASA's 'only' way to prove something is always to provide something they don't have. You will please explain why the tens of thousands of pictures, hour upon hour of TV and film footage, piles of rock and soil samples, surviving hardware, personal testimonies, millions of pages of documentation and so on are inadequate. And 'it could be fake' is NOT an adequate reason for dismissing it. Prove that it was faked or else it stands as evidence in favour of the landings being genuine.

But it's not the video that I'd be interested in because they could hand me a tape with fake video on it.

As I said, prove it.

[smartcooky]

Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?

Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artifacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.

You now have the problem of synchronizing the frame rates of the two videos. Keeping the frame rates of the two videos synchronized for 143 minutes with "steam driven" 1969 video technology is out of the question; I'd say impossible. There is bound to be drift, and this would lead to a black horizontal bar slowly creeping up or down the screen. As soon as that appears, the game's up.

Try videoing your TV screen to get an idea of what I mean

Now lets assume that somehow, you have managed to exactly synchronise the screen and camera frame rates, and you can keep them that way for 143 minutes. You will run into another problem. A TV picture (in the US) is made up of 525 lines. These lines will appear on the playback screen. When you video that screen, the camera will be using 525 lines as well. If you don't have the camera exactly square and aligned with the playback screen in X, Y and Z axis, you will get interference patterns forming, and if you don't have the sizing of the picture exactly right, so that every one of the 525 lines on the playback screen, coincides exactly with every one of the 525 lines on the camera, you are going to get obvious line pairs on the final result. There is an awful lot of "exactly" needed here!

Finally, if you manage all of this perfectly, you are going to run into yet another problem. Screens in 1969 were all CRTs, and they had something called phosphor persistence; great for smoothing out the picture for watching, but not so great if you are trying to video tape the screen.

[Jason Thompson]

The mythbusters wire demo was designed not to work.  It's completely lame.

But according to your two earlier comments on it, it did work, and produced a 'perfect' match for an astronaut in the Apollo footage. Explain the discrepancy in your arguments.

The problem with Ed Fendell is they didn't need Ed Fendell.  The LEM should have sent a signal straight to the camera when the engine started, and the camera could have handled it from there.

Uh-huh. And for the remaining hours of EVA from all three missions with a rover-mounted camera, some of which occurred in places without a direct line of sight to the LM?

Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?

No. If you think that's even close to representing what is supposed to be happening with the liftoff footage it is your research that is lacking. I know Ed Fendell was in Mission Control pushing buttons for hours on three Apollo missions, operating the camera on all the EVAs.

[Jason Thompson]

I have no clue how a lunar rendezvous is achieved?  Either does NASA.

Actually they do, and there have been innumerable books and documents on the subject published. Many of which you can now find without even getting off your backside if you just search online for them.

You know, when research could only be done by finding books and visiting libraries, I could forgive this kind of poor research. What's your excuse for not even trying now you have the internet at your fingertips and could find half the information your arguments are lacking by just googling it?

[Jason Thompson]

You wouldn't be able to confirm anything.  You don't have access to that kind of information.

Employment history is one of the easiest things to confirm. But if you're so sure she won't be able to anyway, why don't you give Laurel the information she requested?

[Mag40]

Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?

Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artifacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.

You now have the problem of synchronizing the frame rates of the two videos. Keeping the frame rates of the two videos synchronized for 143 minutes with "steam driven" 1969 video technology is out of the question; I'd say impossible. There is bound to be drift, and this would lead to a black horizontal bar slowly creeping up or down the screen. As soon as that appears, the game's up.

Try videoing your TV screen to get an idea of what I mean

Now lets assume that somehow, you have managed to exactly synchronise the screen and camera frame rates, and you can keep them that way for 143 minutes. You will run into another problem. A TV picture (in the US) is made up of 525 lines. These lines will appear on the playback screen. When you video that screen, the camera will be using 525 lines as well. If you don't have the camera exactly square and aligned with the playback screen in X, Y and Z axis, you will get interference patterns forming, and if you don't have the sizing of the picture exactly right, so that every one of the 525 lines on the playback screen, coincides exactly with every one of the 525 lines on the camera, you are going to get obvious line pairs on the final result. There is an awful lot of "exactly" needed here!

Finally, if you manage all of this perfectly, you are going to run into yet another problem. Screens in 1969 were all CRTs, and they had something called phosphor persistence; great for smoothing out the picture for watching, but not so great if you are trying to video tape the screen.

Brilliant answer....thank you very much!

[cos]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3fKzL0HfJp4C&pg=PA287&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

It just so happens that there is a extract on orbital rendezvous from the book I recommended on apollo guidance systems.
Your statement that Nasa didn't have a clue on how to perform a lunar rendezvous is either a barefaced egregious lie or wilfull ignorance of the first order.

[alexsanchez]

That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units.  The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle.  The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there.  Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.)  It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob.  They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch.  When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector).  And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates.   There's no way around it.  They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.

Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it?

What's your thoughts on the Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector and the Lick Observatory???    (don't bother with a response....we already know it)

No, I insist on answering.  The laser reflector has to be one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.   
1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11. 
2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles 
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?
7)  if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in.  How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?  A photon is a photon.
  it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html

[Valis]

1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11. 

So explain why you get much more returned photons when the laser is aimed at the retroreflector. The rest is explained in the link you give.

6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?

As the link you give explains, the beam hitting the moon is some 2 miles in diameter. You don't need to point it exactly to the retroreflector.

7)  if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in.  How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?  A photon is a photon.

By using a large number of pulses, and doing statistical analysis on the results. An analogy: You go to a shooting range, and see someone taking one shot, hitting the bulls-eye. How can you tell whether it was skill, or just luck?

[Jason Thompson]

4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles

The website you linked to says a ten mile wide footprint. That means the beam has a footprint a couple of miles wide by the time it reaches the Moon.
 

6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?

It was placed in a known location, and the beam has a much wider footprint. It doesn't have to be aimed with 1 metre accuracy.

A photon is a photon.

Uh, no. If that was true you would only see in black and white. If you know the photon wavelength you can isolate it from the rest quite easily, and if you integrate it over time you'll find a peak emerging from the random noise. This is basic physics.

[gwiz]

1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11. 

So it's possible.

2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles 
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.
6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?

You only have to get the reflector within the width of the beam at the moon, and that accuracy is easy with a telescope.

7)  if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in.  How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?  A photon is a photon.

Apart from the technique mentioned in your link, have you considered using the reflector when it's in darkness?

  it's a total joke.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html

So why do astronomers spend their professional lives doing it?

[JayUtah]

The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.

They do have the original video.  The telemetry tapes were reluctantly erased in order to accommodate new data.

Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.

And if the telemetry tapes were unavailable due to foreseeable loss or carelessness, that would work.  Instead they are unavailable because of a conscious decision about resource management made in the face of looming threats to lose data from ongoing missions for lack of storage media.

If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.

Interesting that only after NASA announced that the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes had been erased and reused did any of the hoax claimants decide that was the important bit of evidence that would exonerate NASA.  Strange that up until that announcement, the existing video footage was considered perfectly good enough for discussion.  Seems like your judgment of what is essential evidence seems guided purely by what you know not to be available.  I call shenanigans.

[raven]

Yes, you can get a return from the moon without using a reflector.
MIT also did in their delightfully named Luna See program.
But there is differences. For one, it is less accurate. The reflector on the moon is in an exact position, while the photons from a non reflector shot could be at any part in the terrain where the beam hit, which could be a pretty wide variation in altitude, meaning you can't measure the distance as exactly. Two, the signal is stronger since retro-reflectors bounce almost all incoming light right back in the direction it came from, as opposed to the rather diffuse reflection from the lunar surface.
Moreover, this diffuse reflection can be potentially picked up anywhere in the world the moon is over the horizon as opposed to the much smaller return footprint for a retroreflector according to this source.
Once again, alexsanchez, you have shown gross ignorance about the very things you claim expertise, and this is coming from someone whose education in science is best described as interested amateur.

[JayUtah]

1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11. 

And were they getting back the same number of photons of the appropriate wavelength as they were from their own retroreflectors?

2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,
4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles 
5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.

That's why it's important to return as many photons as possible by eliminating the attenuation and scatter of the lunar surface itself.

6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?

Gee, how does an airline pilot aim his airplane at London from New York when London is too small and too far away to be seen from that distance.  Geez, are you really asking that stupid a question?

7)  if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in.  How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?  A photon is a photon.

If you knew the actual properties of photons, you'd realize first how ridiculous your claim is, and second how they distinguished the photons of interest from the others.

  it's a total joke.

Then go away quietly and leave alone the people who do what you can't figure out how to do.

[Zakalwe]

one of NASA's funniest jokes on the sheeple.   

The ad hominem attack is noted.

1) the Russian's were bouncing lasers off the moon before Apollo 11. 

And? The Americans also were doing the same. Please explain the difference in pre and post LLR results.

2) when you shoot a laser to the moon, the beam is affected by the atmosphere and only 1/30,000,000 of the light hits the reflector
3) on return to earth, only 1/30,000,000 of the reflected light can hit the detector,

So what? What is your contention? How sensitive is the receiver? Or are you just begging the question?

4) the beam coming back to earth is spread across an area of over 63 square miles 

67, actually.
Again, so what if it is? What is your contention?

5) the amount of light hitting the detector on earth from the moon reflector is 1 divided by 30 million divided by 30 million.

Argument from incredulity.
There's 300 quadrillion photons in each outgoing pulse.
Again, so what? Is it your contention that the receiving equipment cannot detect the returning photons??

6)  how do you point the laser at the moon reflector when you can't see anything that small on the moon?

Argument from incredulity.
As you have pointed out, the beam diverges. Which means that you don't need pinpoint accuracy.

7)  if all that works, you're still only getting a couple photons coming in.  How do you know your couple photons from the 50 million ambient photons coming from the very bright moon?  A photon is a photon.

Argument from ignorance
You are saying that because YOU don't know how it was done that it cannot be done. The Universe is almost certainly totally oblivious to what you know and think, and yet it still goes about it's merry business.

  it's a total joke.

Not really. But what IS funny is someone demanding that the Universe works according to their understanding...


<edited to correct schpellung speeling spelling errors  >