Why I suspect Apollo was a hoax.

[bknight]

Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Videos are the easiest way to get a conception. No long time spent reading, just ten minutes of your life. Society has become accustomed to ease of the internet, the privacy, the anonymity that it provides. In my later years, I too have spent far too long on the net. It can be rewarding as well as alluring.

[Peter B]

Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

As an aerospace engineer occasionally involved with analysing flight tests, I can say that moving pictures are not normally a part of the process.  There are some types of test, such as the release of what are generally known as "stores" from military aircraft, where you want to see where the store goes after release to make sure it doesn't come too close to the aircraft, but in general the data comes from the normal flight instruments and extra sensors where needed.

That's the thing - a video might show that something happens, but that's it.  For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway.  A video will, to give a simple example, show that a ball thrown up will eventually fall back down.  But what good is that?  To gain anything useful & scientific, you need to know how long it took to fall down/how high it went/where it landed etc etc.  The exact stuff which Neil is dismissing...

I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening (or, for that matter, of designing a device to output data on a continuous feed of paper).

So there are times when I can see that recording something on video (or film, whatever) might have value.

[gwiz]

For science, you need to have numbers attached to that - which won't be shown on a video without further analysis anyway. 

That involved at least two cine cameras and, in the days before digital images, a lot of measuring of the position within each frame of film of several points on the object you were interested in, so as to reconstruct the trajectory and a record of how the attitude was changing.

[Zakalwe]

Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.

Because they seem to use sources such as YouTube as "research". The content that they seem to absorb is emotion-led arguments from the likes of the Blunder, hunchbacked and others. Plus, a video is a one-sided discussion, with no room for rebuttals or debate, so they can "tune out" any contradictory ideas. It's the ultimate from of confirmation bias and it reinforces their perceptions. Lets face it the modern crop of hoaxies seem exclusively to be poorly educated and unable to lift their discussions above cut'n'paste jobs.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

He knows, either consciously or unconsciously, that his test is never likely to happen. Therefore he will never have to come to that conclusion. It's the equivalent of saying "If NASA went to the Moon then they should be able to show me a unicorn. As they refuse to enter into a unicorn-based discussion, they are clearly hiding something. Further, proof of the Moon landings can only happen if they show me a unicorn. As they won't discuss it and as there are no videos of unicorns, then the whole thing is a fake". There is no recognition of the fact that unicorns do not exist and even if they did, why would NASA waste time (and taxpayers money) arranging a unicorn demonstration to a convicted felon who is utterly obsessed with conspiracy theories?

Heiwa does exactly the same. he created a preposterous $1Milion dollar challenge- one where he is in total control and where the rules vary at whim. One where he can selectively ignore any evidence that has a chance of winning his mythical prize. As no-one can possibly win the "competition" then he uses this as evidence that his claims of a hoax are correct.

The other thing to consider is that most of the hoax arguments are emotion-based. The hoaxies build their belief system into their personality and any attempt to debunk their beliefs are seen as a personal challenge and insult. Showing them scientific evidence and facts generally won't change their minds as their belies are based on emotion. Look at the Blunder and how much emotion he has invested in his beliefs, not to mention that he is probably making a few bucks from the sale of Rene's horse-manure.

[onebigmonkey]

I remember reading somewhere that the German engineers who designed and tested the V-2 would crowd around displays during a test, groups of them each recording what he saw on a given dial over time. After the test results would then be collated. Apparently for all their rock-solid engineering smarts, they never thought to point a camera at a dial to record what was happening.

Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything

[bknight]

Because they don't have to think as hard.

There is a similar discussion over at ATS involving turbonium, well known to many here, who is demanding video footage of the testing of Apollo suit gloves to prove they were capable of being pressurised and then function properly. It's mostly a diversion from having his ass handed to him for posting one of archangel4mike's stupid videos about John Young not wearing gloves.

It's exactly the same premise as the tactic being employed here: find a topic for which the HB believes there is no evidence and keep gnawing at it in the hope that your detractors will go away. He can't prove that the gloves don't work, but he can prove that there is no video of them being tested (or believes he can). It's a scam to try and accumulate a series of small 'victories' and "A-ha! So you admit..." moments that they hope will add up to some sort of aggregate proof.

Another poster there had a similar thing over photos of crew members in the CSM in Apollo 12. He found that there were none, and decided that was all the proof he needed. The fact that 16mm footage of the crew in the CSM in zero G was available, as well as reflections of crew members in the window while filming the moon, was not of interest to him: there were no tourist "Hey ma look at me" images, ergo proof.

They don't want an answer, they want there not to be an answer. As with our OP here, they don't necessarily believe the argument, they believe that the other person can't provide a counter.

I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.

[bknight]

Aaah so that's why NASA never filmed anything

The veil of secrecy that helps hide the very large Hoax.

[gwiz]

The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G. 

Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.

[smartcooky]

Why this obsession with video?  CT-ers seem to expect everything to be on the internet in the form of a video.  I don't think any lab work I have ever done has ever been videoed - the recording took the form of my lab books & write-ups.  Okay, so my specialism isn't engineering, but is video really a "scientifically honest" method of "proof" (proofs are only for mathematicians, Neil!) as Neil insists?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, what would Neil expect to see when watching the equipment working in a vacuum chamber, on video or in real life?  How would he know it was working?  My guess is it would be handwaved away...

Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does not occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day, and that is just the film. There is the set up on top of that.

[bknight]

Even if that were true, the reason would be more likely a finite supply of cine film.  This was always a limiting factor, and the reason why slow frame rates were often used, eg the Apollo 11 crew on the lunar surface.  The TV record certainly contains very long sequences.

Wait you are applying logic and thinking to your post, surely you don't expect THAT BEHAVIOR from a Hoaxer?

[bknight]

Because video is so easy to do nowadays. Every cellphone/smartphone has a HQ video camera built in, home video cameras are relatively cheap. Even digital still cameras have had basic video capability going back to the mid 2000s, and then video tape cameras before that.

It simply does no occur to them that back in the 1960's, making a movie was not a trivial task. A simple 16 minute video about Lunar Spacesuits like the one I posted earlier would not have been cheap to produce. A 1964 Arriflex IIC shooting at 25 frames/sec will use about 123 feet of film every minute. A 16 minute production will use nearly 2000 feet of film.... that was very expensive back in the day.

Are you suggesting that there was activities prior to the advent of the internet? We all have Al Gore to thank for this.  

[Luke Pemberton]

I saw one video on YT that presented similar material of videos inside the CSM.  The proponent, I don't remember his handle, believed that all the zero G shots were less than maybe 21 seconds, the amount of time the vomit comet simulates zero G.  Therein lies his proof that all the interior videos were filmed in a studio here on Earth, or in the vomit comet.

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.

[bknight]

I'm confident that was Blunder from Down Under.

It may well have been him, but maybe someone else.  Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links(in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular was a parallax issue that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.

[Kiwi]

...I know there's contention about the photograph of an ice sublimator with some claiming it was available since 1997 and my saying I couldn't find it in 2007. I'm sure there are tricks I don't know for bringing buried stuff to the surface of the Internet. Please indulge with instruction on how to find a second photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator. Currently only one shows when you do the Google Image search. Please educate me in how to bring the others to the surface.

Sigh! 

Neil Baker, just like many other hoax-believers have done, you really are putting an immense effort into proving to us just how stupid you can be, aren't you? Whatever for? It just makes you look foolish.

However, I must congratulate you because you have had such resounding success that you have convinced me. But having done that, isn't it a good idea that you start using your brains just a little bit? Obviously, I'm assuming that you have some to use but for reasons of your own have hardly done so.

Try this: Go back to pages one and two and study the posts sufficiently to understand them. Note that in reply No. 8 Gazpar gave you the link to what you ask for above, but instead of following it properly you had the audacity to insult him and other members of this forum with the following remark in your second post:

If you're satisfied to continue accepting your faith-based space program, then you either do nothing or continue jabbering with lame links and empty opinions.

In another post you stated:

Only until recently after my agitation could a photograph of a spacesuit ice sublimator be seen on the Internet. And despite representing one of the most interesting and exotic heat transfer devices ever contrived, no spacesuit ice sublimator is mentioned in any academic-level heat transfer or thermodynamics book.

You have been shown with copious examples what nonsense those two statements are, starting with links on pages one and two. And even after having been given some of them a second time, still you are foolish enough to not accept most of the information. All you have done is shift the goalposts.

In reply 27 on page 2, Raven gave you the link that shows the PLSS data was on the internet in 1997, which you later acknowledged in post 115, page 8:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg31217#msg31217

But you also added, like a true intellectual giant, "I imagine it was buried in cyberspace somewhere. But it didn't appear to me and others until much later."

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals (ALSJ) have never been buried anywhere in cyberspace since they were first put on the internet, so the article and its photos never appeared to you and others much later. They have always been there.

I have both the CD-ROM version of the ALSJ of 1 May 1999, and the DVD-ROM version of 10 August 2006, and the articles and photos are in both versions. The photo you claimed responsibility for getting on the internet, was created (probably scanned from a print or slide) on 30 March 1999 for the CD-ROM version, but had obviously been on the internet earlier than that.

Had you done your homework properly and examined the information given to you, you would have read that  the original editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journals, Eric Jones, took the photo plss04.jpg.

Here, allow me to spoon-feed you the information that you didn't seem to find from Raven's link:

These photos are cutaway views of a full-scale, engineering model of the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The colors of the internal components are used to enhance the identification of critical components only. Production models were not color coded.

...All these photographs were taken the Journal Editor, Eric Jones, and were scanned by Frank O'Brien. Our thanks to Joe Kosmo at the NASA Johnson Space Center for providing access to the PLSS model.

See that?  Unlike production models of the PLSS, that one was colour-coded for your viewing ease, and the photo was taken by Eric Jones.

One thing you should know about the ALSJ, is that a direct link like Gazpar's is okay for looking at a specific document or photo, but is not the best way to access the entire journals.  You need the frames for that, by starting with (and recording), this link:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

To navigate to the PLSS article from there, click on the link
Introductory Material
then page down to
Flight Hardware
Suits and Life Support Equipment
and click on
Portable Life Support System (PLSS)

Easy, huh? You could spend many years studying the information at the ALSJ. Quite a few of us here have contributed to the journals.

Then there are also the Apollo Flight Journals:
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/

One little hint about what you call "stonewalling" in your own empty opinions:  Nasa and aerospace companies don't suffer fools gladly. As you have amply shown in this thread, it's a waste of time.  Even here, many of us are not really posting for your benefit, we are instead posting for other members and the more intelligent onlookers who will understand and appreciate the things that you don't.

Some time back one HB claimed that the lurkers would all be on his side, so we persuaded them to de-lurk and say whose side they were on.  A few did, and not one of them was on his side.

[Luke Pemberton]

Since my semi-retirement I watched a lot on YT, trying to find new proposals or new evidence.  I didn't record any links (in retrospect probably a bad judgment on my part) for future reference.  I would just have to go back over them to find the one I wanted to link and ask a question.  One particular  [question] was an parallax issue effective exhaust velocity problem  that I didn't understand, and started a thread here.  Jay and others quickly brought me up on the learning curve quickly.

I've scrubbed out the bits that do not apply to me and added my journey to here. You can see the parallels with my introduction to AH.net. There is far much more fun gained from the reality of Apollo than the hoax.

I pretty much ignored Jarrah's 'short segment film' claim as another absurd bare assertion on his part. I think he arrived at a figure of 30 s being the maximum zero-g film length. I never really pursued it here, and whether there are longer sections. I kind of dismissed it out of hand and didn't want to waste people's time.