JayUtah: I was halfway through a complete response to your last post when I had to go home for the day; rest assured it’ll be up here tomorrow morning. But when I got home, I figured it would be in the best interests of the discussion if I replied now to the issue of space.com’s moon-rocks article.
Well, I figured they’d follow the link. But yes, that was certainly an omission on my part. Sorry if I confused anybody.
Of course. The article isn’t very conclusive, what with it’s “we’ll have to see what the rest of the samples are like” conclusion. It still seemed interesting. I brought this up because jab1 had said
And obviously, this article does not in any way contradict that statement. But I didn’t bring it up to contradict the statement, though in my haste to get out the door on Friday I certainly made it seem that way. The point I hoped some would take away from it is that some 30 years on, we’re only just learning about the level of contamination in the lunar samples. There seems to be an assumption that after NASA brought back the moon rocks, teams of scientists were set up to verify their lunar origin; I strongly doubt anyone was, frankly, rude enough to ask such questions, having been lucky enough to receive lunar samples to begin with. To put it another way, I’d wager there haven’t been too many teams of scientists asked “Can you figure out if these rocks came from the moon?” as opposed to “These rocks came from the moon; what can you figure out about them?” I therefore think the conclusion that the origin of the moon rocks has been verified countless times over may be a bit specious.
Right, but the article, to me, raises the question of “where do they draw the line?”
Fair enough.
Steele doesn’t seem to draw that conclusion. Why do think that is?
Yeah, like I said, I was in a hurry. I hope the above made it clear that my citation of the article was not meant to support a conspiracy theory, just to weaken some of the attacks against it. Whether it succeeds in doing so is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder.
I was in a serious hurry to finish my post and leave work. I didn’t want to take the time to provide a link, and seeing as how the article is linked on the space.com page we’ve been discussing for most of this thread, I figured it wouldn’t take too much “scrounging.” And yeah, it doesn’t impeach the authenticity of the material at all. Doesn’t even touch on it.
To me, it raises questions about whether anyone has ever really attempted to validate the moon rocks as being lunar in origin, or whether they’ve invariably assumed a priori that the rocks are indeed legitimately lunar. Doesn’t prove a damn thing, of course. Doesn’t even enter as evidence. It was food for thought; once again, I’m trying to explain why I could even consider for a second the possibility of a hoax, as some here have expressed, directly or indirectly, an interest in knowing that information.
No, it’s not your fault this time; I was in a serious hurry (as you may have guessed by the egregious italics that prove I didn’t even preview my message). I was assuming you folks were inside my head, and of course you are not. I can easily see how it would look like I was trying to use the evidence as proof of a hoax. You can believe that or not, but in my defense, I’d like to point out that I’d have to be really stupid to think that article was going to convince any Dopers that there is a legitimate scientist out there who thinks the moon rocks are false. I don’t think I’ve shown evidence of being that stupid.
Except when I said “Well, I figured they’d follow the link” and meant “follow the link from the space.com article they’d already been looking at.” That was stupid.
All right, BB, read this space.comarticle on the moon rocks. I’ll even give you a quote:
Argue with THAT. (“Ryder” is Graham Ryder, a geologist and staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston.) Not only that, the Russians have Moon samples of their own gathered by robotic spacecraft that flew in the 1970s. (NASA is going to try the same idea to get Martian rocks to Earth.) Simply comparing the Russian samples with the Apollo samples show that they all came from the Moon.
Bicky, can I ask you a personal question? … How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the Cold War? I don’t mean the “Raisa and Nancy Go Shopping Together” Years, I mean the Early Years, back when the Soviet Union really was the Evil Commie Empire? And we really, really disliked them, because they symbolized everything we were opposed to?
And they returned the favor by really, really disliking us? Because, to them, we were the Evil Capitalist Empire, and we symbolized everything they were opposed to?
Do you have any idea, any conception, how much they would have liked to have been able to prove that the moon rocks were fake? That the Evil Capitalists had lied, that they’d used The People’s Money to fake a moon landing, and had probably merely put The People’s Money into their own running dog Yankee imperialist pockets?
If the Russians didn’t believe The Evil Capitalists could put a man on the moon, if all that supposed “technology” was just movie F/X, why would they go in with us on the Soyuz project?
BickByro (is that a weird way of spelling “British Brand-Name Ball-Point Pen” or what?) wrote:
That depends. If “trajectory shift” does not include what appears to be “drifting” during the zig-zags, then no, I agree with that assessment. My hypothetical fully-analog pan/tilt head could explain that, as well, as more camera motion, but it’s a tremendous long-shot that Fendell was running such a thing, or, if he were, why he were making those zig-zags. Single-speed motors explain the trajectory shifts very well, if the drifting can be attributed to the LM.
You may go right ahead and do that, if you want. I prefer the “top-down” approach to “bottom-up” in cases like this. I just don’t have time to become an aerospace engineer, a geologist, a photographer, or any of a number of other professions.
And this is one of the reasons why this thread is in Great Debates: what merits?
To allow you to maintain your ignorance in disciplines you’re interested in? I don’t think so. As others have pointed out, in different words, you appear to be rejecting a lot of “as close as I can” type answers, asking to be further educated in the disciplines involved. JayUtah almost wrote a thesis, which told me far more than I think I will ever need to know about exhaust plumes (thanks, Jay).
Good grief. Why?
Yes, let’s do so.
As far as I’m concerned, the mounds come from inverting the colors. Whoops, then again, on this page we read, “A complex of domical structures about 5 km north of the landing site constituted another objective of the mission. The hills may be made of volcanic domes superposed on the surrounding mare or buried domical structures thinly covered by the mare-like material.” Well, these domes won’t appear on the detail photo - it’s not big enough.
No. Photos A and C (on my page) are definitely of the same place on the Moon. Photo C is much more “zoomed in,” though, showing only the East-most bend of Hadley Rille. Photo E is an extreme close-up detail from photo C (the red box in the last photo on my page is where I think that detail is from on photo C, from matching up bright spots), and is the only photo where the landing site appears to be very close to centered.
And as to being centered - the Clementine Navigator coordinates are centered in the frames. If you ask for things that are centered on Apollo 15, plus or minus 0.25 degrees, but the nearest photo was centered 0.5 degrees west, it won’t turn up in the search results. With this in mind, the space.com full-size JPEG is 650x514 pixels (but only the top 421 pixels are from a Clementine photo). Point A is roughly centered on pixel (367,223), which means the photo itself is centered 22 pixels west of, and 13 pixels north of, point A.
Now, at the equator on the Moon, one degree is roughly equal to 35 miles, or 56 km. At the latitude of Apollo 15, it would be about 50.5 km. This would make 0.25 degrees equal to 12.6 km, and therefore, for that picture to be centered more than 0.25 degrees away from Apollo 15 horizontally, each pixel would have to be more than 573 meters across. The few Clementine photos I’ve checked in detail had resolutions all under 200 meters per pixel, which tells me that that photo should show up in the tightest search.
However, according to the ALSJ, they planned to land 1787 meters north of checkpoint 1, and 775 meters east of it. They missed, and landed 600 meters farther north, and 175 meters west, so the distance between the LM and CP1 (the eastern-most point on the edge of Hadley Rille), was 2387 meters north/south and 600 meters east/west, or 2461 meters as the giant lunar mutant crow flies. Looking again at the space.com photo, I estimate that CP1 would be at pixel (354,258), a difference of 13 pixels east/west, and 35 pixels north/south, or 37 pixels, giving us a resolution of just 66.5 meters per pixel! This means that 0.25 degrees is actually 189 pixels. In other words, more than enough to include the center of the space.com photo.
Now, armed with all this, we go back to the Clementine Navigator, click on “Form-based search,” check UV/VIS camera, click “Geometry,” enter 26.1 to 26.2 for latitude, and 3.4 to 3.5 for longitude (discovered experimentally), and click “search.” I get 214 images. Testing one of them (LUC3413L.299) does indeed show the area we’re interested in, and after downloading it and using the automatic balance feature for brightness, contrast, and gamma, I can even see a bright spot at or near where Apollo 15 should be. What’s the problem?
The problem is that the UV/VIS camera, as far as I’m concerned, is mis-named. The 415 nm band is UV, but the next-higher single band, at 750, is set for a band of red light which is just barely visible to humans. The other single bands are even father out into infrared. The 650 broadband filter is probably the one we want to see. I only slightly digress. The image tested was taken with the “C” filter, and things look just a tad odd, shadow-wise. The “C” filter takes pictures in the 900 nm band, which is well beyond human vision, so I suspect what I’m seeing is “normal,” but doesn’t look right because I’m not used to seeing that light. Or, perhaps it looks completely normal, and I’m just biased against seeing it that way. Anyway…
So, go back to the search form, unclick UV/VIS, but click “650 (broadband)” to the right of UV/VIS instead. Rerun the search, and we get 34 images, every one of which has a blank white thumbnail. One test provides an image that is just white pixels. Downloading it as a TIFF image, instead, results in more white pixels. This sucks. I suspect for the broadband images, the only way to resolve anything is to enhance the original dataset properly, which I have no time to do.
So, go back yet again, and select just the 750 nm band (“B” filter), since this is close to human vision. 36 images this time. Downloading and enhancing LUB3488L.299 results in a picture in which all three points on the space.com photo are brightish dots (the landing site being least bright). The shadows in Hadley Rille are generally as one would expect them with a low eastern sun. Looking for a less-compressed image might help. Switching the search to 415 nm (“A” filter) results in pretty much the same thing. These are good. They support the theory that the space.com photo is a negative.
These “A” and “B” filter images are as close as we can get to a “normal light” photo of the area. These photos do not show the incredible black/white contrast of the space.com photo, nor do they show the bizarre shadow angles. It occured to me that instead of doing simple contrast enhancements, the researchers could have been overlaying a bunch of the photos, and “adding” them together to increase the contrast. If so, if they missed the alignment by a little, the anomalies will appear larger (the landing site anomaly looks too big to me), and God-knows-what would happen to the Hadley Rille shadows. Such an additive process could also, perhaps, require negative images, although I can’t think up a good reason why they would.
It then occured to me that the HIRES camera has a different set of filters, including two well within the visible light range. Unfortunately, all 188 of the pictures of this area that were taken with that camera were at 750 nm, and not at 560 or 650, dangit. And with resolutions around 8 or 10 meters per pixel, it’s nearly impossible to figure out what you’re looking at. Actually, the farthest east I found a photo with HIRES was at 3.43 degrees longitude, some 10 km west of the Apollo 15 landing site (at 3.634 degrees), so nothing in those extreme close-ups would have matched at all, since, even at 10 meters per pixel, the right-hand edge of such a photo would have been about 8 km too far west.
The NIR camera has lots of photos of the area, but they all appear to be rotated 90 degrees CCW. They’ve also got lots of white dots in them I assume are temperature “jitters.” They’re also low-resolution, and only what would be point C from the space.com photo looks significantly brighter (the landing site is just a fairly-uniform gray). The LWIR also has photos, but they’re zoomed way in (not as much as HIRES photos, but still enough to lose all context of what you’re looking at).
No, the unwritten option, “DaveW doesn’t know how to use the Clementine Navigator properly,” was the correct one. Perhaps, though, the problem we were both having before is that the Navigator has the location of Apollo 15 wrong. Upon rechecking this, entering a search for UV/VIS photos centered within 0.5 degrees of APOLLO 15 results in 12 images all taken nearly 3 full degrees west of the actual landing site. I do believe that there’s a typo, then, in the Navigator “Features” database.
Well, knowing that the image is lit from the east, the craters look much more real in the positive image than in the negative. In the negative, with the light from the east, they look like flat-topped mounds. The only way they look like craters is if they’re lit from the west, and that’d be pretty unlikely near lunar dawn.
If I’ve got a choice, the latter is, indeed, preferrable. Thanks for the appreciation, and thanks for giving me an opportunity (excuse) to mess with, and think about, these things. I hope to see the results of your own research soon.
Well, the above is about as far as I’m willing to go right now. And that’s chewed up way too much time as I got sucked in farther and farther. Had I not been out sick today, I would have done much less.
They did have four of their heavy-lift rockets explode on the launchpad (I think). The comrades running the space program for the USSR probably accepted some sort of defeat long before then, but were driven on by higher-ups due to political concerns.
Thanks for supplying your thought processes leading up to your mention of the Space.com article on the contamination of lunar surface material. I’ll be happy to concede that you simply made a handful of mistakes which conveyed an impression you didn’t intend, and to essentially drop the issue, if you’d be willing to concede that this and other such mistakes on your part (e.g., choice of thread title) contribute in large measure to your feeling that we’re somehow persecuting you.
jab1: I’m not going to argue with that. The rocks came from the moon. If that leads you to the conclusion that there was no hoax, PERIOD, well, that’s your choice.
Duck Duck Goose: I am a little bit paranoid! And while normally the “how old are you” question is a hidden way of saying “if I’m older than you, I’m smarter,” I know that you’ve always been there for me in these discussions. So I’m 25, born during the last months of the Ford administration. I don’t think Apollo-Soyuz was faked (technically, I don’t think any of it was faked, but I am concerned that it might be). But, of course, if the Russians could bring back rocks with space probes, so could we…
DaveW: Actually, it’s not just British—the U.S. pen was called the Bic Biro until around 1990, when it became the “Bic Round Stic.” I’m a hooking left-hander, and it was the only pen that didn’t either smear or run out of ink when held at my writing angle. Plus I write professionally, so there’s a small double meaning there.
Okay!
Well, that’s what we’re here to find out…
But I didn’t reject Jay’s “thesis,” now did I?
Well, obviously it would be easier to put men in orbit around the earth for a few weeks than to send them to the moon, land, and return.
Sorry about the bracketed asides… Anyhow, well, unfortunately I’m a bit busy right now (we’re moving at work today! just downstairs, but still…) so I’ll have to get back to this, unless you’ve got a specific feature in mind.
Okay, okay. But now you’ve got me really perplexed: what look like mounds on the photo you provided turned into craters when I inverted the colors; this is what led me to believe you were looking at a negative in the first place. Now you say the mounds come from inverting the colors… I’m confused!
What? Where’d the rest come from? Or are you just talking about that text bar at the bottom?
Anyhow, your long discourse on the Clementine Navigator looks intriguing, but I haven’t the opportunity right now to go through all the steps with you, so I can’t really follow it. I will get there, though…
Well, that part I can understand even without the Navigator cued up. Thanks for the clarification!
They still don’t look like mounds to me when the colors are inverted. But once we get down to specifics, hopefully that’ll clear up.
Me too!
The above, combined with all the other links and assorted info provided in this thread, will be more than enough to keep me busy for a while! Get yourself well!
Well, they were obviously able to get an unmanned probe to the moon and back; why not throw a person or two in there?
And now, for the beginning of the response to JayUtah I didn’t post last night…
Well, I got a chance to look at the site posted by GIGObuster, and they do say there that “the thrust in a vacuum is spherically shaped, as opposed to a tight, coherent tube on Earth,” but other than that I haven’t yet found anything that seems contrary to the points you made.
Well, the debunkers don’t use particularly precise terminology, and I’ve been working with the proofs they’ve presented. I certainly appreciate your efforts to make this discussion more precise. But I don’t think anybody reading The Bad Astronomer’s site looking for information would have come to the conclusion that the descent of the LEM created any sort of blinding dust effect.
Okay.
I just don’t buy it; they would’ve been on me like flies on crap no matter what. Maybe if I had never participated in a moon hoax thread before… maybe. Still, I think Dopers’ suspicions would have been up from the get-go. “What are you really driving at, Bick?” etc.
Well, others have postulated that such extreme movements would have damaged the ship and/or its pilots.
Well, I hadn’t considered that possibility, to be honest. I suppose I’ll be frustrated.
Well, I figured if I didn’t display some understanding that this subject has been tackled on the SDMB before (hence the “Yes, It’s Another…”) then I would have been treated to a bunch of links and dismissive comments. And again, it’s no secret that I’ve been the devil’s advocate for the Moon Hoax before…
You could have at least waited for me to respond to your thrust-physics lesson before you decided I had idly contended it.
Well, I suppose that’s something…
Yes, I was generalizing. I just think your time would have been better spent giving me the physics lesson first before telling me how logically unfounded it is for me to even consider any possibility other than that the landings were real.
I certainly ask for clarification. I think, when I actually disagree with something, I provide reasons why I disagree (whether those reasons are found to be valid is a different story, of course). But yes, there is some devil’s advocacy going on. Like I said, if reasonable people don’t ask the questions, that leaves only the whackos to ask them.
Well, you asked!
It’s as relevant as ever, and I’m sorry you just don’t see it. I’m obviously willing to continue this conversation even if you don’t think I follow the proper rules of induction; I’m much more interested in learning how thrusters work on the moon than endlessly debating whether the dog analogy is valid. If you’re cool with that, great!
When did I do this? I thought I had rather graciously accepted your thruster-physics lesson as the words of one who obviously knows more than I do about the subject.
I’m referring to those in this very thread who have tried to invalidate or belittle my argument by pointing out the mistakes others have made. If you don’t fit into this category, you’re exempt; perhaps I remembered wrongly. My apologies.
They’re totally compatible—misinformation from debunkers is arguably worse than misinformation from hoax believers. At least, I think it’s arguable.
Yeah, that was before you got specific and did prove it (or the next best thing).
The underdog is one who would be “stupid enough” to consider the possibility of a moon hoax.
Perhaps, but even when the debunkers are running the show, mistakes are made. That bugs me, evidently more than it bugs you.
Well, my hat’s off to you. Honestly. And lucky you for getting to see so much of this stuff hands-on. I got in a moon-suit at Space Camp and that’s about as far as it goes…
I was under the impression dust clouds were impossible on the moon, but I always left open the option that they were possible and that The Bad Astronomer (and many others, of course, he’s hardly the only one) may have made a mistake. I was always very clear to say “if dust clouds are impossible, then seeing dust clouds in allegedly lunar footage proves the footage is not from the moon.” Contrast that statement with “Dust clouds are impossible on the moon so if we see dust clouds then the footage is fake,” and I think you’ll see that I was proceeding with caution.
Do you not see how huge a difference this makes? Several countries have managed to send satellites into orbit, only two have managed to send humans. Sending someone to the moon and getting them back is orders of magnitude more difficult than sending a probe.
Besides, the Russian moon program is fairly well documented and their failures plain to see. It’s logic like you demonstrate in this statement that causes me to take your entire line of reasoning with a grain of salt. If you aren’t willing to educated yourself on the basics, why should I take your arguments seriously?
I just re-read this and it sounds rather harsh, but a statement like that is so far detatched from reality that it seemed to sum up this thread.
Here are the relevant sections of the NASA press kit describing the lunar rover’s television camera assembly.
A J-mission LM ascent stage has a dry earth weight of 4,690 pounds and a propellant load of approximately 5,220 earth pounds (includes APS fuel but not RCS fuel) giving a liftoff earth weight of 9,910 pounds, or a lunar weight of 1,652 pounds. The APS thrust is fixed at 3,500 pounds giving a net force on the ascent stage of 1,848 pounds in the ascent direction. This results in an ascent rate of 5.98 fps per second (1.83 m/sec^2).
I don’t have precise figures at hand for the mass flow rate of the APS propellants, but if memory serves they are at a combined rate of approximately 10 pounds per second. This means that the ascent rate of the LM will itself increase at a rate of 0.04 fps every second, or negligibly over the few seconds captured by the LRV camera.
If the LRV camera is placed 300 feet from the ascent stage and tilted upward at the rate of three degrees per second at the instant of ignition, the question is whether this is a faster or slower ascent rate than the lunar module. The following table may help. TIME is the number of seconds after engine ignition. CAM.TILT is the camera tilt angle in degrees. CAM.AIM is the altitude in feet of a point along a theoretical vertical line 300 feet from the camera – the LM ascent track until insertion pitchover. This would be the point at the center of the television frame. LM.ALT is the altitude of the lunar module ascent stage in feet.
Initially the camera would outrace the spacecraft, tilting upward at too fast a rate. Although the rate at which the aim point ascends due to angular parallax increases, it does not increase fast enough. The initial displacement of the aim point is about 16 feet. The last displacement computed (at T+9) is only 19 feet. As the camera approaches a tilt angle of 60 degrees, the aim point displacement rate has increased to only 68 feet per second.
The spacecraft ascent rate is about 6 fps per second, but at T+9 the velocity is already 54 fps, far outstripping the camera’s vertical displacement rate at that instant.
At T+11 the LM pitches over to begin the orbital insertion phase. From this point on, the ascent is no longer purely vertical. Pitchover is in the direction away from the LRV camera, so from the camera’s point of view it would stop ascending and begin simply moving away from it.
The conclusion drawn from this is that the tilt rate of the camera is not harmonious with the ascent rate of the lunar module, but that we can expect several seconds during which the lunar module is within the frame of the video camera. But it would be quite impossible to keep the image of the LM centered or motionless in the frame before pitchover. The rates of motion cannot be equalized at all time points.
I think “in large measure” may be overstating the case, as I certainly felt “persecuted” long before the moon-rocks article came up. I still feel my choice of thread title is irrelevant; I firmly believe would have gotten nailed no matter what, simply for having questions about the Apollo record. I attempted to be as forthcoming as possible by putting the Moon Hoax thing front and center (and again, it would only have been a matter of time before some Doper “blew my cover” by pointing out my previous participation in a Moon Hoax thread). Besides, anyone basing their comments to me strictly on my thread title is hardly worth wasting my typing energy on. Those who read deeper than the title should understand my motives better.
Telemark: I think you may have missed it. Sending satellites into orbit is one thing. Sending a probe to the moon, loading it up with rocks, and returning it to earth intact is something else entirely.
I understood exactly what you were saying. And it’s still wrong. Sending an unmanned probe to the moon, collecting samples, and returning it safely to earth is still several orders of magnitude easier than sending a human to the moon.
Why did the Russians need such a huge lifting rocket, one that they couldn’t engineer and kept blowing up on the pad? Because of all the fuel and equipment needed to send a person to the moon. Think of the systems for oxygen, food, water, heat, waste disposal, g-forces, landing, taking off, communications, etc that are needed for people.
Are you suggesting that the Russians were prevented from doing this? Are you suggesting that they could have done this but chose not to? What are you suggesting? The history of the Russian space program is now available for anyone to read. Sorry if I don’t have a good link, anyone out there got one?
Look, the Russians tried. They were hell bent for leather at beating the Americans and they just couldn’t do it. It was too expensive and too difficult and too complex for them to do. Your question makes it sound like something else was going on, when it’s pretty clear that nothing was.
Maybe, but the comment is directed toward the sentiment I expressed in objection to your opinion that debunkers have it easy. When these conspiracy theories are scrutinized by people well versed in evaluating arguments, they don’t even make it to bat. They are summarily dismissed with good cause.
The conspiracy theory arguments literally have no merits.
But you don’t accept anything less, which is becoming tedious.
Is this intended to be a serious comparison?
They’re wrong. First, “thrust” describes the force imparted to the spaceframe by the engine. It’s a concept, not something you can see. What they mean to describe by the word “thrust” is better expressed by the word “plume”.
Second, a spherical plume wouldn’t result in any thrust. The plume has to be collinear or it simply fails to function as a rocket.
It is true, however, that a plume expands more in a vacuum than in an atmosphere given the same nozzle design. You can see this effect in almost any rocket launch. As the rocket climbs, the plume expands. This is because the nozzle has been tuned for sea level. But for rockets designed to operate exclusively in a vacuum the expansion can be lessened by simply widening the nozzle. There will still be expansion, but not nearly as much as occurs from an atmospheric nozzle used in a vacuum.
Irrelevant. I’ve been using precise terminology since Day One, and your responses to me have rewritten my terminology ambiguously. You demand a great deal of rigor from debunkers, so I feel justified in demanding commensurate rigor from you.
Irrelevant. Can we get past the Bad Astronomer at some point?
That’s your supposition. You didn’t try it so you’ll never know. Your approach seems to be, “They would have ragged on me anyway, so I might as well act like the hoaxster they think I am.” And now you’re upset because you’re being treated like a hoaxster. No surprise to me.
As I said, I get questions from Apollo believers all the time wanting to know what’s really up with the photos. They want to know what the real scoop is on radiation or lighting or flight dynamics. They manage to ask me their questions and get polite responses without being immediately considered a hoax believer.
Such extreme movements would have been apparent in the ascent film shot from the LMP’s window. Now that we have quantitatively examined the characteristics of the LRV camera and the characteristics of the LM ascent module, it seems clear that the apparent motion of the LM ascent module is due to disparity between the camera and the trajectory.
Many of the moon hoax questions have been answered, some were answered in 1975. I have started collecting the answers together into a web site, and others such as B.A., Redzero, and the LunarAnomalies.com crowd have done as well. None of these ought to be considered the definitive word, but taken together they will converge toward the right answer over time.
Links are great. Discussion, where pre-existing answers aren’t yet available, is next best. Dismissive comments start to look attractive after you’ve answered the same question eight or nine dozen times.
It’s a secret to me. I’m a newcomer.
You have quite a nasty habit of rewriting my arguments to seem less plausible than when I wrote them.
I never argued that it was unfounded to consider other possibilities besides a true landing. I argued that the inductive process you were using to support a different hypothesis was not formulated to provide such support. I even outlined the requirements of an inductive case that would provide such support.
In any case, direct rebuttal of inductive evidence is messy, time-consuming, and tedious. When an argument contains formulative flaws it’s much easier to reject the argument on those grounds since such an argument cannot succeed regardless of the validity of the evidence. It requires only a knowledge of logic and a bit of thought. Replying to your evidence has so far required consulting four reference manuals and textbooks.
Arguments are like houses. They are built according to a design, using materials. The evidence is analogous to the materials. The design may be sound, but the materials (evidence) weak, leading to failure. But determining the strength of the materials requires hands-on testing. The house plans are analogous to the formulation of the argument. They can be evaluated solely by visual inspection. If the plan is faulty, no amount of strength in the material can compensate.
Now I may simply have misunderstood your argument intially. I’m sure that’s what you believe. But until we both had a good idea of the design of your argument it didn’t make a whole lot of sense to talk about the particulars of it.
Then reap what you sow. Some people will respond to that defensively or with brusqueness. You’ll have to live with the consequences of the approach you’ve chosen.
I echo the contention of others who say that reasonable people often realize the questions have no merit, therefore they refrain from asking them.
No. You provided the argument which proved it was irrelevant – a hierarchy of ignorance.
But inasmuch as neither of us wants to talk about it further, I won’t bring it up again.
I believe you said the cone-shaped plume was inconclusive until I provided a very detailed and quantitative explanation.
I’m not offended. I’m just puzzled by your objection to being treated stereotypically when you display the propensity to do the same to debunkers.
That’s simply a matter of which side of the argument you favor.
I have ironclad proof that a few of the “biggie” conspiracy theorists are deliberately suppressing and avoiding evidence they know will destroy their case. Yet they profess a desire to find the truth.
I have yet to see any such duplicity from debunkers. I see mistakes made in the attempt to comprehend difficult subjects. I see opinions offered where the historical record is ambiguous. I see hypothesis where evidence falls short. There’s no end to the number of imperfections in the debunking arguments. But I have yet seen no evidence of malicious intent. I have, however, seen it from individual hoax enthusiasts.
I suspect there’s no use perpetuating the meta-discussion of who’s committed to gentlemanly debate or who isn’t. We are converging, albeit over rocky ground, toward answers to your questions and we should all be happy about that.
I recognize your demographic but don’t agree.
Considering the possibility of a moon hoax is not per se stupid. You asked me earlier if I had any doubts, and I mentioned inductive skepticism, or “reasonable doubt”. I don’t know if that counts, but inductive strength relies on the premise that all hypotheses are possible to some extent, even if many are highly improbable.
Consideration “for the sake of argument” must be genuine in order to be valuable. This is the process through which many here are trying to guide you, by asking for prima facie evidence, the premises to various hypotheses, and so forth.
Although I think “stupid” is too general and insultive a term to apply here, the only “stupid” person in my eyes is someone who claims to have made a reasonably thorough examination of the problem and argues that a hoax actually or probably occurred. And to me these people fall into these basic categories: those who believe it because they are predisposed toward it by other beliefs, those who believe it because they lack the specific knowledge to refute it for themselves, and those who intend to make money off it. I have no patience for this latter category, into which I would place Bart Sibrel, David Percy, Bill Kaysing, and others.
And you’re welcome to your opinion. Any inductive process will contain errors. Any investigational process will contain errors. Any process involving the application of expertise will contain errors. Even if the purest possible motives are assumed for all participants, error will occur. Thus I don’t consider error itself a great impediment to the acquisition of understanding and the convergence toward truth.
I am always more concerned with the source of error. Is it an honest mistake? Is it the interpretation of ambiguous or conflicting information? Is it malice? Is it concealment? Is it inherent to the process?
It is an almost universal argument among conspiracy theorists that all debunkers are to be dismissed as soon as one of them commits an error. The discussion is framed so that debunkers have a much higher standard of proof than the conspiracists. As has been said many, many times: if you expect 100% consistency and 100% explicability, you will be disappointed, for no one in any field of inquiry achieves this.
In some cases the conspiracists spend years acquiring evidence and constructing their cases. Flawed though they may be, they are often very complex and adorned with vast amounts of documentary evidence. Yet often the debunker is expected to have a commensurately thorough answer at a moment’s notice. In many cases the answer is apparent, but in most cases it is not.
Consider the “blast crater” argument:
Conspiracist: The LM engine should have dug a huge crater in the lunar surface. Debunker: I don’t think it was that powerful. Conspiracist: I require proof.
Many months ago I performed hours’ worth of research and tedious computations to show that the gas loading from the DPS plume would amount to about 80 pounds per square foot, or about the customary loading of a domestic floor. Nobody could follow the computations and so really didn’t accept the result. It took several months to find an example that demonstrated the concepts to laymen: a Hawker Harrier produces 27,000 pounds of thrust, almost ten times that of the LM descent motor, yet we don’t see huge craters dug under those. Now my computations lie largely unused, because I found a better argument.
If you spend five years writing a complicated book and then present it to the public, you have to give your critics five years to compose a response. But most people want discussion now, and so if that’s the case then we have to make do with temporary arguments that may turn out to be imcomplete or faulty.
And even when the conspiracist argument is simple (as in the example above), the answer is often very complicated. Note how no conspiracists ever provide any computations or engineering expertise to support the “blast crater” hypothesis. It appeals to common sense, but common sense is wrong here. The accusation is cursory, but a commensurately cursory response is never accepted.
It comes back to my contention that debunking a conspiracy theory is very much more difficult than proposing one. If you’re doing something that’s inherently more complicated, then you should be given a higher tolerance for error.
Then you’re into pure induction.
Yes, I noted the conditional. But you behaved for a time as if it were a priori knowledge that your condition was satisfied. Now we both agree that it was not to be considered a priori, therefore your object required proof of the antecedent. You now also agree that the antecedent has been rejected, therefore the point fails and the induction is not supported.
You may have believed you were proceeding with caution, but it was not apparent. There was considerable disparity in what you made explicit and what you implied through other arguments.
BickByro, while it is true I did post that link, you ignored that I presented that link just to show how even conspiracy minded people can look at the evidence and still reach the conclusion that the video and photos of the lunar surface and astronauts are indeed the real thing.
As a site to look for precise technical information, Lunaranomalies is not a good place to get it; they concentrate mostly in the photographic evidence. They are not experts in everything.
But this leads to another complaint: you tried to use information from a web site that debunks the hoax proponents in an attempt to debunk the debunkers. Things like that was the reason why I am using the analogy of the loony toones that ignore the reality that they are walking on air after they have made the mistake of going over the precipice.
I notice also that even today you have not bother to comment on the secuence of videos and photos that I posted (are you scared of shadows?), you see, the sequence of the photos and the videos is important to get the feel of the terrain and camera placements.
To see how the displaced dust and other materials look in the moon, there is a good view of it in the original landing:
And in the liftoff of Apollo 15: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15v.1713552.ram
If this was done on earth the air would keep most of the particles floating for a while. In the moon, after the rocket plume is gone, ALL the dust and other particles fall down quickly to the lunar surface.
Huh. The only time I’d ever heard the word ‘Biro’ was from Brits. Go figure. I’m just glad I got it mostly right.
Well, no. You aren’t arguing any of the ‘real’ hoaxer’s points (except I did just find something close: a German Web page which says that the space.com article is a joke because the Moon lander’s exhaust couldn’t affect the surface in any noticable way = they’ve even got a picture of the LM on the surface with a caption that says, basically, “where’s the crater we’re supposedly seeing in this Clementine photo?”).
Anyway, your questions may have merit, in the sense that they are valid questions (“why does this look like it does?”). But any argument you make in which you base your belief of possible NASA shenanigans on the fact that two debunkers disagree, or that you’re not satisfied by any of the possibilities when it’s largely impossible to make definitive statements about what did or didn’t happen, does not have merit. You’d basically be saying, “hey, since you can’t satisfy me, or since you folks have different, incompatible explanations, I must (or ‘might’, if you prefer) be right,” which doesn’t follow either premise at all (regardless of qualifiers). Heck, both premises are incorrect in that they fail to address the greater reality (that your satisfaction is necessary to make things ‘real’, or that two people with experience can’t disagree once in a while without making both viewpoints wrong). And this is the major flaw with most, if not all, of the ‘real’ hoax theories: a flawed premise. Without a sound and valid premise, an argument lacks merit.
Um, no, reject is a strong word there, but you since have questioned one aspect of it, an aspect which throws the rest into question. Is your point, again, to show that debunkers can’t agree on anything?
Actually, that’s not the “why?” I was asking. “Why does Kaysing think so?” is what I was asking. Anyway, as has been pointed out, faking photos and video on the Moon, and keeping the (at least) hundreds of people “in the know” quiet for so many years, would probably have been much more difficult in the late 1960’s than actually sending men there. Seems to me that the “easier” argument falls flat as being more difficult.
No, take your time. I’m much more interested in finding out what features you think look like mounds in the positive photo, anyway. As I think I’ve implied, I can see them either way, if I mentally move the Sun.
To me, the craters in the original photo turn into mounds after inverting the colors. To you, it’s apparently the other way around.
Yes, the text bar on the bottom is 93 pixels high - it’s not part of the photo proper, so in talking about where the photo was centered, it was only right to ignore that section of the JPEG.
I’ll be waiting. By the way, I sent an email off to Shkuratov, since I couldn’t find an email address for Kreslavsky. With a little luck, the response will be “yes, the space.com photo was a negative,” but I’m not going to hold my breath for a reply at all.
Sure. I think I’ll send a note to the Navigator’s Webmaster.
Right. Very different. All four of the Soviet rockets designed to lift men to the Moon (the N1s) blew up or were blown up by range safety officials (but none had men on them, they were all tests). One of them destroyed pad 2 of the launch complex, and damaged pad 1 and the N1 mockup sitting on it - a two-year setback for the manned program. Between 2/19/69 and 9/11/70, the Soviets had nothing to show but six failures for both of their primary lunar programs (two testing manned-mission equipment, and four unmanned, one of which failed by crashing into the Moon instead of landing on it - on the same day that Armstrong took his one small step). The first Soviet unmanned sample-and-return mission that succeeded landed on the Moon on September 12, 1970, and returned a few grams of soil to the Earth. Read all about the Soviet Space Program here.
On another note, I found two articles from NASA that ought to interest you. One is an answer to FOX’s Conspiracy Theory show, an article which includes a great two-liner: “Fortunately the Soviets didn’t think of the gag first. They could have filmed their own fake Moon landings and really embarrassed the free world” (of course they’d have had problems, since, as the above history points out, the CIA knew that their launchpad had been destroyed - it wasn’t like nobody was watching either ‘side’ in the contest). That article spends quite some time on the rocks. The other is a PDF-formatted reprint of a 1977 article, mostly about the lunar regolith.
JayUtah wrote:
Thank you. I’d thought as much, given what’s in the video.
…thus implying that the “proof” of the moon rocks could have been faked, that we didn’t need to actually put a man on the moon; we could have simply sent a robot to fetch some moon rocks.
Except that the Russians didn’t bring back moon rocks with space probes–they brought back 100 grams of soil.
To convert grams into pounds, you multiply by .002205. So Luna 16 brought back .2205 pounds, or 22/100 of a pound, or less than a quarter-pound, of soil. That’s the size of a stick of butter.
The Apollo mission brought back 842 pounds. Of rocks. Would anyone in this thread care to speculate on how big a probe that would have required?
You’re going to have to postulate a secret probe, a completely secret expedition to the Moon to fetch some rocks to bolster our claims to have landed a man on the moon.
And if we could build a “probe” big enough, and sturdy enough, to bring back 842 pounds of rocks, why couldn’t we just stick three guys inside it, and send them along, too?
Bicky, here’s the main problem, as I see it:
In your reasoning forebrain, the seat of your rational human thought, you don’t “think” it was faked, but in your unreasoning reptile hindbrain, the seat of your emotions, you “feel” it might be. You’re worried it might be faked.
But, see, all the data in the world, all the hoax debunkers, all the lectures about camera apertures and dust clouds, can’t help you with your “worries”. They can only help you with your “thought”, and you’ve already admitted that on the “thought” level, you’re fine with the moon landings.
So I really don’t think it’s fair for you to keep people like JayUtah hanging on by going, “Yes, but…Yes, but…” All the serious Great Debaters in this thread haven’t come here to hold your hand and say, “There, there, if you’ll just have a little faith, NASA never asks us to believe more than we can bear…” They’ve come here to give you evidence, and to help you with your “thought”, and it’s been four pages now, and you’ve got more solid evidence than I personally have ever seen in a “moon landing hoax” thread.
I think it’s time to let it go, Bicky, and let these nice people get back to debating. If you want your hand held because you’re worried that NASA is lying to you, we have a forum for that–MPSIMS.
I got a reply from Shkuratov. He said the photo isn’t really a photo, but is actually a phase-ratio image. Given that, all bets are off as to whether or not any particular anomaly will be brighter or darker (depends on the data used to make the image, the regolith being imaged, latitude, and other things).
I have been unable to locate any good ‘primers’ on phase-ratio images, but I did find this PDF file, which gives a good idea of what they’re doing. Even gives me a reasonable explanation of why the technique won’t work on Apollo landing sites other than 15 (not enough decent data from Clementine to create the ratio).
Perhaps, though, the problem we were both having before is that the Navigator has the location of Apollo 15 wrong. Upon rechecking this, entering a search for UV/VIS photos centered within 0.5 degrees of APOLLO 15 results in 12 images all taken nearly 3 full degrees west of the actual landing site. I do believe that there’s a typo, then, in the Navigator “Features” database.