LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2016, 06:29 PM   #61
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335


@sundialsvcs -
Let's see....scientists at least by 1958 (yes, that's Fifty-Eight) could plot complex orbit course, timing, and telemetry, factoring in multiple bodies' orbits and gravity to send probes to the Moon, later but before Apollo, to Mars and Venus and orbit the moon, etc but couldn't determine "the right size of the Earth" for a doctored still photo. Yeah. That makes sense

The most questioned "photo rigging" was addressed in Mythbusters as well as elsewhere. Obviously sundialsvcs either didn't watch the show or refused to consider objective evidence.

I have little doubt that you came to your own conclusions but after this thread I also have no doubt that your conclusion is now an intractable "sacred cow", utterly closed to any evidence to the contrary. Judging by your "9/11 was an inside job" conclusions I suspect distrust of government plays a big part of that pattern. I just don't quite understand why that extends to unaffiliated sources. Lest you forget private and amateur backyard astronomers have been responsible, for just one example, of discovering the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 that collided with Jupiter and even plotted it's course for that collision. They may be "amateur" but they are by no means inept nor limited instrumentally for simple Moon data verification.

...and STILL you decline to comment on LRRR.
 
Old 12-04-2016, 08:08 PM   #62
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Enorbet, let's agree not to psychoanalyze one another. I do not "distrust Government," any more or any less than I trust anyone else. I don't think that it's good form to engage in even the faintest "ad hominem" in pleasant water-cooler conversation. But one thing "about government" that have on several occasions been confronted with, is its willingness to advance a cover story.

With regard to 9/11, I actually understand the state-secret need not to reveal to anyone what actually happened, since to me that was a catastrophic and total penetration of a great many protective barriers, and we do not need to let the perps (who are still very much out there, whoever they were ...) what now is and is not known. Quite obviously, they knew too much already. "Knowledge is Power," and the face of War has changed forever.

But with regard to the Apollo missions, the situation is very different. Here, we have a government agency who in the 1950's through the 1970's spent a preposterous amount of public money to advance what turned out to be what still is an un-achievable goal. But, instead of admitting to the public that JFK's dream would have to wait a few more decades, they lied, and they basically did it so that the public money wouldn't stop pouring in to the coffers of their contractors. As mission gave way to mission, they even played golf ... forgetting, of course, that the plume of dust kicked up by the club did not act as it would have done in a lunar vacuum. (In their hubris, they "forgot" a helluva lot of things.)

Even in those days, their "too good to be true" successes were attracting skeptics. As the world became more familiar with special effects photography, people started looking even closer. But NASA continues to steadfastly deny everything, perhaps forgetting that the presence of anything necessarily invalidates the entire premise. After all, the official story is that all of these films "came from the Moon." Therefore, when even one of them fails reasonable scrutiny, then it effectively contradicts the entire official assertion that Apollo was ever anything more than "the most expensive movie ever made." There is no middle ground here. Because you cannot be two places at one time. If forensic examination of any photograph shows that it could not have been made on the Moon, then, "sux for you" that it all comes a'tumblin' down. There are hundreds of such "anomalous" photographs, and it only takes one.

Believe me, it does not make me happy to say that. nor to think that. Like everyone else, I want to believe what I was told to believe as a kid ... and yet, that I couldn't quite believe, even back then.
 
Old 12-05-2016, 12:29 AM   #63
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
@sundialsvcs - Just to be clear It wasn't a scurrilous assertion regarding distrust of government since I think it is quite healthy to distrust those in authority. My birthplace changes to Missouri when I hear politicians talk. However, that is a bias not a policy written in stone. I just need to see evidence that backs up their claims. Just like any trial both Prosecution and Defense can be very persuasive. The best any juror can do is ask questions when possible, check premises and prejudices and weigh the evidence. Thankfully, as flawed as our applied Jurisprudence may be, there is at least some opportunity to overthrow wrongful convictions.... commonly when new evidence arrives or when previous evidence can be shown to be flawed.

Your assertion that one single questionable photo (there's always at least two sides and often several possibilities) contradicts the entire mission is highly flawed when one considers that recent orbital surveyors have photographed hardware and rover tracks exactly where they should be. I get the impression that if you were standing on the surface of the Moon and with your own eyes saw the various hardware left behind, and the tracks of men and machines, you would try to figure out how they staged that just before you arrived.

Once again (and STILL not addressed by you) is the publicly available coordinates of the reflectors that could not have been placed there properly with any reasonable margin for error by a machine in circa 1969. It is objectively provable that they exist and exactly where stated. This is not belief. This is knowledge. Apparently you are an adept programmer and businessman but with no rancor or malicious intent I tell you your understanding of Physics and especially AstroPhysics is severely lacking compared to the multitudes who see Moon Landing Deniers as "delusional". I know of not one single titled, from BS to PhD, scientist, let alone Physicist, who denies the veracity of the Moon Landing. Not one, even including Russian and Chinese.

It is rarely a flaw to be skeptical but it is commonly a flaw ignore and disregard objective evidence. We may be on shaky ground discussing 2000 year old religion especially when there is no Corpus Dilicti, but in the case of the Apollo Program from 1969 - 1972 there are "corpses" that can be seen by common everyday people such as University students all over the world for many decades now, as well as the aforementioned new photos from orbiters.

As an aside the "preposterous amount of money" spent never exceeded roughly 10% of the Defense Budget and the benefits from that expenditure have made the life of virtually every living human being on planet earth since then substantially better in numerous fields. A propos to this thread had the R&D not been afforded for miniaturization necessary for space flight, such as the Rope Memory, your job and your life would be very different and not likely for the better. So many fields were so impacted and improved by such research and development that it is literally impossible to imagine this world today had the Apollo Program been scrubbed.
 
Old 12-05-2016, 09:01 AM   #64
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
I'm afraid that I won't believe NASA's orbital probe which shows "everything the way it should be," especially when I know the kind of optics that they are capable of putting on a satellite probe. (Hint: they can read your license plate, through the Earth's atmosphere.) No, unfortunately, NASA has far too much skin in the game ... to be objective.

Reflectors, likewise, can be dropped.

But ... I don't need to jump down that very-inviting rabbit hole. This sort of thinking would put me in the impossible position of trying to prove that something is true (given that I cannot "go there"), using the evidence of an already-known (to me) liar. I don't have to go there. No one has to fall for that. Instead, the burden of proof rests solely upon NASA.

NASA doesn't have to prove that it is right. Instead, it must continually prove that it isn't wrong.

That's a very, very important point.

For it is NASA who gave us thousands of public-domain photographs, video tapes and audio recordings, and asserts that every single one of them "came from the Moon." A single inconsistency, in a single image, is enough(!) to be a "smoking gun" to disprove the entire(!!) Apollo premise.

To repeat: Any one inconsistency, in thousands of images, audios and videos ... either "between one image and another," or with the proposition that what is being seen or filmed "happened on the Moon" ... is enough to invalidate everything. And there are books of them.

For instance, on the next bright sunny cloudless day, in the afternoon, I'd like you to go a dry beach anywhere on Earth, face due North, place four rocks and a five-gallon paint bucket can on the ground, and take just one picture. (Go ahead and throw a few small pebbles into the scene, farther away, just for good measure.) The shadow cast by the bucket must stretch due East. (Well, it will be slightly Southeast, but never mind.) Meanwhile, the shadows cast by the four rocks and the pebbles, no matter where they landed in the frame, must point more than 45 toward the South-Southeast, and all of the rock-shadows (close to your camera or more distant), must converge on a point beyond the northwest corner of your picture. None of them may stretch to the East as the bucket's shadow does. The only source of light may be the light of the sun: no reflectors or other lamps, no off-screen buildings or objects. You'll find in due time that it is impossible to take that picture.

Impossible.

The fact that you cannot take that picture on Earth, whereas NASA claims to have taken that picture on the Moon, alone(!) is enough to disprove 100%(!!!) of NASA's house-of-cards. As I said, "it's all or nothing." It all comes tumbling down.

(I'm not going to ask you to calculate what would be the proper length of that "orbiter shadow," if the light source were actually the Sun, hitting the Moon at the place it was said to have hit, at the time the photo was said to have been taken ... all of which we can easily compute now. Hint: "that's wrong, too.")

But the list of problems goes on and on, and you've heard them all before:
  • Pictures with no stars in them, when a camera is pointed away from the sun with no atmosphere. (Video has this thing called "white balance," but photographic film does not. If a photon strikes the film, in the absence of atmosphere, it makes a mark.) Pictures of Earth from the Moon where the Earth is the wrong size. (It's more or less "moon size." It had to be consistent with those ridiculous shots out of the capsule window ... the ones with blue sky(!) visible in other windows ... the ones taken when a spacecraft with no backward-pointing windows was supposed to be pointing away from Earth.)
  • Dust that doesn't behave like dust would behave on an utterly dry low-gravity Moon with no atmosphere; that instead does behave exactly as dust would do on Earth in our atmosphere. "We're kicking up some dust here" but the craters aren't being blown.
  • The change in size of the "lunar terrain," although it does change somewhat, doesn't match the reported change in altitude. The lander is dropping like a stone while moving possibly close to a hundred miles an hour sideways and it ... and it ... kisses the ground, perfectly level, not a smudge of dust, with a pockmark under its rocket in the undisturbed soil. (The astronauts, speaking in perfect silence despite a rocket engine inches from their feet, simply say, "contact light." With absolutely no padding in that telephone boot spacecraft, they should have been grievously injured by the impact and their space-suits probably punctured.)
  • Astronauts that cast no(!) shadows, or astronauts standing a few feet away from another astronaut whose shadow is half again as long as his. Seven-foot-wide lunar rovers that don't roll over but that take near-90 turns while throwing puffs of dust that behave precisely as they would on Earth but not on the Moon. A single sideways footprint. A footprint of a (stagehand's) sneaker. Broom marks. Stage lettering. Wires.

Truly, it's been done to death. Because there are thousands of photographs ... so many, in fact, that the astronauts would have had to have been taking several photos a minute during the carefully-documented length of their EVA's ... which by-the-way they did not. Superimposed backgrounds supposedly taken miles apart ... "oops, we made a mistake," but they're on two very different rolls of film. Oops.

When you spent $60 billion dollars to do something, and you've spent every day since then insisting that you did it, I don't like "Oops."

Yes, the list goes on and on. And it only takes one "anomalous" photograph ... (remember that!) ... to bring the entire Apollo proposition crashing down ... yes, all of the missions. Because, NASA's proposition is either true or it is false: either every one of these photos and videos came from the Moon (and is, of course, un-retouched), or, that statement is not true. There is no middle ground. If it can be readily shown that any photograph could not have been taken from the Moon, or is in any way inconsistent with that location, then that photograph proves(!) that the taker of that photo was not on the Moon. It proves that he had to be where that photo could have been taken. We know that the astronauts did not bring stage lights with them.

So, no. I'm not looking at what NASA has come up with this time, as it finds itself more and more backed into a corner by its now forty-seven year old lie. The more we learn (from them, and from other sources) what really is true out there, the more obvious it becomes that Apollo was a fiction. And yet, because this was "their shining hour," they will not budge.

The "Mythbusters" spend their time "debunking" anyone who challenges NASA's $60-billion dollar version of "the truth," when they should be "debunking NASA." But NASA's the one paying the bills. When you've got the cash, whatever you say is true.

Now, NASA wants to go to Mars. "Please, Uncle Sugar, give me billions of dollars more." That's why I say, "first, demonstrate once again, using vintage 1970's equipment that we still have, that you can re-create any Apollo mission other than #13, using no more and no less than that, this time 'for all the world to see.'" We've got the rocket, the spacecraft, the space suits, everything you'll need (including: "Tang, the Astronaut's Drink.™"). (Okay, we'll be nice to you: you don't have to drink it. ) You did this mission 'routinely' in the early 1970's. Therefore, it should be a snap to do it one more time. Why, you could be there and back again by April Fool's Day 2017, because you don't have to invent anything. Just get it out of storage, get three volunteers, light a match, and let 'er rip.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-05-2016 at 09:53 AM.
 
Old 12-05-2016, 10:49 AM   #65
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
@sundialsvcs - Since every photograph has a believable explanation as well as a hoax assertion, let's just say that photographic evidence is inconclusive for arguments sake. I don't buy the concept that if one photo is questionable that places the entire mission in doubt. Photos are not the equivalent of eyes - sometimes better, often worse. The point is that it is possible to photograph a scene that does not faithfully depict what it is like to be there. So - inconclusive, especially when there is far more robust evidence to analyze.

The radiation argument, at least for a voyage to the Moon, is a complete bust since these things are actually measurable and not merely assumed as they were for example when the Van Allen Belts were first discovered. At that time it was indeed feared that they could make us prisoner but since then countless measurements both from the ground and in situ have been made and much radiation only requires a reflective surface, not a foot of lead, to mitigate the bulk of it. Since our Sun is monitored for flares we have considerable advance warning of peaks and nearer the poles the belts are substantially thinner. Planning removes any serious dosing from the belts. Radiation is a very serious concern for voyagers to Mars exactly because of the duration involved. That is/was not an issue when going to the Moon.

FWIW, while I personally suspect his timetable is off by at least a decade, Elon Musk is not an idiot. If radiation, even at a vastly increased duration, was a game-ender do you really imagine he would invest billions on going to Mars?

I don't know where you get the idea that Mythbusters set out to prove NASA right but since they are not the only 3rd party analyzing the data that's not a problem when we consider data from other sources, especially other countries, some of whom were "hostile witnesses" but all of whom agree, however begrudgingly, that the missions did indeed occur, that the landing was not a hoax.

Hard Fact - The reflectors could NOT be dropped in 1969. Not only would dust be a serious risk (with no wind it falls straight down and they are a honeycomb with spaces between cells) but also they needed to be placed at an exact attitude and location. That was not possible with a remote-controlled or automated rover in 1969. That level of precision required a human taking measurements and adjusting. It would be doable but difficult and risky even today.

How you can disregard that evidence, radar and telemetry as well as LRRR, I consider to be frankly akin to police building a case by ignoring and even suppressing evidence to make it fit what their "gut" tells them is a solid case.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-05-2016 at 10:52 AM.
 
Old 12-05-2016, 12:17 PM   #66
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Enorbet:

"Ignoring or suppressing evidence?" Quite obviously, I am doing the opposite. You see, if your proposition is that you went to the Moon and that here are thousands of (say ...) photographs that prove it, then the burden of proof rests entirely on you at all times. You said that you were hundreds of thousands of miles away from Earth, in the actual environment of the Moon, yada yada yada. Even if you now present evidence that "supports your position," that is irrelevant. (After all, you already produced thousands of photographs to "support your position!")

Yes, those thousands of forty-odd year old tapes, videos, transcripts, photos ... everything ... are things that must, without a single exception, "support your position!"

And, "sux for NASA" that they pure-and-simple don't.

Actually, there is no need for hand-waving here. Two of the photographs that I speak of are, of course, right here on WikiPedia, and surely you can't tell me that the verbiage quoted in each case is anything but hogwash:
Quote:
Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, and the Earth, as well as the astronauts and the Lunar Module.[10] Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the conspiracists. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground.[11] This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And finally, the camera in use was fitted with a wide angle lens, which naturally resulted in subtle versions of fisheye lens distortion.
I'm sorry, but "shadows" are not a complicated thing at all, and all three shadows point to one (or, two) off-stage points. Furthermore, the shape and size of the shadows (both big and small, throughout the image) show that this point is quite close. There are no "simple expectations" at work here, as you will immediately see in your next sunny cloudless day on the beach. A shadow must point directly away from its light source, and there cannot be "several light sources" here. (The appeal to "perspective" is also hand-waving.)

Recall that the Sun and the Earth are in a straight line, as we see each time there is an eclipse. There is no space light source available ... anywhere ... that can produce this shadow phenomenon. Period. (The second light source would have to be coming from fairly close to the Moon's north or south pole!) Also notice that not one single thing in this picture produces two shadows, nor even the ghost of one. And what is the overwhelmingly bright "single light source?" El Sol. If we see shadows anywhere in the frame coming from two different directions, then everywhere in the frame we must see ... two shadows. There is only one shadow in each case, and each shadow is equally dark. The lunar module cheerfully accepts an east-west light source that nothing else in the frame responds to, and vice-versa. Which is: impossible.

I'm sorry, but this is irrefutable photographic evidence, "Mythbusters" or no. And that means: "case closed." Yes, all of it. Every single mission. #include "judges_gavel_pounds.wav"

(Sux, but that's what happens when you try to tell a lie this big. You're gambled everything, only to get hoisted on your own petard.)

- - - - -

Likewise the even-more dismissive (but deceptive and intentionally misleading) quote on the second "anomalous" photo, which simply says:
Quote:
No explanation is given as to why the photographer's feet must be below the centre of the photograph. Indeed, many photographs show this to not be the case.
That's a very secondary concern. Staring you right in the face is the fact that, once again, these shadows converge toward a single point. Notice that the mast is straight-as-an-arrow, as it should be ... that it is not the slightest bit curved by a "wide angle." This is a 'normal' lens f-stop. (And, oh yeah, the surface beyond the astronaut is much brighter, because he is, after all, "standing in a spotlight."

- - - - -
As I've said, I don't have to engage with any "supportive evidence" that NASA may wish to "provide." I only need to look at what they did provide, even as far back as 1969. Unless one hundred percent of the data collected is one hundred percent consistent with this single proposition -- that it was in fact collected on the Moon, lit by a single source. Every transcript, every video, every single thing, must corroborate precisely. If it can be shown to do otherwise, on any point whatever, then the entire Apollo proposition is ... uhh ... "debunked."

- - - - -

Believe me, Enorbet, this to-me inescapable conclusion brings me: "No Joy!" Yes, I can assign it to a very foolish and short-sighted human decision which was made when the future of the (already very expensive) Apollo program was being fairly keel-hauled in front of Congress. What I cannot excuse, however, is the continued (albeit, "all too human") refusal to come clean. I fear that the day will therefore come when some future young explorers are thrust into conditions that they cannot and will not survive ... and somebody on the ground knew it.

I want us to go, first to the Moon, then to Mars, then Beyond. But, especially in this situation, "Institutional(!) Lies can kill astronauts." This could easily sabotage our first manned Mars mission. To pummel a lyric from a country song: "Three oth-er young lives lost ... to foo-lish pride."

It is far more important to me that we should explore our solar system armed with the truth, than to cling to a story that little ol' me could not quite bend himself to believe, even when he was standing on a staircase in his parent's house in 1969.

- - - - -
Now, after you have the last word, "let's now shake-hands and quit." I've enjoyed it, it was fun, and now we're done. By now, I think we're boring our audience!

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-05-2016 at 12:36 PM.
 
Old 12-05-2016, 02:16 PM   #67
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,163

Rep: Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Actually, there is no need for hand-waving here. Two of the photographs that I speak of are, of course, right here on WikiPedia, and surely you can't tell me that the verbiage quoted in each case is anything but hogwash:
I'm sorry, but "shadows" are not a complicated thing at all, and all three shadows point to one (or, two) off-stage points. Furthermore, the shape and size of the shadows (both big and small, throughout the image) show that this point is quite close. There are no "simple expectations" at work here, as you will immediately see in your next sunny cloudless day on the beach. A shadow must point directly away from its light source, and there cannot be "several light sources" here. (The appeal to "perspective" is also hand-waving.)
I search for "distorted shadow" on Google and found this (smaller version attached here, for your convenience).
http://static1.discoverdigitalphotog...rete-steps.jpg

You can easily see that a single shadow of a railing is "changing direction" by almost 90 degrees with no extra light sources.
Attached Images
 
 
Old 12-05-2016, 08:43 PM   #68
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
Since some people may be reluctant to click on links I'm providing 2 examples of photo recreation by the Mythbusters of examples that sundialsvcs gave as not only hoaxed but "impossible". The first attempt at recreation regarding non-parallel shadows (shown on the show but not displayed here) was done with single incident lighting which actually displayed (as expected) parallel shadows since, unlike the Moon, the surface of the model was flat and relatively featureless. As soon as extremely minor features were added, since, as is obvious by the fact that we see the moon quite brightly here on Earth 240,000 miles away displaying it's reflectivity, reflected light sources of small rocks and moguls created this photo shown alongside the Official NASA photo for comparison.

This completely debunks the concept that a single INCIDENT light source can create non-parallel shadows, since REFLECTED light plays such a role on the Moon..

The second attachment shows the contested photo of an astronaut standing in the shadow of the Lander. It is asserted that he would be barely visible due to that shadow yet he is quite visible in NASA's photo. Hoaxers, including sundialsvcs, claim this MUST be from a second artificial light source. When the albedo (reflectivity intensity index) was adjusted on the model to the low end ( 0.8 )of the Moon average of between 0.8 and 1.0, the effect is obvious. The white suit reflects enough of the reflected light to make a fairly sharp contrast - ie he is visible.

This is evidence, whether the landing was real or hoaxed, that the photos do not have to be what hoaxers claim they are - mistakes - and instead actually could and would take place on the Moon. This is why I referred to the photos as inconclusive in an earlier post in the interest of strict objectivity in rules of evidence. Photos are NOT the linchpin of evidence.

Furthermore if any of the tens of thousands of photos we get from NASA from beyond our Van Allen Belts from ANY mission are to be trusted this is evidence that film and digital electronics can successfully be shielded against light pollution, temperature extremes and radiation. Given that these can be shielded it is all but trivial to shield the astronauts for the relatively short periods they were exposed.

This is why I think the radiation argument is ignorant of the facts, which leaves the best data, radar telemetry and LRRR, which is well above reasonable doubt. For most people if the odds are anything above 50%, even chances, this is considered a relatively safe bet. Obviously those that indulge in gambling and lottery tickets will bet on vastly lesser odds. I don't indulge in such things. Even if the odds in favor of trusting in the Moon Landing are only 60% and the odds that so many people, even those hostile to the veracity of the landing, were/are complicit in this alleged hoax are at a whopping 40%, it behooves rational, objective people to at least give the Apollo Missions the edge. Personally I rate the odds at far greater levels, but even at these rather ridiculously low rates, given repeatable, objective evidence for over 50 years, a half century of technological advances, any reasonable person can easily see why deniers are at the very least, grasping at straws.

Has NASA ever covered anything up? Damn straight! Is NASA or anyone capable of faking a well-publicized and continually falsifiable event involving tens of thousands of people? Not only No! but Hell No! That, friends, is so unlikely as to approach utter absurdity.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MythbustersPNAS1.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	106.7 KB
ID:	23679   Click image for larger version

Name:	MythbustersPNAS2.jpg
Views:	5
Size:	99.9 KB
ID:	23680  
 
Old 12-06-2016, 12:28 PM   #69
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Setting aside(!) this immediate thread, now ... as a result of my enjoyable-to-me participation in this thread I have done some rather interesting online reading ... anyone can "Google it" as have I ... concerning the political environment that surrounded NASA, both in the pre-Kennedy and the Apollo years, and today.

President Eisenhower, ever the pragmatic Five-Star General of the Army, authorized Mercury but specifically did not authorize manned missions beyond that, leaving these to his successor, Kennedy. And, even during those years, there was open skepticism about whether further manned exploration was possible. Faced with a "Russian threat" (which largely consisted of publicity ...), Kennedy finally made his famous speech ... thereby opened the funding flood-gates ... then got killed.

The next few years, under Johnson, were truly "glory years" for the agency, but the actual technology being attempted was, shall we say, "clearly 'cutting edge.'" Things were not going well. Rockets were exploding. Congress was asking questions, and pragmatic-Texan Johnson was certainly no Kennedy.

There are those, including me, who believe that NASA decided in favor of public relations, in a fateful decision that would haunt the agency ever since. Whereas, there are others, including you, Enorbet, who feel entirely the opposite. (And I specifically do not wish to engage upon this point again ...)

For now, let's talk about just the money. For a brief moment, NASA funding exceeded that of almost every Federal agency. (Yes, it absolutely was tied to [missile] defense.) But that didn't last long. The "missions to the Moon" stopped cold when the funding did. But they've never forgotten what used to be, and certainly neither did their contractors.

Let us observe, then, that NASA still has a lot of "skin in the game." Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. There are now private companies who are intruding upon its hallowed turf, and achieving orbit. The agency wants (billions of dollars to ...) go to Mars. It is, however, still facing serious and skeptical questions (shared, as you know, by me), to the order of: "Why should we authorize you to go to Mars, when you can't even prove that you went to the Moon?" And, in any case, is it not now more prudent to (re-)visit the Moon, first?"

Therefore, "skeptics like me" are asking more questions. NASA wants Mars. (And, they specifically want to "skip the Moon," ostensibly because they "been there, done that.") They are obviously pouring public-relations money into persuading the Internet-besotted public that "deep space is no big [radiation, etcetera ...] deal." But, forever-skeptically speaking, just how strong is their agenda influencing what they say?

I have, of course, "seen the pictures of the landing sites." (I've also noticed that the "Rover tracks" are suspiciously huge ... calculated to be several times wider than an Interstate Highway.) Once again, my "political spidey-sense" is going clang-clang. (And I do not require either to prove nor to disprove it, in order to question it.)

Maybe other people are either not-skeptical or are willing to put skepticism aside in the noble pursuit of an inter-stellar goal ... (and, mind you, Enorbet, I am not necessarily referring to you ... after all, we've never met ...), but as for me, I think that these are times that call for even more skepticism. Because, at the end of the day, we propose to put "very-fragile human beings" up there, and "multi-gadzillion dollar politics" could easily be fatal to them.

So: "Let's go to the Moon. 'Again,' or 'First.'" Let's say that we're going to build an advance staging area there for our Mars escapade. But, let us go there.

However: "are we going to let 'Apollo' stand in our way?" Are we going to "stubbornly insist" on 1969-1972, or are we going to pursue "new and improved" even if we political-adroitly connive "to admit no wrong?" (I'm happy to look the other way in the name of successful scientific exploration. After all, if there be culprits, most of those culprits are now conveniently dead.) I'm concerned about future-astronauts who are still very much alive.

Especially given that I am of the opinion that NASA so-far has had no success in "deep-space manned missions" ... (you disagree ...) ... I want us to hedge our bets. I want a series of verifiable(!) missions to the Moon, perhaps to construct upon the Moon a "much more permanent space station / staging station." I want to see truly-verifiable success, a few hundred-thousand miles away, first. Only then will I ... or, more realistically, a future generation ... "write a check to Mars."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-06-2016 at 12:36 PM.
 
Old 12-06-2016, 03:49 PM   #70
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
While I don't agree with your apparent definition of "skepticism" since it appears to me that your mind is rather firmly made up already largely because you choose to talk around the subject or on easily interpreted or misinterpreted photos and avoid harder data like Radio telescopes and Laser Reflectors. If those somehow turn out to be faked that's no skin off my nose. I simply can't imagine how that data can't be cross-checked and easily falsified if it were faked. I presently find no glaring flaws in the Science. I'm reasonably certain men walked and drove on the Moon several times.

However I do agree with you that it seems wise to get deeper into the Moon exploration and development before we attempt Man on Mars. On a Physics Forum that I subscribe to, largely populated by college students and working and retired heavy hitter Scientists, we are discussing the engineering obstacles of Man on Mars. It's quite daunting as there is a HuGE difference between 240,000 miles and ~14,000,000 miles with current technology not the least of which is chemical propulsion. The inherent difference in duration makes radiation a vastly increased problem compared to the Moon, not only in transit but on the surface. There is also a severe problem with supplies for such a long and dangerous trip. Every ounce of mass requires tens of pounds of chemical fuel. That adds up rapidly. Also since gravity on Mars is roughly 2.5 times that of the Moon, escape velocity is an order of magnitude more costly to achieve. These are only a few of the serious problems we face.

I think the push to put men on Mars is strongly tied up in the likelihood that grows with each robotic mission that Life at least at one time existed on Mars. It is impossible to even imagine how earth-shaking such a discovery would be, especially if it is other than DNA based but still unbelievably monumental even if it is.

Finally there was a follow up experiment carried out by the Mythbusters in person at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico which is operated by New Mexico State University. They have a laser of sufficient power to hit and reflect off the Moon and a sensor sensitive enough to pick up the miniscule 8% that returns to earth minus atmospheric reduction and get a meaningful comparison between that surface albedo and that of the RetroRefletors. That portion of that episode is on YouTube here === >>>

-- Mythbusters and LRRR at Apache Point Observatory ---

Last edited by enorbet; 12-06-2016 at 03:56 PM.
 
Old 12-06-2016, 04:23 PM   #71
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Enorbet ... "enough." I've read this, I've seen this, I'm 'aware' as you are!

And I think that we both want to see Man succeed, and in the valiant (but forever uncertain ...) effort toward that success, to be given the very best of chances.

Even though I term myself, "skeptic," it isn't "luddite." And, it certainly isn't grounded in some un-awareness of all the things you speak of! Instead, it is simply a very different interpretation of ... everything.

"And this, by choice." My choice, your choice, and it's okay. Really!

As we both pursue the same hope, that we will surely break free of Earth, perhaps it is simply that "you choose to 'trust NASA,' and I do not." In fact, my fear is that NASA will be "content with Apollo (circa 1969-72)," when in fact I think that it should first be compelled ... in its stated objective of Mars ... to first repeat one-or-more missions to our Moon. To go through the entire process of "building an extra-terrestrial base" there, before any funding is approved to go beyond that planetoid. (And yes, the first step in that process is: to send two-or-three people there. (Again.))

In other words, "no, even though I completely dis-believe(!) '1969-72,' in 2016 I am not still fixed upon it." I want to see us "go there, for real [this time]," and I want to see to it that "government-agency official hubris" does not stand in our way.

(It is specifically to that end ... that I, from my chosen point of view, demand that NASA "come clean." Because I fear for our future astronauts what might befall them if NASA will not. "It was good enough for Neil, so sux-for-you if you ... (!)"

"So, our viewpoints disagree. I get that." But, today, our most important focus is ... "202x." An absolutely-irrefutable series of missions, first to the Moon (again), then beyond."

- - -
But also... I happen to think that this particular "we didn't go there" video is noticeably better than most of the others ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhnr1R2ptCE. The opening several minutes, whether you believe them or not (and I am quite sure that you do not), are ... I think ... thought-provoking. I think that they rather eloquently point out that: "the issues that are 'at play,' here, are not entirely 'technical.'" Nor are they necessarily "modern." Especially the first 6 minutes of this video are, I sincerely think, "food for thought, and even for serious contemplation."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-06-2016 at 04:46 PM.
 
Old 12-07-2016, 12:34 AM   #72
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
Well sundialsvcs I sat through all 42+ minutes of your linked video, and you are correct that I don't have any confidence in it's vale as evidence. Since I agree we have gone on too long on this and much of what's in the video has already been disproved or discredited, I won't list all of the wrongs in that video, but I can as i took notes if you so request. They filled an 8.5 x 11. All I will say in this post that anyone can see that it is not by any stretch of imagination an attempt to get to the truth since the conclusion is clearly implied in the premises. In fact I find it to be "yellow journalism" at it's worst where they are all over the map showing images of stacked human skulls, referencing Titanic and claiming Apollo made it on it's first try (complete fabrication) and the final 2+ minutes are a slow motion feed of the Zapruder segment showing JFKs head exploding... all designed to leave the viewer with an ominous dread and feeling bad.It is quite literally FUD that would make Goebbels proud.

Furthermore it states that in 21st Century dollars Apollo cost $135.000,000,000 as if that was reprehensible at worst and at best a bad investment, completely lacking any recognition of how vastly it changed all our lives in innumerable areas including medicine and microelectronics but many, many more. By contrast in 21st Century dollars Vietnam cost $1,000,000,000,000 and possibly millions of lives, but exactly what did we gain from that?.

There is much, much more assumed and wrongly so in that "documentary" and I can only hope that if I were ever in court that the Judge would silence any lawyer presenting such a case in such a manner and my defense lawyer would require knee replacement surgery from jumping to his feet to yell "Objection! Hearsay! and "Not in evidence!".

Have a good day, Sir.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-07-2016 at 12:38 AM.
 
Old 12-08-2016, 10:12 AM   #73
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Incidentally, Dr. Phil Kouts (PhD, Applied Physics, University of New Zealand), writing in http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2016.htm in April 2016, summarized my thoughts on this matter far more effectively and knowledgeably than I ever could. I quote the final paragraphs of his article (emphasis his, not mine):
Quote:
The Apollo legend continues to be a major hindrance to any further development in the exploration of space. Decades have been lost under NASA's assumed superiority in human space exploration because other agencies have delayed replication on the assumption that the leader has already achieved success. A new generation of NASA specialists has finally admitted that much necessary work is still to be undertaken.

NASA's successes in unmanned space programs are undisputed, while the situation with human space exploration is quite the opposite. With the cancellation of the Constellation Program, profound shortcomings were revealed in NASA's capabilities of flying crewed missions.

Work completed by NASA within the last 10 years on the Orion CEV has shown that the agency is developing an entirely new vehicle based on little previous experience.

It is fair to conclude that no Apollo Command Modules were ever capable of safely returning crews to Earth from deep space. This fact alone should be sufficient for us to infer that all the Apollo landings were faked. The Orion data on radiation acquired beyond LEO further supports this upsetting conclusion, as the claimed Apollo radiation data is totally irrelevant.

Over the last decade the question as to whether the alleged Apollo missions were a stepping stone for human progress has received a rather negative answer. Considerable resources are still being wasted supporting the Apollo story. While the US Government Accountability Office is doing a great job monitoring and guiding NASA's programs, it's not sufficient due to the shackles of the Apollo mythology.

All financial investments in this area will be ineffective until the technical and biomedical difficulties are examined as they truly are. Only then will President Kennedy's 1963 bold recommendation to consolidate international efforts to land on the Moon be finally upheld. A new era in space exploration will only begin after the recognition that the entire Apollo story is a tool of the past, devised to win a political race – as suggested in the film, Interstellar.
In my opinion, NASA is striving valiantly now to cash political chips to obtain (vast ...) Congressional funding for a manned mission to Mars, specifically intending to bypass the Moon as a logical first stepping-stone. But, as Dr. Kouts puts it, "the Apollo legacy" remains a serious hinderance. The agency's official story, although it is unsustainable (http://aulis.com has an enormous amount of up-to-date material on this subject, published by genuine authorities), continues to be the only one that it will permit to be sustained. Even as it, for example, openly discusses enormous radiation doses experienced by a probe sent through the Van Allen Belts (as discussed by Dr. Kouts in this article), the "fact" is that in the 1960's and 1970's many missions ostensibly "sailed right through it, twice."

In a massive government agency like NASA, this myth "legacy" could easily trump the objective search to establish technologies that would allow these goals to one day become truth. The true technical obstacles are still formidable, and we are still a long way from solving them. Enormous sums of money will need to be spent (preferably, "internationally"), but we must remove the shackles first so that these monies may be spent wisely. (Especially since this should be an international effort, hence not all just our monies ...)

Difficult though it will be for NASA to let this mythos "legacy" finally be "a tool of the past, devised to win a political race," I firmly believe that it must be done, so that we can once and for all discover ways to truly solve the problems, and to truly allow JFK's dream to be realized by the agency that was commissioned to do so.

"(IMHO) A lie legacy" was deemed expedient then. But we must have "(IMHO) the truth," now. We want to reach the stars. This "legacy" is standing in our path. It must go.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-08-2016 at 10:19 AM.
 
Old 12-08-2016, 11:45 AM   #74
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,425

Rep: Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335Reputation: 1335
@ sundialsvcs - All I'm going to say about your last post is that the emboldened

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Kouts (from sundialsvcs
It is fair to conclude that no Apollo Command Modules were ever capable of safely returning crews to Earth from deep space. This fact alone should be sufficient for us to infer that all the Apollo landings were faked. The Orion data on radiation acquired beyond LEO further supports this upsetting conclusion, as the claimed Apollo radiation data is totally irrelevant.
Just like other conspiracy... - let's be kind and call you/them "enthusiasts" - he states an assumption as fact with no evidence. Then he uses that "conclusion" as fact to deny the entire set of missions. Then he "misinterprets" (being kind again) the Orion radiation data to attempt to put the final nail in the coffin he began with from the start in a classic example of circular logic.

In fact, from what research I have done, the Orion data did not reveal new and increased radiation data. Instead it highlights the concern already known and mentioned here which is duration of exposure and the increased possibility of solar flare exposure during a flight measured in months and years instead of mere days. Put simply there is zero evidence that supports the hypothesis that Apollo was incapable of returning a crew safely from the Moon and a vast and wide-ranged set of evidence that despite anyone's fear, uncertainty and doubt, that it actually did do so, not once, but several times.

At one time ignorant people apparently "theorized" that Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth since they were convinced without valid evidence that the Earth was flat despite considerable actually objective and verifiable data that the Earth is a globe. All of that "Flat Earth" nonsense should have utterly dissolved once Columbus, and more importantly and slightly later, Magellan, trumped all hypothetical speculation by actually doing it. Oddly enough still to this day there are even educated people who usually try to alter their sense of Science to fit a religious mold that profess belief in Flat Earth and they number in the thousands. Curiouser and curiouser....
 
Old 12-08-2016, 06:10 PM   #75
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,444
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896Reputation: 2896
Very well, then, sir! My "April Fool's Day challenge" remains! We can still find an original Saturn V rocket; an original command module; an original lunar orbiter; original space suits ... what else do we need? Rocket fuel? Got it!

Oh, yeah ... three volunteers. (Ahem...)

- - - - -
Or, perhaps instead, we should listen to the PhD's and various other people who are saying these "contrarian" things. (These are no crackpots ...) Maybe we should not cling with un-wavering loyalty to the proclamations of a government agency. Maybe we should be asking more questions, too.

Because, at the end of the day, "we all want to reach for the stars." That's not an American dream: that's a human dream. As for me, I frankly find that "the absence of healthy(?) skepticism" quickly begins to sound like "nothing more than Institutional Jingoism." (Versus, specifically, "your personal opinion." I do not point that very-harsh word specifically at you.)

Perhaps: "National Jingoism," on the part of a National Agency that really should know better by now.

If NASA, in all these years, had actually come up with "a truly-indisputable corpus of evidence" to support its manned programs, versus the corpus that it has assembled with regards to its unmanned efforts, things would of course be very different. But, quite bluntly, I think that NASA has by now lost all credibility with regards to its manned programs to date. While many other national space agencies (specifically including the Soviets) concluded in the early 1960's that the obstacles were as-yet insurmountable to humans and therefore refused to send humans beyond Low-Earth Orbit, NASA (IMHO, but also in the opinion of many others) not only "put on a television show," but ... to their continuing dis-credit ... absolutely will not(!) let go of it.

Today, in the 21st(!) Century, we still want to make JFK's dream come true. But, right now, "there is one thing, absolutely most of all," that (IMHO) is standing in our way. If ever we are to successfully overcome these still-formidable technical obstacles, then I cordially submit that we must begin by bluntly acknowledging that, "yes, they still face us." Therefore, that we did not solve them forty-odd years ago.

As the article that I previously quoted (and, quite a few others) tacitly acknowledges, "yes, we do understand the realities of 1960's and 1970's American politics!" Now, it is time to move on.

And just one more thing: it is long past the proper time to exorcise from our vernacular the catch-phrase: "Conspiracy Theorist.™" Exactly how we permitted such a crowd-psychology sobriquet to enter into our scientific conversation, I know not. But, it is long past time for such things to be gone.

After all, even in ancient times, "the Court Jester" was in fact often "a most-trusted advisor to the King." When people with very substantial academic and other credentials dare(!) to challenge "what NASA says and what NASA said," why do we summarily pillory them? Rest assured that "Deep Space™ Does Not Care About Human Life." The term, "conspiracy theorist," is nothing more nor less than straw-man whitewash that (IMHO) has no proper place in science, past nor future. (Nor, if I may say, anywhere else: "the [annoyingly contrarian(?)] opinions of your fellow Man" are generally not a thing to be triviailized.)

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-08-2016 at 07:51 PM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
apollo, conspiracy_theory, lander_denial, moonlanding


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
apollo dependency prob ALInux Linux - Software 4 08-22-2005 09:38 AM
Problem with Apollo and Gnutella corey-ross Linux - Software 1 01-25-2005 10:18 AM
CUPS, hpijs, and an Apollo P-2200 goofyheadedpunk Linux - Software 5 07-17-2004 03:55 PM
Apollo printer crash crashmeister Linux - Hardware 0 10-30-2003 03:55 AM
Apollo problems... JapanFred Linux - Software 2 06-10-2003 02:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration