Author Topic: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)  (Read 16857 times)

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2014, 08:14:22 PM »
I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.

He came here of his own free will to solicit honest opinions. It would appear his request is being fulfilled.


Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2014, 08:51:07 PM »
Yes, but I see LunarOrbit's point.  What I would offer as appropriate criticism would differ depending on what I knew about the filmmaker's motives and intent.  It seems like we were asked to comment on the content, so we did.  But we don't necessarily have to assume the filmmaker believes one way or another.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline AstroBrant

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Yes, we did.
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2014, 09:24:28 PM »
I think most of you will enjoy this! what are your thoughts on each conspiracy?




Thanks!

Re. "Iffy" boot print explanation: I don't know where you heard that the absence of wind was the main explanation for such good boot prints. The absence of an atmosphere would explain why we can still see foot tracks today, but not why they looked very crisp right after they were made.

Regolith particles are mostly very small and talc-like. And they are jagged and irregular in shape. When compressed, they tend to hold together better than, say, sand on earth. In addition, in 1/6 earth gravity, edges can be steeper and higher without crumbling or slumping. There may be a sticking effect due to differential electrical charges on the surface particles, but I'm not sure of that yet.

When all the facts are revealed, it is considerably less "iffy."

Re. "star" obscuring fiducial (cross-hair): Stars do not appear in Apollo EVA photos which are exposed for the sunlit surroundings, as you alluded to elsewhere in your video. That is a lens flare caused by the sun, which is just outside of the frame. But the principle is the same. Bright areas in a photograph will bleed over thin, dark lines.
May your skies be clear and your thinking even clearer.
(Youtube: astrobrant2)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2014, 09:44:52 PM »
I'm sure we could all write a better history paper now than we could have when we were in high school, so I guess I just don't think it's fair to be so hard on him for not having a certain level of skill or knowledge about a subject that is new to him.

Quite true.  But a little personal introduction would go a long way to dispelling the speculation.  So many people have come here with a similarly blank introduction only to weasel their way into showing their true hoax believer colors. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2014, 10:00:13 PM »
So many people have come here with a similarly blank introduction only to weasel their way into showing their true hoax believer colors. 

That's true, but I would rather we didn't assume that was the case every time someone new joins the forum. Let's give people (especially youths) the benefit of the doubt. If they're here to troll it will become obvious soon enough, but we can't really judge someone on a single 15 word post and a 5 and a half minute video.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2014, 04:26:31 AM »
Civility and generosity to newcomers is something no one can argue with. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2014, 05:23:03 AM »
Civility and generosity to newcomers is something no one can argue with.

This is, of course, correct.

Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.


Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2014, 11:39:00 AM »
Top5s, welcome to ApolloHoax.  Please hang around and learn some real stuff about the marvellous Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. Had you come here first and asked questions, we might have been able to help you make a much more accurate video.

I apologise for some of the uncivil remarks here. Normally, most of us at ApolloHoax attack the message, if we disagree with it, but not the messenger.

To me, your video is a disappointment. It is very full of errors and omissions, such as no mention of the flag having a horizontal bar along the top to hold it up.

At 0:36 your commentary says, "The fact that the flag placed by Neil Armstrong was flapping..." yet doesn't mention if that was after Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took their hands off it, because it certainly didn't flap at all after that, as can be viewed in the movie film, the video, and the still photos. In fact, it is quiet famous among Apollo people for staying absolutely motionless right up until many hours after the EVA when the test of the Lunar Module's thrusters caused it to turn. The only visual evidence of that is one of the last views before liftoff taken by the 16mm DAC camera.

Furthermore, your photo at 0:36 doesn't even show either Neil Armstrong or the Apollo 11 flag, and instead shows photo AS12-47-6897, taken by Apollo 12's Al Bean, of Pete Conrad holding up the flag because, as the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal's caption says, "Pete is grasping the flag because the locking hinge that was supposed to hold the crossbar and flag out from the staff would not latch."
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html
and
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6897HR.jpg

Take a close look at the central fiducial. It is clearly in front of the flag and Conrad's left arm. Not behind because of "pasting". 

Your entire video seems to imply that there was only one lunar landing, yet it uses stills or video clips from Apollos 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.

Is that what you intended – to imply that there was only one moon-landing? If so, your knowledge might be similar to that of the hoax-believer with whom I had my briefest ever debate on a New Zealand forum:

Hoax-Believer: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.
Kiwi: Which moonlanding?
HB: The moonlanding!
Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?
HB: I didn't know there were that many.

Another glaring error in your video is at 4:23:  "Crosshair markings from the camera lens..."

Wrong. There is no way that the lens itself could form the markings on the film. The reticule, or fiducial, or crosshair marks were produced by a reseau plate right at the film plane at the back of the camera. I would guess that it was actually in close contact with the film's emulsion, but JayUtah might be able to confirm or deny that. (Have you checked out Jay's excellent website Clavius?)

From the document "APOLLO-11 HASSELBLAD CAMERAS" by Phill Parker:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Quote
(1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

The reason that the lines are diminished in the presence of bright light is due to emulsion bleed (a type of flare) in the film. It is a simple thing for bright light to spread around those tiny 0.02 mm-wide, black marks on the reseau plate.

Some of the lines that are not visible in digital photos were actually visible in large photographic prints from the original copy negatives, but there is another reason why marks disappear from online photos: digitising itself. Even the most recent high-quality online scans are reduced versions of the original scan, and very fine vertical or horizontal lines can be among the first things to vanish when scans are reduced in size.

Strangely, you talk about no stars in the lunar surface photos, yet at 5:05 you say, "You can see the crosshairs are visible in all areas, apart from the over-exposed, bright white star."

Wrong again. If you had a basic working knowledge of photography you would be able to recognise that that is not a star at all. It is a lens flare caused by the sun catching the front element of the lens.  Many of these flares appear in the upsun lunar photos.  Probably hundreds, if we took the time to research the subject.

That particular photo is AS16-108-17618, taken by Charlie Duke at Apollo 16's Station 6.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17618HR.jpg

And here's the entire stitched-together 360-degree panorama which shows more of the lens flares. Hopefully, you can see that they are indeed caused by the sun.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16pan1461110.jpg

By the way, your video implies that that entire photo is over-exposed.  It's not, but obviously the two small flares are, and there's a much larger, weaker flare.

However, at top left and bottom right you can see something that might be what got some hoax-believers going at times – in one case claiming they were studio lights. Wrong. They are examples of hurried or careless negative-numbering that has strayed into the image area.  Sometimes I got the same effect when using a pen with a nib and Indian ink to number negatives back in the 1970s. It happened less once I graduated to a draughting pen.

Take a close look at the fiducial (or crosshair) near John Young's left elbow in AS16-108-17623 in the same panorama:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-108-17623HR.jpg

Note how it's right arm fades where it crosses the bright sunlit portion of his sample bag. That is the emulsion bleed or flare at work.  Nothing at all to do with the image being "pasted on top". Compare that cross with the other crosses over grey regolith, which look quite normal.

Finally, you imply in the video that Photoshop existed in the 1970s. Do you really believe that? Or that the moon has near-zero gravity? And would you please quote your source(s) for Neil Armstrong's "lie."

Perhaps I should add that I'm a New Zealander and have been a bit of a space nut ever since seeing Sputnik 1 back in October 1957, and NASA does not, and never has, paid me to parrot whatever they say. In fact, I don't think NASA cares what I say.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 12:06:21 PM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2014, 12:41:01 PM »
Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.

This is why I feel like I interpreted the video differently than most people here. I don't feel like he was personally accusing Neil Armstrong of lying. He was saying "this is what conspiracy theorists are saying", which is true because they are saying it.

I think this video is just one of those typical "Top 5" videos like you'd see on BuzzFeed or whatever. It's click bait. I don't put it in the same category as a video from someone like Jarrah White because he (the OP) is likely not going to dwell on the subject. His next video might be "the Top 5 cats who look like Hitler". If he starts doing nothing but Apollo hoax videos we can start taking it more seriously.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2014, 12:57:11 PM »
I stopped watching at @ 1:15 in the video, when the narrator says "from the believers point of view"...

Belief has nothing to do with the reality of Apollo.


Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2014, 01:09:37 PM »
I stopped watching at @ 1:15 in the video, when the narrator says "from the believers point of view"...

Belief has nothing to do with the reality of Apollo.

Totally agreed. When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened."  :)
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2014, 02:39:04 PM »
When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened."  :)

It sounds pretentious to just say "I know Apollo happened", but that's just the only conclusion that can be reached based on the mountains of evidence.

I agree...I know Apollo happened...I witnessed it as it happened.

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2014, 02:56:01 PM »
When someone in a forum makes the statement "I believe the moon landings were faked", my response is "How sad. I know Apollo happened."  :)

It sounds pretentious to just say "I know Apollo happened", but that's just the only conclusion that can be reached based on the mountains of evidence.

I agree...I know Apollo happened...I witnessed it as it happened.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to seem pretentious in a debate. I use this term only, when the HB pretends to be superior (like IDW, turbonium and several others) but show their lack of knowledge and understanding and show their conclusions based on their beliefs.
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2014, 03:18:08 PM »
Is that what you intended – to imply that there was only one moon-landing? If so, your knowledge might be similar to that of the hoax-believer with whom I had my briefest ever debate on a New Zealand forum:

Hoax-Believer: I reckon the moonlanding was faked.
Kiwi: Which moonlanding?
HB: The moonlanding!
Kiwi: Which one? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17?
HB: I didn't know there were that many.

That is a statement I can relate to.

I have a one metre long panorama canvas at the back of my shop of the famous "Earthrise" photo that was taken as the spacecraft rounded the moon for the first time. Most customers think it was taken from Apollo 11, and they usually make some sort of remark to indicate that its what they think. But the photo was actually taken by the crew of Apollo 8, on Christmas Eve, 1968. Most people seem to be surprised when I tell them that before Apollo 11, there were two manned missions to the moon (Apollo 8 and 10) that didn't actually land.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:20:56 PM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline beedarko

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
Re: 5 Most Believed Moon Landing Conspiracies! (Video)
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2014, 04:58:12 PM »
Personally, I find it much easier to be civil and generous when the newcomer isn't accusing Neil Armstrong of being a liar straight out of the gate.

This is why I feel like I interpreted the video differently than most people here. I don't feel like he was personally accusing Neil Armstrong of lying. He was saying "this is what conspiracy theorists are saying", which is true because they are saying it.

At 3:55 of the video:  "But it would be good to know why Neil did lie to the public about his famous words."



Quote
His next video might be "the Top 5 cats who look like Hitler".

Or maybe he'll make one about "Believable 9/11 Conspiracies"...