Author Topic: Sound on the moon?  (Read 3585 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2018, 09:21:39 AM »
I've encountered very few examples of outright deliberate fabrication of evidence.  That isn't to say hoax claimants are universally honest.  They aren't.  You have, for example, Sibrel deliberately cherry-picking the evidence, and you have Sam Colby deliberately misrepresenting it.  You have David Percy pretending to be an expert and then misinterpreting it.  And at the most innocent end of the spectrum you have people defaulting to nefarious explanations for unexpected things that creep into the record.  As illustrated here, often you can solve the problem by going to the original (or a better) source.  Most of what we use today for evidence are convenience samples and sources.  They're easy to obtain, but not always the best kept.  Audio recordings will acquire glitches from copies through multiple formats, some of them lossy or prone to artifacts.  Video recordings lose resolution and time stability.  Photographs lose resolution.

Regarding the latter, I remind you about the reseau fiducials.  When I shot using a reseau plate, I tested several hypotheses.  The first was saturation and halation.  No dice; the fiducials remained clear.  Then I tried scanning, both with commercial transparency scanners and consumer-grade.  Again, no luck.  It wasn't until I compressed the images with a lossy compression algorithm and shrank them to web-distributable sizes that the fiducials disappeared "behind" bright patches.  Over the years we've listened to, and debunked, countless theories for how the fiducials got lost.  We could have cut to the chase.  When I was finally able to get my hands on 4,000 dpi scans of the camera originals, the fiducials were not missing from them.

Logically we call this "subversion of support."  If possible, it's the best way to refute a hoax theory -- or any theory based on alternate explanations for allegedly anomalous data.  To subvert support means to point out that the thing being explained doesn't really exist and therefore requires no explanation.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 820
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2018, 12:04:15 PM »
I've seen plenty of obviously fabricated composite pictures, which show some impossible artefacts, like the Earth low on the horizon behind the LM, or videos with elements added or removed. Maybe they are originally meant to be jokes, but the hoax crowd suck them up and parade them as evidence for their claims.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2018, 02:24:14 PM »
I've seen those too.  The ones I'm most familiar with are composites and panoramas made by people for innocent reasons and then misinterpreted or misrepresented by others for nefarious purposes.  I suppose that picking something you know has been fabricated and knowingly representing it as unaltered is tantamount to having fabricated it yourself.  I tend to think those people are mistaken or misled until I have evidence of malice.  It's still irresponsible as far as scholarship goes, but not everyone is a professional historian.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Online bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2018, 04:15:22 PM »
IIRC, hunchbacked(?) claimed there was a third astronaut on the Moon in a panorama since (Schimitt, Duke, or Irwin was in one of the stills making up the panorama, but not in others) They lie about the panaorama, since they can't fathom that it was spliced together here on Earth out of images taken on the Moon.  And those individuals chose were to splice.  I think another instance involved tire marks being "absent", again by the person splicing the images.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2018, 11:48:30 AM »
Well, what Hunchbacked doesn't understand could fill the VAB, but that's a different matter.  There's a whole genre of comical photography out there these days based on panoramas gone wrong.  And this is actually nothing new.  In the slit-scan style of panoramas that was used in box cameras, it was possible to be on one end of a panoramic group shot and then run around to the other side and be at the other end.  People's intelligence and competence vary.  That's just a fact of life.  Consequently you'll run across arguments that make you say, "That's just stupid."  That's not the same as deliberate fabrication.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Online bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2534
Re: Sound on the moon?
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2018, 01:58:51 PM »
I do understand that hunchback is weak in many areas, but his comments in review of aerospace degree concepts belays his knowledge/ training .  k9aq has demonstrated many times his misunderstanding of electrical issues and many others have pointed out his poor visual abilities.  I'm ashamed to call him an fellow engineer.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan