Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 3815 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #195 on: May 16, 2018, 12:21:48 AM »
As I was passing by the forum today I saw Duane Gish running out the side door, shaking his head, muttering, "The horror! The horror!" as he ran.

cambo is nothing more than a PTW and I have stopped responding to it.

It is clearly not at all interested in any kind of debate; its sole purpose is to insult, wind up and demean everyone here. That makes it a troll.

► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #196 on: May 16, 2018, 01:25:57 AM »

Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
Quote from: cambo
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.
Interesting contradiction. You think something can't be simulated if you have no experience with it, yet you just mentally 'simulated' what you think the crater disturbance should be like, though you've never been to the moon.
Of course, as I pointed out on page 7, and Jason Thompson pointed out as well, if it should be as you say, why isn't it? If you are right, why didn't the makers of the alleged hoax think the same and do it your way?

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #197 on: May 16, 2018, 02:54:18 AM »
Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
I think I already mentioned that I spent a considerable part of my career (over 12 years) working on simulators - for planes, trains, ships, tanks, all sorts at all scales.  You obviously don't have a clue about the amount of mathematical modelling and engineering that goes into making an accurate simulation system.

Add to that, it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in.

Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!  :D
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #198 on: May 16, 2018, 03:56:15 AM »
I am going to correct an earlier statement I made about the number of windows with a view of Earth - I posted a view of 2 windows, which I reproduced from the interior 3D scan of Columbia from an earlier discussion. However, I believe that related to a different broadcast.

During the broadcast cherry-picked by cambo, in which Armstrong describes in detail the view of Earth and answers questions about it from Mission Control, he says this:

Quote
Unfortunately, we only have one window that has a view of the Earth and it's filled up with the TV camera, so your view now is probably better than ours is.

So, mea culpa, one window.

However there is also this exchange:

Quote
01 10 13 34 CC
Roger. It's a little dark now, 11. Maybe a bigger f-stop might help.

01 10 13 44 CMP
Yes, that's in work.

So they did re-configure the camera for interior shooting by increasing the f-stop. Anyone who has every tried to photograph the moon knows how bright it is, Earth is considerably brighter.

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #199 on: May 16, 2018, 10:12:15 AM »

So they did re-configure the camera for interior shooting by increasing the f-stop. Anyone who has every tried to photograph the moon knows how bright it is, Earth is considerably brighter.
Add how photography works to cambo's list of things he does not understand.

Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #200 on: May 16, 2018, 10:23:16 AM »
Just for shiggles...

The obvious pareidolia of my trousers on the back of the chair is irrelevant.

Note the over exposed kitchen window.


ETA: In case it isn't quite obvious, even standard double glazing is sufficient to cast a blue tone over the walls surrounding the window. They have never been blue...
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:32:36 AM by Abaddon »

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 799
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #201 on: May 16, 2018, 11:01:06 AM »
Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.
I think I already mentioned that I spent a considerable part of my career (over 12 years) working on simulators - for planes, trains, ships, tanks, all sorts at all scales.  You obviously don't have a clue about the amount of mathematical modelling and engineering that goes into making an accurate simulation system.

Add to that, it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in.

Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!  :D

If simulation didn't work, planning wouldn't work. There's no bright line.

Saying you can't possibly simulate a deep space trajectory -- despite the ground truth of a number of said trajectories that agreed with the previous predictions and thus validates the models, is like saying you can't cook from a recipe.

Does the cambot cook by setting his stove to some random temperature because how could anyone predict how hot and how long for a pie? Does he refuse to use bus schedules or museum hours when planning a trip downtown?


Offline Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 983
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #202 on: May 16, 2018, 11:47:03 AM »
Just to nail this down for the nonsense it is, two pictures right now of the same window from a couple of years ago...




That a tree outside my kitchen window.



Same shot different settings.

Notice the blue bloom. cambo has no clue about Apollo.

Notice also that I need to clean my lens. I could have done so, but I thought it informative to leave it in. Some wingnuts would be claiming that as evidence of orbs.

Notice also, that were I of a mind, I could demonstrate the exact Apollo effect, I simply chose to demonstrate how the blue wash creeps in gradually. I can do the mad version if anyone is pushed for it.

Note also that my kitchen window is NORTH FACING. Even so, I could replicate the Apollo results.

Finally, note that if anyone has any use for those, they have my express permission to use them. They were only quick hacks to demonstrate the principle.




« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 11:58:08 AM by Abaddon »

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #203 on: May 21, 2018, 10:06:35 AM »
Quote
“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”

“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”

When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Cleared a few metres away, and ending with a uniform ridge? Why so?

The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away.

Quote
Quote
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”

So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

It's that delicious irony: if we leave you alone you claim victory on the grounds that no one can challenge you, and if we answer you then you claim victory on the grounds that so much attention is suspicious. Please tell us, exactly how much attention is appropriate?

Quote
Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

Once again I ask you, at what level of the military (and for that matter political) hierarchy did people find out the Cold War was faked? The crews of the nuclear missile submarines? Their captains? The admirals? Because if the President knew it was fake, but we ordinary people didn’t, there must be some level in the hierarchy below which people didn’t know the “truth” and above which people did. And in the case of a promotional hierarchy there will be people who will move from the first group to the second group, yet none of them has stepped forward to reveal this “truth”.

As with faking Apollo, but on a much more massive scale, something is preventing these people from making confessions, even posthumous confessions. Must be that MONEY! again.

As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine. Examples of errors:
-Senator Vandenburg didn’t turn from an isolationist into an internationalist overnight; his change (as was the case for many Republicans) was gradual over the period 1940 to 1945, given that for example he supported aid to Finland in 1940.
-It’s unlikely Truman supported continued deficit spending after WW2 given that he vetoed two Congress votes for income tax cuts.
-Jacob Schiff didn’t fund the 1917 Communist revolution but the 1905 revolution – the 1917 Communist revolution was largely funded by Imperial Germany.
-Averill Harriman didn’t control Joseph Stalin, but instead did what he could to manage him in order to not act too much against the interests of the Western Allies (such as signing a separate peace agreement with Germany).
-The idea that the USSR could simultaneously have a powerful military and a poor standard of living is not contradictory – the USSR simply spent a much greater proportion of its income on the military than the USA did.

Examples of omissions:
-The article fails to mention that the Soviets had form for expansionist aggression before its entry into World War Two, such as the occupations of eastern Poland (1939), Karelia (1940), the Baltic states (1940) and Bessarabia (1940), so post-war aggression was unsurprising.
-It fails to mention Soviet subversion of post-war governments in eastern Europe in the period 1946-1949, and similar attempts across western Europe, and the funding and/or arming of Communist movements around the world (and concurrently fails to mention the funding and/or arming of anti-Communist movements around the world).
- It fails to explain why a fake Cold War even required American soldiers to actively participate in any conflicts (and fails to mention that Soviet soldiers actively participated in several conflicts, especially in Afghanistan).
-And it fails to explain why Warsaw Pact nations went to extraordinary lengths to stop people from leaving their countries for the West, and why a negligible number of people chose to move from the West to Warsaw Pact countries even though they were free to do so.

And that’s just the points I could be bothered addressing – there were other errors and omissions I could have mentioned.

Quote
Quote
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"

Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

All three videos involve the use of CGI, do they? Including the one from Skylab (the astronaut running and somersaulting around the ring) which was filmed in 1973. CGI in 1973? Seriously?

And how do you do CGI of a watch wriggling around the astronaut's wrist? Care to show us examples filmed on Earth?