Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 12846 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2529
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #330 on: November 17, 2018, 05:39:04 PM »

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

The hoax claims have been debunked 'thousands of times' because people like you keep turning up and regurgitating the same ill-thought out, illogical, badly constructed arguments thousands of times. People like you are not presenting an alternative reason for anything, you're just recycling crap without bothering to check what alternative explanations there might be that make more sense. You stick the word 'anomaly' on there is if it automatically discredits anything, and as if it is actually a fact. I'll keep it simple for you: there are no anomalies whatsoever, just your willful ignorance of the subject.

FTFY  8)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1352
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #331 on: November 17, 2018, 06:02:09 PM »
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side.

No, it shows he doesn't care what they say because all he cares about is promoting his crap. Does he have an honest side? No doubt he does. I am sure he doesn;t lie about everything. When it comes to his Apollo arguments, however, he remains as dishonest as they come. Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.
 
Quote
You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs,

Oh yawn, that same old 'just because we disagree' crap. Fifteen years of doing this and this comes up so often.
 
Quote
which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns.

No, we understand where the errors in your reasoning are, while you refuse to see or accept them.

Quote
The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

FIrstly, that's a gross oversimplification. However, it is an entirely appropriate response when an HB presents and argument that reduces to 'this one argument proves it was fake'. Confronting such an argument only requires presenting an explanation that is actually consistent with physics.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #332 on: November 17, 2018, 06:29:55 PM »
On the subject of "no stars", I found this rather nice demonstration of why exactly this is the case on the RidingWithRobots (@ridingrobots) Twitter feed (although I can't figure out how to embed a tweet, so I'll have to copy'n'paste) :

FAQ: "Where are the stars?"
A: Here's the Moon and Mars (upper left) in the sky tonight. By the time the Moon is properly exposed, poor Mars is gone.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #333 on: November 17, 2018, 08:43:24 PM »
FAQ: "Where are the stars?"

I frequently answer with a cursory explanation of camera settings and exposure, with the follow up, "Just ask ANY professional photographer."

Such a simple thing to do, but not a one has ever done it, or at least admitted to it, much less acknowledged the inevitable confirmation that most stars will not be seen under those conditions.  Yet, they make the same claim later, or in a different thread, with the same unsupported incredulity.  THAT is either willful ignorance, or purposeful deceit.  Just another reason why posters of that ilk create their own negative reputations.
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #334 on: November 17, 2018, 10:13:48 PM »
They still make the "multiple lights" claim, although that can be refuted with two sticks and a sunny day.

It's tempting to say that Hoax Believers never experiment, preferring to theorize endlessly from the comfort of their chair. But sometimes they do get up. You can't even accuse them of being half-hearted about it. Well, you could, but Flat Earthers really go that extra mile in their experiments (and still end up wrong at the end of it).

The laziness is annoying, but when all is said it's a laziness of thought that's involved. We all claim to be open minded and able to step back from our own preconceptions. On a good day, some of us actually do.

Offline Obviousman

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #335 on: November 18, 2018, 12:42:51 AM »
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1578
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #336 on: November 18, 2018, 05:38:05 AM »
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.

I made that decision the last time this troll poked his mug in here, and I'll be making it again, because he brings nothing but fringe resets and age-old previously and thoroughly debunked rubbish that all of us have seen before.



► 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 molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #337 on: November 18, 2018, 12:36:42 PM »
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.

I made that decision the last time this troll poked his mug in here, and I'll be making it again, because he brings nothing but fringe resets and age-old previously and thoroughly debunked rubbish that all of us have seen before.
I can understand both your points of view, but personally I feel it's worth a small response to counter any particularly idiotic argument, just for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading.  It also stops trolls like Cambo claiming "they couldn't answer my questions"...
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #338 on: November 19, 2018, 12:26:34 PM »
First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Just a minute...

If the Chinese don't like the US very much, then why would they play along with a US government organization like NASA at all?  Why fake their own missions instead of just proving (much more competently than you could ever hope to) that the US faked the Apollo missions, for far greater geopolitical effect?   For that matter, why didn't the Russians fake a manned landing before we did to score some points?  After all, they'd already beaten us to the punch with Sputnik and Gagarin. 

How can you ever hope to make a case when you can't even recognize the glaring contradictions in your own arguments? 

As for "no stars", that's been explained ad nauseam here and elsewhere, but because I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on, we'll go over it one more time.

TL/DR; Photographic film and even modern digital sensors cannot capture the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars in the same exposure.  There is a hard physical limit at play here. 

As we're talking Apollo images, we'll talk about film.  Most film can capture a dynamic range (pure white to pure black) of about 10 stops, where 1 stop represents a doubling or halving of the amount of light striking the film.  1 stop represents a dynamic range of 2 to 1, 2 stops represents a range of 4 to 1, 3 stops 8 to 1, etc.  10 stops is 1024 to 1 - that is, the brightest highlight in the frame cannot be more than 1000 times brighter than the dimmest shadow detail in order for both to show up for a given exposure.  If it is, then either the highlight will be blown out (a detail-free blob of white) or the shadow detail will be lost (a detail-free blob of pure black).  This is why you see professional photographers use flashes and reflectors on a sunny day - they're trying to reduce the dynamic range between highlight and shadow so that the shadows won't look so stark in the final image.

Now, assuming I've done the math anywhere close to correct, the dynamic range between the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars is on the order of 30,000 to 1 (15 stops).  There is simply no way you can capture both in the same exposure with film.  If you expose for the stars, the lunar surface becomes a detail-free white blob.  If you expose for the lunar surface, the stars simply don't register and you get a field of pure black. 

If the sky is clear where you are today, you can go outside and see the quarter moon in the early afternoon, but no stars.  It's simply that much brighter than the stars, bright enough to punch through the daylight sky.  This is roughly what photographic film sees when you expose for the lunar surface - the stars are simply not bright enough to register. 

If you want to prove this for yourself, grab a camera, go outside on a sunny day, and take a picture of the landscape.  You can let the meter pick the exposure, or you can set it manually using the Sunny 16 rule (set the aperture to f/16, set the shutter speed to 1 over the number nearest the ISO rating - for ISO 100, use 1/125, for ISO 400, use 1/500, etc.).  On a clear night, go outside and take a picture of the sky using that same setting.  Tell me how many stars show up in the final image.  Then figure out the settings for capturing the stars; for ISO 100, it will be something like 30 seconds at f5.6.  Then the next day, go out and take a picture of the landscape with those settings.  Tell me if you get anything but a pure white image. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "but that doesn't prove anything, things are different on the Moon!"  Baloney.  The physics regarding light and exposure are the exactly the same on the Moon as they are on Earth.  The only difference is that on the Moon you don't have an atmosphere acting as a giant diffuse light source filling in some shadows. 

Offline Dalhousie

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #339 on: November 19, 2018, 10:35:29 PM »
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #340 on: November 19, 2018, 11:09:29 PM »
I'm trying out a new phrase:

"Swallow Poster."

It's like a seagull poster, but every year it migrates back across the Atlantic and posts again.

Offline ineluki

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #341 on: November 20, 2018, 07:20:58 AM »
I frequently answer with a cursory explanation of camera settings and exposure, with the follow up, "Just ask ANY professional photographer."

No need to bother Professionals, every Amateur who ever tried to take pictures of Stars should do.

Actually my neighbour's kids could test this and understand the concept (unlike Jim Fetzer)


 



Offline ineluki

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #342 on: November 20, 2018, 07:26:32 AM »
"Swallow Poster."

Is that an african or european Swallow, and what is it's air-speed velocity?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #343 on: November 20, 2018, 12:24:48 PM »
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 12:31:39 PM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2529
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #344 on: November 20, 2018, 12:36:19 PM »
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.

Nice shot.  Where is the drill site?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan