Apollo Moon "Hoax" - Photographic "Evidence" Questions

[darich]

I'm at work and won't reply at length but shadows can be at different angles from 2 objects lit by one source. All it takes is a slight slope on the ground where ONE shadow falls.
Also surely if an image was exposed for a man in a white suit and reflective visor the background would be dark and therefore not show the stars?

That said, I don't believe we were there - crosshairs on photos obscured by rocks, astronaughts seem to be lit from more than one source, and dust from the boots not rising 4 times higher than it would on earth since gravity is a quarter.

I'll have a look at the you tube videos at home and might have further input.

 

[Alex_B]

and dust from the boots not rising 4 times higher than it would on earth since gravity is a quarter.

normally I do not comment in such threads.

just regarding the dust, the dust on earth is mainly moving around by air convection, not by it's own momentum. This driving force is much less on the moon. In vacuum in earth gravity dust does not travel high or far...

*leaves this thread again*

 

[darich]

normally I do not comment in such threads.

In vacuum in earth gravity dust does not travel high or far...

Precisely - more gravity means dust does not travel high or far. But on the moon with less gravity it would travel higher and further.....but it doesn't - only slower.

also with the thrust from the module there would be no dust in the immediate area with the engine having blown it away. but there is dust on the landing feet and foot prints at the base of the ladder.

Weird.

 

[Nurd]

I believe its true just because I would like to believe it that way. Even if it isn't or is I just find my life easier without so much complication. Besides that, you can't believe everything someone tells you. Which works both ways.

 

[Alex_B]

Precisely - more gravity means dust does not travel high or far. But on the moon with less gravity it would travel higher and further.....but it doesn't - only slower.

also with the thrust from the module there would be no dust in the immediate area with the engine having blown it away. but there is dust on the landing feet and foot prints at the base of the ladder.

Weird.

I am just saying that dust in vaccuum on earth would maybe just move up about a few cm or even less if you hit the ground directly with your feet. on the moon it might then be a few cm more, but we are not talking of 20cm or half a meter.

also with the module landing, it will not shovel away much dust, as there is no convection! it is mostly just conservation of momentum. one has to stop thinking in our "living in air atmosphere"-experience. dust simply does not really travel in vacuum or under very tiny gas pressures.

that is just me being a physicist talking ... of course I never was on the moon myself yet, so I cannot show you any video to prove it

 

[Alex_B]

darn, i did not want to get involved in this sort of dicussion ...

 

[darich]

I am just saying that dust in vaccuum on earth would maybe just move up about a few cm or even less if you hit the ground directly with your feet. on the moon it might then be a few cm more, but we are not talking of 20cm or half a meter.

also with the module landing, it will not shovel away much dust, as there is no convection! it is mostly just conservation of momentum. one has to stop thinking in our "living in air atmosphere"-experience. dust simply does not really travel in vacuum or under very tiny gas pressures.

that is just me being a physicist talking ... of course I never was on the moon myself yet, so I cannot show you any video to prove it

conservation of momentum - surely if there is no air particles on the moon then any dust would travel further than on Earth since on Earth the air particles cause the dust to lose momentum?

this arguement could go on forever, or until one of us tries it on the moon for real!!
but it's also moving away from the main topic.

 

[fmw]

but it's also moving away from the main topic.

Well, at least something positive came from it.

 

[Alex_B]

conservation of momentum - surely if there is no air particles on the moon then any dust would travel further than on Earth since on Earth the air particles cause the dust to lose momentum?

no, that is the point, on earth in air, dust travels because of air convection. if you stamp with your feet in the dust, the dust is simply blown with the air which has to escape from the shrinking volume between your feet and the ground without air, the dust would hardly travel. this is what i am trying to explain.

it is different with large grain sand due to the higher particle mass the sand particles do not travel with the airflow. all which is then left is momentum transfer... and did you ever try to stamp down into the sand and make it fly? it just does not fly very high

this arguement could go on forever, or until one of us tries it on the moon for real!!

ok, lets settle this at the 2009 TPF meeting on the moon

but it's also moving away from the main topic.

so what?

 

[darich]

I'm actually more embarrassed that i said "is no air particles" instead of "are no air particles" :blushing:

for every pro argument i make there would be a con argument..or vice versa.

We can discuss in depth at the 2009 meet like you suggest!!!:thumbup:

 

[astrostu]

darn, i did not want to get involved in this sort of dicussion ...

Yeah, that's why I stopped replying to this thread, even though I started it. But it is very interesting to see people using the same old arguments without an understanding of the physics of what goes on in an airless environment -- the same old arguments that have been explained over and over again.

To comment specifically on the Google Video link that was posted last night, I don't want to discuss any of the particulars of Bart's argument, but I did want to respond to the implication he makes that no one will swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon.

Let's say, for arument's sake, that you went to the moon. You were in a tiny capsule for a week with two other people, the world was watching you, and you know that if you press the wrong button, you're probably going to die. You get back successfully, and from all the stress, you're exhausted. It's a feel-good exhaustion, and you know that you've done something no other human has done. First, you're not going to want to talk at a press conference a day later, and you're not going to remember every little detail. Second, you're not going to want to listen to a bunch of politicians telling you what you've accomplished - you know what you accomplished.

But, there are people who don't believe you. So what? you think, you know what you did, and the people who count know what you did. But you live the next 30 years listening to these guys doing everything they can to "prove" that you never went to the moon, you never did what you're famous for, but instead you're guilty of one of the biggest lies in human history. Now, you're 75, and a tall, well-built guy who's made his career trying to bring down yours accosts you to try to get you to swear that you did what you know you did. How do you think you'd react to him? Bart seems to think that the only explanation for getting kicked and punched - and they actually cut the clip where Armstrong punched him (talked about in the next paragraph) - is that the astronauts are covering it up. Um, couldn't it be that they despise him for what he stands for and wouldn't give him the time of day?

As for the specific clip of Armstrong punching him, Bart accosted Armstrong (the beginning of the clip was cut out) to get him to swear on the Bible, blah blah blah, Armstrong punched him. What happened next - which they cut - was Bart turning to the cameras excitedly asking/yelling, "Did you get that?" He later actually tried to sue Armstrong for assult, but the judge threw it out since it was obvious from Bart's own recordings that he was more interested in the sensationalism than in getting to any "truth."

 

[Alex_B]

As for the specific clip of Armstrong punching him, Bart accosted Armstrong (the beginning of the clip was cut out) to get him to swear on the Bible, blah blah blah, Armstrong punched him. What happened next - which they cut - was Bart turning to the cameras excitedly asking/yelling, "Did you get that?" He later actually tried to sue Armstrong for assult, but the judge threw it out since it was obvious from Bart's own recordings that he was more interested in the sensationalism than in getting to any "truth."

Actually I met Armstrong in person (think it was him, or maybe mixing something up?), and it was easy to tell that something really had an impact to his live and the way he saw things ... I guess that was his trip up there. No sure if it changed him in a good way only. but at least he was very convincing to me, a bit of a weirdo though... but then again all flying personell are a bit weirdo-ish

 

[BoblyBill]

How did the seminar go by the way, astrostu?

 

[astrostu]

How did the seminar go by the way, astrostu?

It went exceedingly well, actually. I worked with one other person, and we did it as a conversation with one of us presenting the hoax claim and the other debunking it. We had video clips and pictures and audience interaction, and afterwards the professor sent us an e-mail saying that he was going to not give the customary feedback forms, that it was a great presentation and we each got 100%.

I've also had people come up to me and suggest that I work on turning it into a planetarium presentation to give at the campus planetarium. I actually might pursue that, but not until Summer when I have "free time."

 

[RMThompson]

I want to know how you debunk the fact a camera was on the ground as the lander took back off?

trust me, I dont think it was a hoax, Im just curious as how to answer this!