Doubts about the moon landings

#41
I am not sure you are acknowledging that you also are presenting a hypothesis of how the mere tapping of a rock could be picked up on the VOX. That is of course subject to the very same charge and fallacy you are putting to me. You are putting forward a hypothesis that is in direct contradiction with that of actual working application in decades of actual space walks. It simply does not happen. It did not happen with much larger impacts either while apparently on the moon.

This is of course is cognitive dissonance. You need two cakes.
Yes, I am presenting what I believe to be the null hypothesis. We have to have a null hypothesis, or we are adrift with no logical calculus. The only thing I am insisting upon, is that any claim that the null has been falsified - that claim right now is incorrect - plurality exists still.
 
#42
This is of course is cognitive dissonance. You need two cakes.
But it seems to me that by the same token, so do you. You claim that many times much greater sounds were not picked up on the moon - yet you also claim that all of this was occurring in an atmosphere, so surely those should have been picked up every time if your hypothesis is correct?
 
#43
Yes, I am presenting what I believe to be the null hypothesis. We have to have a null hypothesis, or we are adrift with no logical calculus. The only thing I am insisting upon, is that any claim that the null has been falsified - that claim right now is incorrect - plurality exists still.
Well I respectfully disagree. Your hypothesis is contradicted by modern astronauts. It is not functional. You still need two cakes.

The plurality that exists cannot logically co-exist.
 
#44
Features of a hypothesis - we don't REALLY have a true hypothesis here - rather what I call in research a 'sponsored construct' - that being said, I love these..... and they are critical to science. So keep firing away. :)

The Elements of Hypothesis

1. Construct based upon necessity. - not sure we have yet established necessity (Ockham's Razor)​
2. Wittgenstein definition and defined domain. - CHECK - good on this... save for the size of the conspiracy which protects the story... which is a domain issue of concern.​
3. Parsimony.
a. Is incremental and critical path in its construct - we have probably reached a bit too far with 'faked!' - conjecture should prosecute the idea, not declare its finished product.​
b. Methodically conserves risk in its conjecture - we have taken on an enormous risk in conjecture... science avoids this.​
c. Posed so as to minimize stakeholder risk - not sure we can avoid stakeholder risk here... LOL!!​
4. Duty to Reduce Address and Inform. - big holes here... not ready for primetime on many details of the Apollo mission, nor depth of astronaut accounts and documentation.​
5. Intelligence. - big holes here... YouTube is not intelligence nor schema - and I caught you in two critical path errors from lack of research (the expslosive charges and the LRV tires - both critical elements of intelligence here - which enabled fanciful conjecture through mistake).​
6. Mechanism. - OK since this is a conspiracy theory - we have to table mechanism to the end. The who what when where how and why - is a TBD.​
7. Exposure to Accountability. - this is a big shortfall. I think once the fist conjecture at risk is posed as a true hypothesis, its 3 elements of heteroduction, will be met with 3,000 elements of deduction. This is the biggest shortfall.​
 
Last edited:
#45
But it seems to me that by the same token, so do you. You claim that many times much greater sounds were not picked up on the moon - yet you also claim that all of this was occurring in an atmosphere, so surely those should have been picked up every time if your hypothesis is correct?
Good point.
Every time would be a dead give away don't you think? Remember none of this came to light (regarding sound) until around 2011. Many decades after, and still quite some time after the information was publicly available. Basically these things are not immediately obvious, and it all preceded modern public knowledge of the physics that modern people are now privy to. The only thing I can surmise is that errors in coordinating an air tight fabrication were made. Actually a vast number of them beyond this one line of inquiry.

The question is why sometimes? and never again in nearly 50 years? Is this not a fair question?
 
#47
Features of a hypothesis - we don't REALLY have a true hypothesis here - rather what I call in research a 'sponsored construct' - that being said, I love these..... and they are critical to science. So keep firing away. :)

The Elements of Hypothesis

1. Construct based upon necessity. - not sure we have yet established necessity (Ockham's Razor)​
2. Wittgenstein definition and defined domain. - CHECK - good on this... save for the size of the conspiracy which protects the story... which is a domain issue of concern.​
3. Parsimony.
a. Is incremental and critical path in its construct - we have probably reached a bit too far with 'faked!' - conjecture should prosecute the idea, not declare its finished product.​
b. Methodically conserves risk in its conjecture - we have taken on an enormous risk in conjecture... science avoids this.​
c. Posed so as to minimize stakeholder risk - not sure we can avoid stakeholder risk here... LOL!!​
4. Duty to Reduce Address and Inform. - big holes here... not ready for primetime on many details of the Apollo mission, nor depth of astronaut accounts and documentation.​
5. Intelligence. - big holes here... YouTube is not intelligence nor schema.​
6. Mechanism. - OK since this is a conspiracy theory - we have to table mechanism to the end. The who what when where how and why - is a TBD.​
7. Exposure to Accountability. - this is a big shortfall. I think once the fist conjecture at risk is posed as a true hypothesis, its 3 elements of heteroduction, will be met with 3,000 elements of deduction. This is the biggest shortfall.​
It's all nice and fancy. Yet you still contradict modern astronauts.
 
#49
#51
I would love to here some thoughts about the othe things I have posted so far.

In particular the waving flag while the astronauts are aboard the LEM.

Please discuss.
 
#52
This is simply false. It is an appeal to undefined authority.

Your job is to
1. Develop a true hypothesis, - you only hit one of the seven features of an ethical hypothesis
2. Falsify the null hypothesis - not even a hint of this...

You have not done either one.
I respectfully disagree. My hypothesis is based on practical examples that do not require your arbitrary regulations. You can't have your two cakes.

What do you think about the flag?
 
#54
The question is why sometimes? and never again in nearly 50 years? Is this not a fair question?
It's a fair question, although I haven't done enough research to be able to emphatically confirm its presuppositions ("sometimes" and "never again in nearly 50 years").
 
#56
I feel am posting too much. I would like to hear what other people think. I will step out for a bit and observe.

Cognitive dissonance is the natural tendency when a life time of belief is subject to doubt, be on the look out for it and especially within ourselves. Myself included.
 
#57
What do you think about the flag?
Ehhhh, you ain't gonna like this. :) When the flag disappeared at 2:04, this event came simultaneously and exactly tapered with the arrival of a purple flare at the base of the camera's field of vision, and a change in the depth of field of the camera's focus from close to far. The purple flare was not from the flag, as it disappeared as soon as the depth of field change was over - and despite the 'flag' being in the field of view.

Each time the flag disappeared, the depth of field was simultaneously adjusted to far behind the LEM and farther objects were in greater focus. Each time the 'flag' crept into the picture, there was also a commensurate change in depth of field to nearer objects. Notice that the flag creeps in and out at a consistent speed each time - almost as if it were mechanical and slow... like a lens controller.

Notice the change in the clarity of distant formations/shadows/craters at depth of field point 2 as compared with depth of field point 1.

Finally, this also was not actually the flag - but what is called a 'gamma flare' (there were gamma flares all over this video - really bad) - as you will notice, you don't see any pink or red at all in 'the flag' despite being able to see reds in the color mix on the left. The 'stripes' you see on the right are only the gamma flares from sunlight hitting the white stripes of the static flag which is not actually in the camera's field of view. Flares which arise as a result of reducing the depth of field of the camera.

Take static photos of 10 or 12 shots through the video, half with the depth of field close and half with it far - and then notice the purple flare at the bottom of the picture which happens when depth of field changes... and the blurry features in the point 2 depth of field when the flag is in the picture.

... again - this is anecdote (modus absens) - this is how deception is sold, by presenting anomalies to persons who have no experience in the medium involved. Creating a 'halo of doubt' through very mild (and false) induction, sold as falsification.

Flag waving.jpg
 
Last edited:
#58
Just one more.... :)

So why in almost half a century have we not been back?

NASA Astronaut Don Pettit gives us the answer. We also destroyed all the telemetry, all the biomedical records, all the original footage, and yes all the technology. The greatest technological feat of all time lost! Common! It's has got to raise at least some questions.

I love the first comment to this video.

"We destroyed that technology" is Nasa's version of dog ate my homework.

No that is funny!



 
#59
Ehhhh, you ain't gonna like this. :) When the flag disappeared at 2:04, this event came simultaneously and exactly tapered with the arrival of a purple flare at the base of the camera's field of vision, and a change in the depth of field of the camera's focus from close to far. The purple flare was not from the flag, as it disappeared as soon as the depth of field change was over - and despite the 'flag' being in the field of view.

Each time the flag disappeared, the depth of field was simultaneously adjusted to far behind the LEM and farther objects were in greater focus. Each time the 'flag' crept into the picture, there was also a commensurate change in depth of field to nearer objects. Notice that the flag creeps in and out at a consistent speed each time - almost as if it were mechanical and slow... like a lens controller.

Notice the change in the clarity of distant formations/shadows/craters at depth of field point 2 as compared with depth of field point 1.

Finally, this also was not actually the flag - but what is called a 'gamma flare' (there were gamma flares all over this video - really bad) - as you will notice, you don't see any pink or red at all in 'the flag' despite being able to see reds in the color mix on the left. The 'stripes' you see on the right are only the gamma flares from sunlight hitting the white stripes of the static flag which is not actually in the camera's field of view. Flares which arise as a result of reducing the depth of field of the camera.

Take static photos of 10 or 12 shots through the video, half with the depth of field close and half with it far - and then notice the purple flare at the bottom of the picture which happens when depth of field changes... and the blurry features in the point 2 depth of field when the flag is in the picture.

... again - this is anecdote (modus absens) - this is how deception is sold, by presenting anomalies to persons who have no experience in the medium involved. Creating a 'halo of doubt' through very mild (and false) induction, sold as falsification.
Well these aspects are what my profession has to deal with on a regular basis. So I had to reply to this one, it is fun for me.

Firstly the ASLJ folks made a official response that it was cabin pressure. That is the official excuse and not the one you are using. Which was easily debunked quite dramatically in the video.

Likewise you won't like this.

The purple flare is not present on every wave of the flag, it has nothing to do with what we are seeing.

Secondly a change in the depth of field will result in the change in the appearance of all sizing of elements in the field of view. A change of depth of field to account for the range of motion in the that would be required would cause all objects to shrink in size and then grow again. In particular we would see the details particularly near the base of the flag moving in proportion to the amount of pixels the flag has while in frame. There is no evidence of this. I have tracked thousand of pieces of footage, and have had to deal with changing depths of field and noise. What you are describing is simply wrong.

I have simulated this point so you can see what happens when shifting the depth of field enough to cause such an effect. This is a mere shift from 35mm to 37mm in order to make the flag enter and exit frame.

lunarGif.gif

It is not a gamma flare it is severe chromatic aberration. Not nearly enough to cause such an effect that is actual constant throughout. The film is poor quality, suffering from noise that is causing things to appear to wobble.

Focus will not cause the framing to change either.

There is nothing occurring as you describe in proportion to the amount of pixels that are required to shift the flag in and out of frame.

This is what I do, it is how I make a living.

Modus absens is actually in your court sorry to say ETS, because this is definitely the medium that I do in fact know quite well. Well enough to make a living from it.
 
Last edited:
#60
Well these aspects are what my profession has to deal with on a regular basis. So I had to reply to this one, it is fun for me.

Firstly the ASLJ folks made a official response that it was cabin pressure. That is the official excuse and not the one you are using.

Likewise you won't like this.

The purple flare is not present on every wave of the flag, it has nothing to do with what we are seeing.

Secondly a change in the depth of field will result in the change in the appearance of all sizing of elements in the field of view. A change of depth of field to account for the range of motion in the that would be required would cause all objects to shrink in size and then grow again. In particular we would see the details particularly near the base of the flag moving in proportion to the amount of pixels the flag has while in frame. There is no evidence of this. I have tracked thousand of pieces of footage, and have had to deal with changing depths of field and noise. What you are describing is simply wrong.

I have simulated this point so you can see what happens when shifting the depth of field enough to cause such an effect. This is a mere shift from 35mm to 37mm in order to make the flag enter and exit frame.

View attachment 1448

It is not a gamma flare it is severe chromatic aberration. Not nearly enough to cause such an effect that is actual constant throughout. The film is poor quality, suffering from noise that is causing things to appear to wobble.

Focus will not cause the framing to change either.

There is nothing occurring as you describe in proportion to the amount of pixels that are required to shift the flag in and out of frame.

This is what I do, it is how I make a living.
I think you might be confusing changing the focus with zooming a lens? Unless I’m misunderstanding TES’s post.
 
Top