Doubts about the moon landings

[LoneShaman]

I think you might be confusing changing the focus with zooming a lens? Unless I’m misunderstanding TES’s post.

What you are seeing in my example is simulated depth of field from 35mm to 37mm. Normally you would see some blurring. There is no blurring that would normally be caused in relation to the focal point in this render at all, I simply did not render it. I could simulate that but it would not matter as the effect of framing and object sizes would still be as apparent as they are in the example. We are talking about quite a few pixels in order to move the flag in out of frame as much as it does. It would be very apparent in all objects and framing just as it is in my example.

I happy to apply whatever specs one thinks would be required?

If it was really as easy as that, the cabin pressure excuse would not be needed.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

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.

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.

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.

Agreed, no way in hell it is 'cabin pressure'. That would be perceived as pretty desperate. :)

Awesome work on the focal length simulation - Nails IT!!!

But in this '35 to 37mm example' you are changing the focal length, and not the depth of field. Those are two different things. At first I did suspect focal length, but dismissed it for the same reason you did above, as there was no appreciable field of view change. The camera is changing depth of field throughout the video, and you can plainly see it - it changes with the 'entry and exit' of the flag. The far craters get blurry, then they get crisp - and the flag moves in and out with that change. Every time.

The lens edge bleedover is a gamma effect and not chroma aberration - as the white light did not separate into its chromatic constituents. In optics,

"chromatic aberration (abbreviated CA; also called chromatic distortion and spherochromatism) is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same point." (~Wikipedia)​

This was a flare of integral white light with an excess of amplitude - and that is gamma.

 

[LoneShaman]

Agreed, no way in hell it is 'cabin pressure'. That would be perceived as pretty desperate.

But in this '35 to 37mm example' you are changing the focal length, and not depth of field. Those are two different things. At first I did suspect focal length, but dismissed it for the same reason you did above, as there was no appreciable field of view change. The camera is changing depth of field throughout the video, and you can plainly see it - it changes with the 'entry and exit' of the flag.

The lens edge bleedover is a gamma effect and not chroma aberration - as the white light did not separate into its chromatic constituents. In optics,

"chromatic aberration (abbreviated CA; also called chromatic distortion and spherochromatism) is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same point." (~Wikipedia)​

This was a flare of integral white light with an excess of amplitude - that is gamma.

Right, I understand you. I was doing both but you do not see the blur because I did not render it.

Adjusting the f-stop alone does not change the framing at all. You can see the details near the base do not enter and exit the frame to the degree that would be required to make the flag appear to move.

I am happy to try any specifications you might think would do the trick?

 

[LoneShaman]

Sorry that is badly worded, we don't want the framing to change, because it is not. You are saying the f-stop is shifting so much that all those pixels that make up what we can see of the flag is making it appear to move in and out? even though the ground near it is not?

This doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect that the f-stop is changing because the flag is actually moving and causing the blur.

This makes much more sense.

I have tried all different focus distance ranges, and f-stop ranging from 1 to 64, and I cannot get anything like what you describe to occur at all.
For that many pixels, the blur region in that entire range of where the flag is, which are most of what we can see it seems, would likewise be growing and shrinking, blurring in and out, all to the same degree, everything at that particular distance. but it is not.

The chromatic aberration is constant as are the gain levels, this is the terminology I am accustomed to in regards to the brightest pixels that you are calling gamma flare. Lift for black areas, gamma for mid tones, gain for highlights. It is just a terminology thing, no biggy.

I have watched it over and over, that flag is most definitely moving.

 

[Steve]

I have watched it over and over, that flag is most definitely moving.

Meanwhile in CIA HQ where the thread is now being closely monitored in real time.

“Okay guys, this asshole has to go!”

I know, I’ve been watching too many movies. :)

 

[David Bailey]

Wow - this thread has grown by 4 pages since I made it yesterday! Much of this is devoted to photography, which I don't know much about, particularly now that everything is digital, and my camera focuses and adjusts itself automatically.

Has anyone yet discussed the reason why this supposed fake might have been done? The primary reason I have heard is that the Van Allen radiation belts contain too much radiation for an unshielded spacecraft with human occupants to travel through. That would certainly be true if a spacecraft orbited at that height, but the lunar missions first went into low Earth orbit, and then a short while later, accelerated into a trajectory that took them to the moon. This would have exposed the astronauts to the radiation for a much shorter time frame.

The strange thing is, that if it is clear that the radiation was too great, wouldn't this have been discussed openly long before the missions took off?

David

 

[LoneShaman]

Ok, I know I said I would rest, but it got into something I know. Anyway I think I get what TES was saying. I really did try to take it on board. As I understand it there are two variables to consider in that scenario one is the focal distance and the other is the aperture size. focal distance is the point that would be in focus under depth of field, the aperture distance gives the range of focus whether it is wide or shallow.

I have spent the last 5 hours on this. lol. So much for taking a break. Dam OCD!!!!

I have tried to simulate many variations, I can do it very quickly by slowly shifting the focal distance back and cranking out variations on the aperture size. Since the flag is what is being questioned it must not be in the range of focus as it of course has to be subject to blurring due to depth of field in order to do this magic trick.

I have to go back to what I said before that in order to shift that many pixels everything in that range must be subject to the same amount of blur. In all my tests it has produced dramatic results in the entirety of the image, even more noticeable than that combined with focal length.

See for yourself, look at how many pixels the flag occupies at its peak. We should see everything outside of the aperture size blur that same amount of pixels. The mountains do not, the foreground does not, and what seems close to the range of the flag does not. Besides the noise, everything is quite consistent. Except of course the flag. Even the stripes despite the poor quality remain relatively stable and should, under that scenario get completely lost from the amount of bur that would be required to move that many pixels.

​

Just looking at it I knew this was impossible, but i tried my best to take it on board and test if there was any chance. this is how I worked with all of my analysis. I am fully aware of confirmation bias, I honestly always tried to make everything work not in my favor. I spent hours and hours making sure my gravity sims were spot on with lunar gravity before I did any conversions.

My Conclusion on the depth of field thing - not a chance in hell. That flag is definitely moving.

 

[LoneShaman]

Wow - this thread has grown by 4 pages since I made it yesterday! Much of this is devoted to photography, which I don't know much about, particularly now that everything is digital, and my camera focuses and adjusts itself automatically.

Has anyone yet discussed the reason why this supposed fake might have been done? The primary reason I have heard is that the Van Allen radiation belts contain too much radiation for an unshielded spacecraft with human occupants to travel through. That would certainly be true if a spacecraft orbited at that height, but the lunar missions first went into low Earth orbit, and then a short while later, accelerated into a trajectory that took them to the moon. This would have exposed the astronauts to the radiation for a much shorter time frame.

The strange thing is, that if it is clear that the radiation was too great, wouldn't this have been discussed openly long before the missions took off?

David

There are couple of reasons that are tossed around. The main one being it was the cold war era, and it was to maintain the appearance of technological dominance. Up until Apollo 11 the Russians were leaps and bounds ahead of the US. First satellite, first man in space etc...

Here is what I think, and it is I acknowledge it is a bit out there. They did go. But it was not using the technology we were exposed to or have been exposed to. It also possible that the photographs could not survive the radiation. The footage could not be transmitted so far from Earth and they had to fake it for appearance sake.

They went to examine the effects of the Sun on the moon. They know very well that the Sun is subject to cyclical micro nova events. Apollo was a Sun god after all. They found vitrification all over the moon, glass full of fission tracks. The whole moon has been glazed in the past.

Charles Hapgood of the crustal displacement theory was a CIA agent! He alone was responsible for bringing that entire field down with him. Meanwhile the book "the Adam and Eve story by Chan Thomas was classified top secret by the CIA. A stripped down sanitized version was released only a few years ago.

Why this book and not any other in this field? The difference was the cause, the cause of the great catastrophes on Earth is the Sun. It is on a clock cycle of approximately every 12,000 years.

This was the other fringy stuff I was going to explore here on Skeptiko until this moon thing come up, however it is actually related. They found the evidence on the Moon.

I am a nut job hey? I can't help where these voices tell me to look. They are very insistent LOL!!

 

[LoneShaman]

Check out the craftsmanship! No wonder they lost the technology. I guess the went under budget.
Wikipedia says...

The total cost of the LM for development and the units produced was $21.3 billion in 2016 dollars, adjusting from a nominal total of $2.2 billion[2] using the NASA New Start Inflation Indices.

These are actual photos from the Lunar Surface.

In my parts we have a saying for this. Dodgy AF!!! :)

In the workshop it would go something like this.

F*ck me dead, I know she don't have to fly in atmosphere, but can ya at least get the f*cken panels straight ya bludgers?
Yeah, nah.. f*ck that! How about we drape a bita black shit round then wrap her up in foil, make er look all shiny and shit?

​

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Meanwhile in CIA HQ where the thread is now being closely monitored in real time.

“Okay guys, this asshole has to go!”

I know, I’ve been watching too many movies. :)

LOL!!! :) I have absolutely no doubt they are.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

My Conclusion on the depth of field thing - not a chance in hell. That flag is definitely moving.

You can see the focus of the distant objects change with each flag-in and flag-out moment. That gif shows it all LS. What this does is appeal to a modus indifferens not a modus praesens. So, it does not end the argument by any means, so I cannot make the claims of the fake skeptic - it just neutralizes this from purported deductive evidence, to a linear affirmation at best... again, inference which resides in that zone of caution.

We can 'disprove' absolutely anything with a small collection of linear affirmation anomaly inferences. All you have to do, is establish a halo of doubt, and then reframe anything iffy' to act as a confirmation of that a priori idea which was generated in a vacuum.

The only way we avoid linear affirmation here, is to see the majority of the flag and structural movement with no depth of field change. Otherwise, we are tricking our own minds.

 

[David Bailey]

In the video, we just see the very edge of the flag illuminated by the sun. It seems at least possible to me that what we are seeing is the flag coming in and out of a shadow of some sort - particularly since shadows should be very crisp because of the lack of atmosphere.

The LEM seems to have some antennas at the very top, and it is not inconceivable that these cast a shadow that fell on the flag. Any movement of these antennas might produce the effect you demonstrated.

I don't know what TES's clasification for this would be, but I think the fallacy here is to go anomaly hunting. I suspect that if you took a video of anything and dissected it frame by frame you could find things that seemed inexplicable, just because they were the result of a myriad of interactions that are hard to model. Dare I say, it is a little like looking at 140 years of averaged temperature measurements on the Earth and trying to explain a 0.8C temperature trend :)

David

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

I don't know what TES's clasification for this would be, but I think the fallacy here is to go anomaly hunting.

Ockham's Razor - “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”


We have not established necessity. Every single thing of complexity in your life, will have some kind of hair on it. No matter how certain it is. That is just the way chaos works - there will always be anomalies. The question is - the type and mode of inference one can derive from it/them.

But the key is this - not to discourage anomaly hunting, like what LS is doing here. This is the duty of science. The fake skeptic tries to condemn that process, the topics and the people. I am saying "Well done, I love it... Let's keep this ethic going."

 

[David Bailey]

Ockham's Razor - “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”

I don't think Ockham's Razor as such says anything about complicated systems with hair on them. It just tells you not to use two hypotheses if one will do.

We have not established necessity. Every single thing of complexity in your life, will have some kind of hair on it. No matter how certain it is. That is just the way chaos works - there will always be anomalies. The question is - the type and mode of inference one can derive from it/them.

But the key is this - not to discourage anomaly hunting, like what LS is doing here. This is the duty of science. The fake skeptic tries to condemn that process, the topics and the people. I am saying "Well done, I love it... Let's keep this ethic going."

Well I suppose I am saying that decomposing the video evidence with this level of detail is likely to leave us with some things that can't be explained, and it is dangerous to 'explain' them by introducing the drastic hypothesis that the moon landings were faked.

The new hypothesis introduces a mass of new questions!

David

 

[LoneShaman]

You can see the focus of the distant objects change with each flag-in and flag-out moment. That gif shows it all LS. What this does is appeal to a modus indifferens not a modus praesens. So, it does not end the argument by any means, so I cannot make the claims of the fake skeptic - it just neutralizes this from purported deductive evidence, to a linear affirmation at best... again, inference which resides in that zone of caution.

We can 'disprove' absolutely anything with a small collection of linear affirmation anomaly inferences. All you have to do, is establish a halo of doubt, and then reframe anything iffy' to act as a confirmation of that a priori idea which was generated in a vacuum.

The only way we avoid linear affirmation here, is to see the majority of the flag and structural movement with no depth of field change. Otherwise, we are tricking our own minds.

Sorry TES. I certainly don't think you are making the claims of a fake skeptic. You are a very intelligent dude. but your not immune to human psychology. Your mind is fabricating things because you see the alternative as not possible. So you have to make these things consistent. This is cognitive dissonance. Yes you are tricking your mind.

There is no depth of field change, I know this for certain.

 

[Creativemind]

Lone,
I agree with your assessment of the reason for the mission. To many it seems quite clear that our current sun goes mini nova from time to time and shoots both small and large plasma bolides. Kudo's on the alternate technology as the method of travel. This can not be ruled out yet. Thanks. I love this stuff. I say again. THE MOON IS AN ARTIFICIAL structure.

 

[LoneShaman]

In the video, we just see the very edge of the flag illuminated by the sun. It seems at least possible to me that what we are seeing is the flag coming in and out of a shadow of some sort - particularly since shadows should be very crisp because of the lack of atmosphere.

The LEM seems to have some antennas at the very top, and it is not inconceivable that these cast a shadow that fell on the flag. Any movement of these antennas might produce the effect you demonstrated.

I don't know what TES's clasification for this would be, but I think the fallacy here is to go anomaly hunting. I suspect that if you took a video of anything and dissected it frame by frame you could find things that seemed inexplicable, just because they were the result of a myriad of interactions that are hard to model. Dare I say, it is a little like looking at 140 years of averaged temperature measurements on the Earth and trying to explain a 0.8C temperature trend :)

David

I don't find that convincing, because when the flag moves we don't see shadow over it but the mountains behind, or rather the backdrop :)

Just like in nearly all photographs and footage you can see the line of separation of what is the set, and sometimes carpet line with that of the front projected distant panorama. Just saying.

Even if what you proposing is the case, something is moving when it should not be.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

Sorry TES. I certainly don't think you are making the claims of a fake skeptic. You are a very intelligent dude. but your not immune to human psychology. Your mind is fabricating things because you see the alternative as not possible. So you have to make these things consistent. This is cognitive dissonance. Yes you are tricking your mind.

There is no depth of field change, I know this for certain.

No, I am avoiding methodical deescalation. It is a method mistake of non-science.

Overturning 3,000 pieces of deductive and falsifying evidence, in favor of one apparent anomaly of linear affirmation - is not a smart activity on the part of anyone - and this parsimony has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. If a person is here in Skeptiko, pondering all these possibilities - they are already way past the CD point.

Instead of making fundamental attribution bias judgements about your conversant (rhetoric) - let's stick to the material arguments and critical path. :) The subject is way more interesting.

 

[The Ethical Skeptic]

I don't think Ockham's Razor as such says anything about complicated systems with hair on them. It just tells you not to use two hypotheses if one will do.

Scientific Plurality (Parsimony of hair)

1. Adding another or additional plausible explanation alternatives, without a compelling reason to do so. (Chasing hair which already exists naturally)

2. Adding or stacking features to a single hypothesis or construct, without a compelling reason to do so. (Adding hair)

 

[David Bailey]

I don't find that convincing, because when the flag moves we don't see shadow over it but the mountains behind, or rather the backdrop :)

Just like in nearly all photographs and footage you can see the line of separation of what is the set, and sometimes carpet line with that of the front projected distant panorama. Just saying.

Even if what you proposing is the case, something is moving when it should not be.

Well I guess the antennae on the top of the LEM may be intentionally moveable - I don't know. It would only take the slightest movement to potentially put something into shadow, or reveal it.

The 'shadow' over the backdrop looks to me like an automatic brightness control cutting in when the flag lights up - whatever caused that. Old fashioned TV was full of artefacts like that.

David