[FirstClassSkeptic]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 0-000.html

Nasa is suing a former astronaut who put a camera used in the Apollo 14 mission up for auction.

Edgar Mitchell, who used the device to record the moon's surface, is accused of illegally possessing the camera and attempting to sell it for profit.

Nasa learned the British auction house Bonhams was planning to sell the data acquisition camera at an upcoming Space History Sale back in March, according to the suit.

[rerevisionist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aXuQ9Dg2gE&feature=related

Short youtube, dated about 4 years ago (start of 2008) of Brian Cox, who was a pop singer, discussing, or rather dismissing, the moon landing hoax. Note that he has no actual cogent argument at all. This berk was in some pop group and I have to assume he has been promoted as a BBC face of science - I've seen women in chatrooms doing a sort of online swoon. If you want money for useless hardware, then such people are needed. I'd love some informed person(s) to really lay into phonies of this type.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Highly intelligent people tend to be reticent, a little unsure of themselves. Sometimes stumbling in speech, stopping often to self assess what they just said, correcting themselves. Getting off track often and into some related aspect. Not great conversationalists or social animals. Others see them as weird. They don't come across very well in our image driven information age. So it's usually happens that the best person to ask about some highly technical subject will make the worse impression on television, or video. Besides, main stream news only allows about 20 seconds for anyone to convey all the wisdom they know. So the people who usually end up in front of a studio camera are the good looking, slick talkers, who can look you in the eye like they're the most honest person on earth, and read a teleprompter or make up something on the fly.

[rerevisionist]

@FCS - I followed a link of yours elsewhere, and found this new Youtube by ST4RSCREAM144---

NASA's Cassini Snaps Unbelievable Picture of Saturn - No Really! It's Not Believable!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvKUXsj2dvc

Looks like the 'photos' of Saturn's rings, the ones looking a bit like twisted thin ropes, were faked all along. They showed computer-generated graphics at the time, of small rocks rotating around when they happened to be near, which I would guess prompted the images. The one here seems to be based on genuine photos of Saturn, which of course are always made when the sun shines on Saturn - it would be too dark otherwise. This means there might be a shadow of the rings. They seem to have assumed there'd be a shadow on the dark side - and the whole contrast and detail and lack of stars is wrong. Truly weird. Maybe David Percy is right - the people doing the faking may make deliberate mistakes. Giving the finger to the censors, maybe. (I think that's the American expression!)

[FirstClassSkeptic]

NASA calls this Saturn photo a shapshot, then says it's a mosaic composition. So that's a contradiction right away.

The Daily Mail tabloid had an article about new pictures of Saturn's eye, taken from land based telescopes. Peculiar thing is, they never show the picture which they claim to have. The Picture they show of the eye they accredit to Voyager. Actually, it looks like ink and milk swirled together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... piter.html

I wanted to see the picture they say is from a land based telescope and compare it to the ones they claim are taken from space craft.

[rerevisionist]

I'm afraid you're mixing up Jupiter and Saturn. However, I believe Saturn has its own version of a red spot - but Saturn is about twice as far and more difficult to observe. You're right to be suspicious about the graphics. There's another part of this sight (on 'moon landings') with stuff, in case you've forgotten, but allow me to repeat this - I have a paperback copy of 'The Planets' by Heather Couper and Nigel Henbest. The cover design - of Jupiter - on examination, is a painting. ... This is a Pan book published in 1985, related to a Channel 4 TV series. My copy has a section of an image of Jupiter on the cover. This image in fact on examination is a painting - probably gouache or coloured chalks. I can tell it's a painting by various signs, such as inaccurate perspective, and the edge of the disk of Jupiter, which is painted lazily - the clouds should curve neatly and disappear, but the artist didn't bother and put an edge. (Bit hard to explain..)

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Yes, that was Jupiter.

I expected to see the picture taken from the land based telescope, but didn't.

What I suspect is. a photo taken from a good earth based telescope, run through some digital filtering processes, and you could get some amazing photos.

But then again, NASA could entirely fake it, paint it, computer generate it, and who would be able to prove it's faked?

[rerevisionist]

TV programme debunking the moon landings, broadcast in 1999 on British TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzKbJqanKI
This is part 1. It has comments on it which update the participants. Quite amusing and painless. It was broadcast at the end of a series on the supposed events of 1969.

[Ranb]

The book also contains many standard 'moon landing' photos known to be fakes.

Which ones are known to be fakes? Any of the ones listed at this link? https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

Ranb

[Ranb]

@ FirstClassSkeptic ---- those may or may not happened. The world's leading moon hoax researcher on the technical and photo editing aspects is Jarrah White.

I believe that Jarrah White is the "world's leading moon hoax researcher". But this does not mean that anything he says is true. Want to discuss just one claim he makes that can be proven?

Ranb

[rerevisionist]

Although it's perfectly clear the moon landings were fake, personally I think there should be a properly detailed investigation into all the aspects of the fake.

As far as I know, even today there's still been no biological investigation into the claims. The 'astronauts' would need oxygen, water, some food, some heat exchanging/stabilisation. And protection from the vacuum of space, gravitational stress, radiations, and physical bombardments of micrometeorites; and they'd need enough physical space for thier bodies and equipment. If you just consider oxygen, the amounts are large, and the only way to transport it would be in containers able to hold it liquefied on earth, maybe with sodium peroxide or something to help out. NASA seem to have taken their iconography partly from mountaineers, with backpacks; but the oxygen supplementation that mountaineers get is quite small - SCUBA divers use a whole tank in about an hour. The 'astronauts' also need to urinate and defecate, and, though this latter could be reduced, they'd have some difficulty doing it in a vacuum. Heat exchange alone on the moon - in full sunlight, or in shade - would be impossible with the tiny amounts of equipment they supposedly had. Disentanging all the various myths needs a serious study.

This is quite apart from the other problems; consider for example launching off from the moon, without fins or stabilisation, and with about the same amount of fuel as in a lawnmower, and trying to catch up an object moving around the moon with escape velocity.

As far as I know, science frauds at the present time are something new in human history. It could be argued that medicine through the whole period of the Middle Ages was a similar fraud; and it's historically true that few events get investigated - wars, for example. Anyway it's hard to say whether the NASA frauds will just fade away and be forgotten. Or maybe an 'astronaut' on his deathbed will make an online confession, and give firm evidence. Or NASA might get a new broom. You tell me!

[Ranb]

If you just consider oxygen, the amounts are large, and the only way to transport it would be in containers able to hold it liquefied on earth, maybe with sodium peroxide or something to help out. NASA seem to have taken their iconography partly from mountaineers, with backpacks; but the oxygen supplementation that mountaineers get is quite small - SCUBA divers use a whole tank in about an hour. The 'astronauts' also need to urinate and defecate, and, though this latter could be reduced, they'd have some difficulty doing it in a vacuum. Heat exchange alone on the moon - in full sunlight, or in shade - would be impossible with the tiny amounts of equipment they supposedly had. Disentanging all the various myths needs a serious study.

This is quite apart from the other problems; consider for example launching off from the moon, without fins or stabilisation, and with about the same amount of fuel as in a lawnmower, and trying to catch up an object moving around the moon with escape velocity.

Can you be more specific than "large"? Try determining how much space liquefied oxygen takes up then compare that to the requirements for three men for two weeks along with several depressurizations. Are you sure saying "large" is enough proof to say the moon landings were fake?

The astronauts do not have to relieve themselves in a vacuum. They had a urine relief tube in the spacecraft and used plastic bags to defecate in while inside the LM.

While the LM landed in the early lunar morning, only half of it was in sunlight, the other half in shade and entirely capable of radiating heat. In your opinion what equipment is required for keeping a spacecraft habitable in a vacuum?

The LM could not use fins as it operated in a vacuum only. It had thrusters to adjust attitude and keep it stabilized in flight. What makes you think that the LM only had the amount of fuel as in a lawnmower? I think the actual amount is over 3000 pounds of fuel. Where did you get the value you claimed?

The ascent portion of the LM only had to accelerate to orbital velocity of about 5900 mph. The service module engine was the one that accelerated out of lunar orbit (over twice as fast) to return to the Earth.

Ranb