EEVdiscover: How To Prove We Landed On The Moon - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2017, 10:48:38 pm
content: Dave compares the original Apollo 17 16mm ascent camera footage to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) photos.Will footage from 40 years apart match up to confirm the moon landing?The Last Man On The Moon:http://amzn.to/2h1b6XcAudio Book:http://amzn.to/2uySy3XBook:http://amzn.to/2uV67NB

author: Jr460
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2017, 11:24:55 pm
content: Dave,I was going to say it if you didn't..... Gene Cernan was one hell of nice guy. I met him around the summer of 2000 along with Armstrong and Aldrin.I'll leave this for others to find out. Cernan said, everyone knows the first words on the moon, but what where the last words spoken on the moon?

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 25, 2017, 11:54:49 pm
content: Quote from: Jr460 on July 25, 2017, 11:24:55 pmThat depends on what you define as "on the moon".Is it when man's foot (or boot) or the vehicle in which they travelled was in contact with the lunar surface?If it's the former, then the words are on record. If it's the latter - then even the first words are not what everyone remembers. I believe those were call-outs from the landing procedure.Personally, my view is when we started and stopped making footprints in the dirt.

author: dave_k
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 03:54:06 am
content: Quote from: Jr460 on July 25, 2017, 11:24:55 pmIt was something like this ...Quote

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 09:21:53 am
content: I believe you can prove, that man landed on the moon, by punching people in the face, just like Buzz Aldrin.

author: psycho0815
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 09:57:52 am
content: Of course the problem with deproving those consiracy nuts is as always:If someone is deluded enough to believe that NASA somehow faked all the moon landings and footage, they will have no problem at all to believe that they also faked all the LRO pictures to match up with the other "faked" media.Still a cool video, though.

author: NivagSwerdna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 10:23:45 am
content: Recommended readinghttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Moondust-Search-Men-Fell-Earth/dp/1408802384Review here...https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/apr/24/biography.features

author: Phil Smith
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 11:42:08 am
content: Quote from: psycho0815 on July 26, 2017, 09:57:52 amYep, that's a problem right there - if some people truly believe all this "Moon landing hoax" BS - they always find something for every your logical evidence..Anyway, Thanks for the video, Dave!

author: The Soulman
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 11:53:26 am
content: Maybe Dave could do a video on different technical aspects of the lunar-module such as energy supply, thermal management, radio communications, live support, etc.Also the buggy would have been a engineering masterpiece.

author: NivagSwerdna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 12:23:43 pm
content: Proving things is really hard if you are relying on information from one source. However, for the lunar landings there is plenty of third party evidence... e.g. SELENE topography.

author: GreggD
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2017, 02:53:04 pm
content: Forty years ago I worked with some people that were on the team that processed the film from Apollo 11.In a cabinet at that company I found a can of film. The film is 70mm by 100 feet. It is a first generation dupe of Apollo 11 film magazine S, "The good one".I believe it is Kodak Ektachrome if memory serves me. I have not opened the can since first viewing the stunning photos those 40 years ago.I told the right people at the company that I had the film and was going to keep it if no one claimed it. No one did.There are a few other first generation dupes in the wild. The original was shot with a Hasselblad camera.The company had hundreds of cans of film. Many 11.5 inches by 1000 & 2000 feet long. Imagine the cameras.News: Jan 5 2017, In a super shocking announcement being made today at CES 2017, Kodak is bringing back one of their iconic films: Kodak Ektachrome 100

author: Cornel
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 27, 2017, 02:31:04 am
content: HiOh, cmon!There are a lot of fakes, lies and hoaxes out there, even gigantic ones. But the moon landing a fake? Give me a break. Just by looking at the particles, the physics of them. e.g. when the pod takes off, the speed and direction of the particles flying around or the dust the moon rover wheels lift off the moon surface etc.Maybe today one could render/fake something like that in a computer, maybe, but 40 years ago?! No way.BIGthanks for the show Dave.All learning isn't worth a penny when courage and joy are lost.J.H. PestalozziC.

author: DBecker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2017, 05:42:05 am
content: I think one of the most powerful arguments is the nVIDIA photorealistic rendering work from 2014. The used high quality computer rendering techniques to reproduce the scenes, and then looked at what created the odd effects seen in the actual photographs.One example was the ambient lighting. Landing deniers claimed that the extra light proved that the pictures were taken on a sound stage with fill lights. The photorealistic model showed that the extra light actually came from the bright white suit of the astronaut taking the picture -- something that hadn't been considered before. It certainly couldn't have been accurately computed for a fake even a decade ago, let alone decades before.

author: hermit
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 31, 2017, 12:24:59 pm
content: It's been toned down a little since the last time I visited but probably one of the best sites. He mentions things like the parabolic trajectory of the dirt coming off the lunar rover tires and not spreading because there is no atmosphere and the gravity is different. No CGI in those days. Way too many little details that add up. I love how people get on their computers and cell phones and connect to the internet claiming they don't believe in the science that makes it possible.http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

author: alm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2017, 02:27:18 pm
content: Never mind that there was another superpower with a decent amount of resources that would have loved to beat the US to the moon. I imagine sixties technology could easily triangulate the radio transmissions. But if people did not arrive at their current conclusion through science and evidence, then I doubt more science and evidence is going to change their mind.Still a cool video, though!

author: WastelandTek
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2017, 02:35:42 pm
content: you guys heard of Larry Baysinger? pretty cool story, even some scratchy audio clips out therehttp://observatory.jctcfaculty.org/APOLLO11/Default.htm

author: FrankBuss
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 01, 2017, 05:43:35 pm
content: It's sad, there are still many people who think the moon landing was a fake (I've read somewhere 25%). I guess the main reason is that they need some basic math and physics education, or maybe they are just dumb, as seen in this video (you can skip to the end at minute 4:00 without missing something to see his point) :Of course, the explanation is obvious and at least this is one of the higher rated comments: The Apollo Hasselblad cameras had a field of view of 47.5° and the DSCOVR camera has a field of view of 0.62°. The author of the video suggested to ask a photography shop to "work out some math". It's basic trigonometry, all distances and sizes are know, every high school student could do it. He could even do it with a sketch and a ruler on paper, without calculating anything.And then there are people who might be clinically insane, like this Youtuber:But still, more than half of the viewers liked the video