Hunchie Fail # 207

Apollo Doubter "hunchbacked" argues in his videos "A facetious camera" and "Refutation of the arguments of Apollo believers" that video taken on the "rover" (LRV) in those videos must have been faked, because the camera on the rover couldn't possibly view both the astronaut and the low-gain antenna both seen in the Apollo footage.

The assertion is ridiculous and sad, because it can clearly, easily be demonstrated using a simple diagram and elementary geometry. I do that here.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe the this guy, who claims he is an engineer, is being serious....but that's just my humble observation. I wish him well. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pthmh8A1YPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ5Xpeq0vrI

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Rover
• Apollo
• hunchbacked
• LRV
• camera
• 16mm DAC
• hoax

[Planetar17]

Can anybody explain how Jarrah White can get away with copyright infringement complaints? It seems to me short outtakes from a video when used for scholarly refutation is legal, at least in the U.S. Does he have some Australian loophole YouTube is bound to uphold? He must be a lefty, or something. Enlightened people don't attack free speech. What about his own quotes from other videos? Not to mention the flagrant theft from the 007 movie intros.

[LunarTuner]

@Planetar17, I haven't followed the war he declared on Astrobrant2, but I think it's pathetic. He's a sissy. Everything said about him that he doesn't favor is labeled as slander and libel. In the end, I think he loses the war, because he doesn't understand the definitions of those words. He's eager to put his face on everything, but unwilling to hear any voice challenging him or using his own words or video to demonstrate his error. He's a baby. His own bent on censorship is his own downfall..

[Astrobrant2]

Every time I see a video like this, I think, "Well, that should pretty much settle it."

But they always seem to come back with something, don't they? No matter how absurd, they just HAVE to throw something back at you.

Let's see what HB says about this.

Good video.

[LunarTuner]

@Astrobrant2 ...because the moon hoax theory is not just a failure of the mind--it's also a failure of the will.

[Rob260259]

@hunchbacked

ApolloWasReal: "You lose again."

- It's called habit.

[1MtnBoy]

nice Lunar. man those pesky little facts sure do screw up a good scandal huh ? LMAO !

[ApolloWasReal]

@lukequixotesanjose Not to hear the hoaxnuts tell it!

[ApolloWasReal]

@hunchbacked Why do you have such a hard time accepting the camera's FOV when it is trivially confirmed with an analysis of readily available documentation? Do cameras and lenses work differently on the moon than on the earth?

I think I know: the moment you accept even the simplest facts is the moment you start doubting your own position. You can't afford that because the cognitive dissonance would cause you to implode. So you're like Harold Camping's followers; you just keep going.

[ApolloWasReal]

@NASAsPETE I wouldn't use the word "disgusting". I can think of many things that merit that word far more than hunchbacked's videos.

I would use the word 'sad'. Sad that he has wasted so much time and effort on producing 200+ videos - that hardly anybody watches - denying one of the best documented engineering projects in history. Sad that he can't appreciate the human achievement of Apollo. And sad that he has learned so little from all his work.

[ApolloWasReal]

@hunchbacked And indeed we don't see the high gain antenna pole -- that's the LOW gain antenna. You lose again.

[hunchbacked]

@ApolloWasReal

If the astronaut was really taken in front, we could not see the pole of the high gain antenna on the image!

[hunchbacked]

@ApolloWasReal

Damn, can't you made the difference between "In front" and "on the side".

Are you so much cut from reality that you can't make the difference?

I can't believe that you are so blind, so delusional.

[hunchbacked]

@ApolloWasReal

I doubt the camera which is filming this scene really has an angle of 65°, but, even if has, it still is not filming in front and can't be the rover's camera.

But I am not surprised you can't see it, so much you are cut from reality.

[ApolloWasReal]

@hunchbacked What?! It is obvious to anyone with functional eyes that the Hasselblad projects IN FRONT of the astronaut so the front of its lens is much closer to the center of the movie camera's FOV than the astronaut himself. And the perspective is entirely consistent with that fact.

As for the film camera's FOV the documentation says it's 65 degrees and it is obviously quite wide. So you simply deny that without any evidence whatsoever because it demolishes your case.