An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by ngchunter
I fail to see the relevance of a date stamp, but Selene successfully imaged the dust disturbance caused by the Apollo descent stages:
Before and after Apollo 15 landed:

But where is the corroborating photographic evidence of this large dust disturbance, supposedly created by the Apollo 15 LM?

If someone believes there are such photos, then please cite the AS number, and/or post the images.

Originally posted by turbonium
But where is the corroborating photographic evidence of this large dust disturbance, supposedly created by the Apollo 15 LM?

I don't have any photos, but I do have a video. The dust starts to be blown out from under the LM at around the 2:30 mark. There are videos like this for every Apollo mission.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by jra


To be honest, these videos are not very convincing. Those kinds of special effects have been around as long as air pressure and dust. How long ago did we come up with those?

I've seen the videos of dust blowing.

But the photos don't corroborate the videos. No disturbance of dust can be found in the photos.

Originally posted by turbonium
But the photos don't corroborate the videos. No disturbance of dust can be found in the photos.

Have you looked?

Here's an image from Apollo 11. AS11-40-5870 You can clearly see that the surface has been disturbed.

We're actually referring to the Apollo 15 landing site, not Apollo 11's. (However, the Apollo 11 images, such as the one you cited, also show no large dust disturbance.)

The Selene image shows a large dust disturbance, purportedly created by the Apollo 15 LM descent engine. But the Apollo 15 high resolution photos show absolutely no such disturbance.

If this disturbance can be seen in images taken from high altitude probes, then it would certainly be seen in high-res photos taken on the lunar surface itself, by the Apollo 15 crew. But it is not seen in any of the Apollo 15 photos.

The Selene image seems to confirm the findings of previous researchers, who processed Clementine images and found a similar disturbance at the same location.

So, if the lunar surface disturbance is an actual physical feature, then it would indicate that the Apollo 15 photos are fake.

The Selene image is not evidence for Apollo being genuine, but rather, it is evidence against Apollo being genuine.

reply to post by turbonium

The pair of images both come from the Apollo 15 mission. The one one the left before the landing, the one on the right after.
www.jaxa.jp...

Originally posted by turbonium
We're actually referring to the Apollo 15 landing site, not Apollo 11's. (However, the Apollo 11 images, such as the one you cited, also show no large dust disturbance.)

Do you know what a dust disturbance looks like close-up? If you did you'd know that this photo from Apollo 11 is chock full of tell-tale signs:

The Selene image shows a large dust disturbance, purportedly created by the Apollo 15 LM descent engine. But the Apollo 15 high resolution photos show absolutely no such disturbance.

As phage mentioned, one of the photos shown with a dust disturbance IS from apollo 15.

If this disturbance can be seen in images taken from high altitude probes, then it would certainly be seen in high-res photos taken on the lunar surface itself, by the Apollo 15 crew.

A)It appears you don't know what to look for up close
B)Since the dust disturbance is so large it can be seen without even spotting the equipment left behind, how would you see the overall effect from close-up? There's nothing nearby "undisturbed" to compare it to in terms of brightness, so it's not as obvious as you seem to think it should be. It'd be like knowing the total shape of a large crop circle from standing in one spot somewhere in the center. Of course it's more obvious when seen from over-head.

reply to post by turbonium


Ok I guess I was having trouble figuring out what exactly it is that you're wanting to see.

I used the Apollo 11 photo, because they took a bunch of photos around the LM as soon as they got out, so you could see signs of the dust having been blown out from under it before it was disturbed with footprints. Which is what I thought you were wanting to see.

But you want to see photos of taken around the Apollo 15 landing site, showing a slightly different shade of grey on the surface? I don't think that would be very noticable up close from the ground. The area where one would see that the dust was disturbed would be under the LM. The dust that was blown out from under it is scattered out all around it, mixed with the rest of the dust. It didn't disturb the area physically, it just added a new thin layer of dust on top of the dust that was already there. So it's very subtle.

However, there is a photo of the Apollo 15 LM taken from over 4km away with a 500mm telephoto lens. AS15-84-11324 You can see that the area around is a slightly lighter grey.

The light gray area in the Apollo photo is not much wider than the LM itself. So even if we say it's twice as wide as the LM, it's still only 18 km wide. The length of the area is about ten LM's long, or 90 km.

The Selene image shows a circular area, at least 200 km in radius.

So it's an entirely different shape and size than the area in the Apollo photo.

Not only that, but the Apollo photo shows several other areas which are very similar in size, shape, and color to the light gray area beside the LM. All you're doing is picking the one beside the LM, (hoping) it supports your argument. But it doesn't. It's no different than several other light gray areas we see elsewhere in the photo, and isn't remotely comparable to the Selene image in size or shape anyway.

So the Apollo photo completely fails to corroborate the Selene image.

Originally posted by turbonium
The Selene image shows a circular area, at least 200 km in radius.

Wouldn't it be odd if you could see a change in albedo that's supposed to be 200km wide from up close standing on the ground? The thing that supports our argument that dust was disturbed are the grooves in the rocky surface radiating away from the LM. That's what I mean when I asked if you knew what signs of a disturbance to look for.

Originally posted by turbonium
The light gray area in the Apollo photo is not much wider than the LM itself. So even if we say it's twice as wide as the LM, it's still only 18 km wide. The length of the area is about ten LM's long, or 90 km.

That's one massive LM. I assume you ment meters and not kilometers. It's also pretty much impossible to get accurate measurments from the Apollo photo I last posted.

The Selene image shows a circular area, at least 200 km in radius.

Again, I assume you mean meters and not kilometers. Also the circled area in the Kaguya (Selene) image is a bit over 300m in diameter (not radius).

Yes, I did mean m, not km.

As for not being able to accurately measure the area in the Apollo photo, do you really think it's necessary?

Just by looking at the Apollo photo, it's obvious that this area is the wrong shape and size to be the area noted in the Selene image.

Originally posted by turbonium
As for not being able to accurately measure the area in the Apollo photo, do you really think it's necessary?

Just by looking at the Apollo photo, it's obvious that this area is the wrong shape and size to be the area noted in the Selene image.

You want to measure the size and shape of something that wide from the ground to compare it to Selene, video evidence isn't good enough for you, but you don't think it's important to be able to measure an area accurately... quite the interesting disconnect if you ask me. I think your expectation that you should see a feature that wide while standing on it is fundamentally flawed. What we do have is confirmation that dust was disturbed just as recorded by the command module when looking down at the LM (history.nasa.gov... - due to the sun angle you can even see the LM's long shadow! - full resolution scan here history.nasa.gov...), confirmation that during similiar sun angles the shape of the disturbance is the same (history.nasa.gov...), and that the terrain of the area matches Selene's measurements.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by ngchunter]

Come on.


The light gray area in AS11-40-5870 is not much wider than the LM. Even if we're generous in our estimate, and say it's twice as wide as the LM, it's still only 20 m wide.

How large would you estimate the area in the Selene image is?

Just a bit more than 20 m wide, perhaps?

Originally posted by turbonium
Come on.

Answer these questions please:
Is history.nasa.gov... consistent with Selene? Is it from the apollo 15 mission photography?

The light gray area in AS11-40-5870 is not much wider than the LM. Even if we're generous in our estimate, and say it's twice as wide as the LM, it's still only 20 m wide.

If you're going to talk about comparing the apollo 11 photo directly to selene rather than just asking for generalized proof that the dust was disturbed then use Selene's image of apollo 11 for comparison.

Here's Selene's image of Apollo 11's dust disturbance:
www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

The brightest point of it isn't much bigger than Selene's resolution limit, which is 10 meters. That would be consistent with your estimation of the size. The rest of it gradually fades into the normal albedo for that area and would be impossibly hard to find a sharp distinction from the ground. Indeed, the most distant part of the terrain visible is also the darkest, consistent with your expectations.

Originally posted by bigx01
this video may explain a few things

Apollo 11

LOL that is what I am talking about ... WE did not go to the MOON is what I believe..

They lost the tapes, now they have all these new telescopes but sense then and technology in that sense has been really good to them and the fact that we have made a station in space does not prove anything it's all after the fact ... If you have the money you could cover up anything ya wanted to do....

reply to post by ngchunter


I have a interestiong picture form the moon with the same kind of mountain looking background only it looks like a hiking trail here take a look.....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24b10eaa5783.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
... If you have the money you could cover up anything ya wanted to do....

If you have the money, you can develop the tools & technology to fly men to the moon. There are fewer unknowns, fewer security issues and you don't have to worry about getting caught perpetrating a fraud. As a side-benefit, it would build a huge cadre of skilled engineers and develop whole new areas of manufacturing.

Faking it would be more complicated, more risky, and leaves you with nothing to show for it.

The whole idea of a moon landing hoax makes no sense.