Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


Post the original Apollo image numbers so we can figure out when and where the photos were taken.

Originally posted by nataylor

Yes, it's a poor "fake," if the intent was to fool someone into thinking that was an actual photograph from an Apollo mission. But of course that wasn't the intent. The intent was to build a model to simulate lighting conditions.

All you are showing me is that these photos can be doctored and manufactured easily by NASA and USGS. Which is the whole point. Nobody is saying that NASA tried to pass of the photo as fake, but, they have shown that you can easily exchange backgrounds with foregrounds in the 1960's and 70's. I recall somebody... somebody possibly even on this thread stating that it was impossible to fake such photos because of the large mountains in the background. LOL. We skeptics have been saying for years that the backgrounds are not real.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

Wow, what a nice, clear defined photo. NO shadow problems with that, looks exactly as it should.

Shouldnt
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7a1e7bdf5bb.gif[/atsimg]

look like

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1624dc4112bc.gif[/atsimg]

OK, I went and did your work for you.

The first photo (AS15-90-12244) was taken at mission duration 146:30:33. According to the Apollo 15 Photo Index, the sun would have been at an azimuth of 107 degrees and an elevation of 31 degrees.

The second photo (AS15-86-11603) was taken at mission duration 125:45:12, almost 21 hours earlier. At that time, the sun was at an azimuth of 101 degrees and an elevation of 21 degrees.

Simple answer: The sun was was rising. In the rover photo, it hasn't risen enough to illuminate the whole mountain. In the the other, it had risen enough to illuminate the face of the mountain.

reply to post by FoosM


It's a bit different faking a single still with a model and faking thousands of them along with footage with accurate and expected parallax movement etc ... all the while maintaining scale and producing accurate movement.

Unless you're suggesting that the astronauts themselves are midgets or hanging foreground miniatures with perfect articulation?

Furthermore you're assuming (mistakenly) that on close scrutiny a model would provide all the qualities and properties of full scale shot footage. Whilst there are processes to hide the integration of different plates I can assure you that these systems are not full proof and are subject primarily to test by human eye. Test by science and these pieces of footage would fail.

I suppose you could always embark on an intense grain and pixel matching survey of the footage to prove your point? Or instead of worrying about pulling a background matte we can now discuss resizing astronauts to place them onto a small model plate perfectly motion tracked with grain reintroduced with perfect focus matching?

Originally posted by FoosM
All you are showing me is that these photos can be doctored and manufactured easily by NASA and USGS. Which is the whole point.

What does that have to do with anything? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's true. I could easily Photoshop myself shaking hands with the President in the Oval Office. That doesn't mean all pictures of people shaking hands with the President are fakes. When I've got a plane ticket to Washington DC, a few dozen people who saw me at the White House, videotape of me going in the White House, my signature on the guest log, a commemorative pen given only to people who go to in the Oval Office, AND a picture of me shaking hands with the President in the Oval Office, doesn't it become a little more likely than not that I actually went there, even if such a photo could possibly be faked?

And then there's the separate issue I already pointed out of how do you go about faking thousands of photographs in such a consistent manner. At that point, it's just easier to actually go there and take the pictures.

reply to post by FoosM

DJ... you got to be kidding me. You dont see the problem?
In one picture Hadley Mons creates a strong shadow, in the other it doesnt.
Its all from Apollo 15 easy to find for all you Apollo experts. LPI should be bookmarked by now.

For the record, here is a link to a high resolution scan of A15-86-11603. It can be found here. Now the next time you post a photo without a proper link I will notify the Mods.

Now what is it about this picture you don't understand? The astronaut and rover are brightly lit, yet slightly under-exposed. The shadowed side of Hadley is therefore even darker than in properly exposed photos. Am I missing something here?

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM

 

Post the original Apollo image numbers so we can figure out when and where the photos were taken.

have fun!

No shadow:
AS15-82-11052
www.lpi.usra.edu...
No shadow:
AS15-82-11075
www.lpi.usra.edu...
No shadow:
AS15-82-11116
www.lpi.usra.edu...


No shadow
AS15-84-11295
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Peak!

Shadow
AS15-85-11404
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Shadow
AS15-85-11455
www.lpi.usra.edu...
No shadow
AS15-85-11489
www.lpi.usra.edu...
No shadow
AS15-85-11511
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Shadow
AS15-86-11603
www.lpi.usra.edu...

No Shadow
AS15-87-11793
www.lpi.usra.edu...
No shadow:
AS15-87-11849
www.lpi.usra.edu...

No shadow:
AS15-88-11906
www.lpi.usra.edu...

No shadow:
AS15-90-12187
www.lpi.usra.edu...

No shadow:
AS15-90-12244
www.lpi.usra.edu...

No shadow:
AS15-92-12425
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Originally posted by FoosMhave fun!

No shadow:
AS15-82-11052
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 38

No shadow:
AS15-82-11075
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 39

No shadow:
AS15-82-11116
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 38

No shadow
AS15-84-11295
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Peak!

Sun elevation in degrees: 30

Shadow
AS15-85-11404
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 20

Shadow
AS15-85-11455
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 20

No shadow
AS15-85-11489
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 30

No shadow
AS15-85-11511
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 30

Shadow
AS15-86-11603
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 21

No Shadow
AS15-87-11793
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 31

No shadow:
AS15-87-11849
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 32

No shadow:
AS15-88-11906
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 39

No shadow:
AS15-90-12187
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 30

No shadow:
AS15-90-12244
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 31

No shadow:
AS15-92-12425
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 32

See a pattern there? How all the ones without shadows are after the sun is at an elevation of 30 degrees or higher? It's called sunrise.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

DJ... you got to be kidding me. You dont see the problem?
In one picture Hadley Mons creates a strong shadow, in the other it doesnt.
Its all from Apollo 15 easy to find for all you Apollo experts. LPI should be bookmarked by now.

For the record, here is a link to a high resolution scan of A15-86-11603. It can be found here. Now the next time you post a photo without a proper link I will notify the Mods.

Now what is it about this picture you don't understand? The astronaut and rover are brightly lit, yet slightly under-exposed. The shadowed side of Hadley is therefore even darker than in properly exposed photos. Am I missing something here?

I cant help you understand DJ Tattletale.
That is something you will have to let you brain work out overnight or nights.
This has nothing to do with exposure.

Hadley in some photos casts a distinct shadow in others it doesnt
Thats impossible considering it is 4.6 km tall and 25 km wide.
You simply cant see such a change when one lunar day takes 27 Earth days!

These photos are BOGUS!
You will have to come up with pseudo science to explain it.

Originally posted by nataylor


Shadow
AS15-85-11404
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 20

Shadow
AS15-85-11455
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 20

No shadow
AS15-85-11489
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 30

No shadow
AS15-85-11511
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sun elevation in degrees: 30


See a pattern there? How all the ones without shadows are after the sun is at an elevation of 30 degrees or higher? It's called sunrise.



Now let me get this straight, your saying that the sun moved about 10 degrees over a span of how many days?
Because I thought the sun moved about one degree across the moon every over 27 days.

So how do we get this big 10 degree jump?

Originally posted by FoosMHadley in some photos casts a distinct shadow in others it doesnt
Thats impossible considering it is 4.6 km tall and 25 km wide.
You simply cant see such a change when one lunar day takes 27 Earth days!

These photos are BOGUS!
You will have to come up with pseudo science to explain it.

Do you understand a change in sun elevation just 20 degrees to 30 degrees means means a shadow on a horizontal surface will decrease in length by 40%? And that on a slope of a mountain of those dimensions, the shadow length can shorten by over 90% with just that 10 degree change in sun elevation?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosMHadley in some photos casts a distinct shadow in others it doesnt
Thats impossible considering it is 4.6 km tall and 25 km wide.
You simply cant see such a change when one lunar day takes 27 Earth days!

These photos are BOGUS!
You will have to come up with pseudo science to explain it.

Do you understand a change in sun elevation just 20 degrees to 30 degrees means means a shadow on a horizontal surface will decrease in length by 40%? And that on a slope of a mountain of those dimensions, the shadow length can shorten by over 90% with just that 10 degree change in sun elevation?

See my above post, but let me ask you this question.
Which direction was the sun going?

Originally posted by FoosM
[Now let me get this straight, your saying that the sun moved about 10 degrees over a span of how many days?
Because I thought the sun moved about one degree across the moon every over 27 days.

So how do we get this big 10 degree jump?

The lunar day is about 656 hours (27 days and 8 hours). During that time, the moon will make a full revolution. So just like here on earth if you go out and look at the sun at 3pm on Wednesday, it will be in about the same position at 3pm on Thursday. One revolution is 360 degrees. So we have 360 degrees per 656 hours, or 0.55 degrees per hour. So a sun elevation change of 10 degrees would take over 18 hours. And what do we find with those photos? They were taken about 20 hours apart, which is exactly what we'd expect!

Lets go to the video tape!

The Rover mission


Rover is being prepped to leave.
at 7:00 what do we see, Hadley casting a shadow.

Mission is completed, astros are heading back and
at 9:14 what do we see, Hadley not casting a shadow.

Now isnt this NASA's official documentary on the space missions?
This is what they fed the public.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
[Now let me get this straight, your saying that the sun moved about 10 degrees over a span of how many days?
Because I thought the sun moved about one degree across the moon every over 27 days.

So how do we get this big 10 degree jump?

The lunar day is about 656 hours (27 days and 8 hours). During that time, the moon will make a full revolution. So just like here on earth if you go out and look at the sun at 3pm on Wednesday, it will be in about the same position at 3pm on Thursday. One revolution is 360 degrees. So we have 360 degrees per 656 hours, or 0.55 degrees per hour. So a sun elevation change of 10 degrees would take over 18 hours. And what do we find with those photos? They were taken about 20 hours apart, which is exactly what we'd expect!

edit on 17-11-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)

Your right, my bad, about 27 degrees a day.

Well played well played....

AS15-85-11404 122:14:35 shadow
AS15-85-11429 122:38:47 shadow
AS15-86-11603 125:45:12 shadow
AS15-85-11489 143:56:47 sun
AS15-84-11292 144:46:38 sun
AS15-87-11835 147:27:12 full sun
AS15-82-11052 164:24:43

Ill have to give you this round Nat

reply to post by FoosM


Is this some sort of sick twisted GAME to you??? Well, you certainly seem to have tipped your hand, here, in this comment:

Ill have to give you this round Nat

I submit to the audience (and jury) that, although many of us had previously hinted at, and been suspicious of, certain motivations of certain ATS members' postings....it now seems clear, in evidence, the actual motivations of some of these posters; including this latest example. It seems clear-cut to NOT be "hearsay", NOT be "circumstantial", but evident and indicated by his/her/their own typed comments....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Further, NON-circumstantial evidence of the arrogance and disdain shown to this Board, throughout, by a certain ATS member.

Posted today, 17th November @ 1437 EST (my time reference. This is 1937 GMT/UTC):

Originally posted by FoosM

I cant help you understand DJ Tattletale.
That is something you will have to let you brain work out overnight or nights.
This has nothing to do with exposure.

Hadley in some photos casts a distinct shadow in others it doesnt....

AND, subsequently, this arrogance was SCHOOLED, yet again. A repeat, over and over, of the same patterns -- willfully posting arrogantly WRONG assumptions, and being shown time and again, to BE in error.

Is this a sad commentary on modern life, as we are living it in this "internet age".......or WHAT?? :shk:

Strange

This video shows the strange behavior of the LEM in space during its travel from the LCM to the lunar ground. Normally, the LEM should make a parabolic trajectory during which it slowly rotates from a horizontal position to a vertical position all along the trajectory. I explain that it is abnormal for the LEM for go above the LCM in an orbit farther than the one of the LCM, and also to make brutal rotations.
It's a totally abnormal way of guiding it, and yet this is what we see on the Apollo photos.

and

Illogical

This video talks about the behavior of the Lem when it goes from the LCM to the moon, and conversely when it comes back from the moon to the LCM.
I have already made a video showing the anomalies of the behavior of the Lem in space, but I had not talked about the return of the Lem to the Lcm.
This time I talk about it more in detail, and I also show the anomalies concerning the return of the Lem to the LCM.

Does the photographic record not support the descent and ascent of the LM?

reply to post by FoosM


I am going to assume you don't understand the numerous mistakes made in these videos. First of all, the whole "above" and "below" thing doesn't make much sense in space. Next, the animator showed both the CSM and LM orbiting with rockets blazing, nose first (of course). This is how spaceships fly in movies, not real life. When the CSM fired its rocket to park the whole rig into lunar orbit, the engine was pointing away from Earth. It would continue to point away from Earth during the rest of the orbit, wherever it was relative to the lunar surface. In other words, on the near side of the Moon, the LM would be pointing away from the Moon. It would be what the animator would call "above" the CSM. This attitude could be changed, of course, but it had the advantage of keeping the CSM's antennae pointed towards Earth even when they were out of visual contact. After the initial separation, the CSM commander performed a visual inspection of the LM, hence the "violent and grotesque: maneuvers." Just making sure the landing gear were open, that sort of thing. Where the animator got the idea that the station keeping maneuvers were too fast for the computers to control is beyond me. The astronauts performed all the detailed work themselves.

reply to post by FoosM


After separation, the RCS thrusters on the CSM oriented the craft into a roughly "vertical" (to the surface) orientation, as seen in AS-87-11695.

Here, with respect to the surface, you can say the LM is above the CSM. However, due to the nature of orbits, on the opposite side of the moon, the LM will be below the CSM. In fact, no matter what their orientation is, at some point the CSM will be between the LM and a surface, and vice versa.

They in fact went through 2 orbits while separated, so there would have been plenty of opportunities to get pictures where the moon's surface is visible from the LM, under the CSM.

As for the "brutal rotations," part of the procedure after separation was to inspect the LM, which required rotating it so the CSM pilot could give it a lookover. As for it being "brutal," a 90 degree turn took around 15 seconds. Not very "brutal."

The second video is also completely wrong. During the ascent, the CSM lead the LM. The LM didn't come up ahead of the CSM and spin around. It came up behind (the CSM was actually traveling engine first). And it wasn't just one smooth maneuver from surface to docking. Once in orbit and in range of the CSM, the CSM rotated so the LM commander and pilot could do a visual inspection of the CSM. Then they proceeded with docking.

This is all in the flight journals and flight plans. I don't get why someone would go through the trouble of making a bunch of incorrect videos without reading this material and seeing the actual maneuvers involved.

reply to post by FoosM


Just by virtue of the fact that you support the premise of those ridiculous videos, proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of making a cogent argument about the moon landings, much less understand the science needed to do so. You've demonstrated a profound ignorance of every facet of the science involved; yet you certainly are dogged in your persistence that everyone else is wrong.

Will you stand by every statement in that mockery of common sense and intelligence? They were completely wrong about every point. They didn't even use the proper terminology. Cartoonish and pathetic is what they were.