Does anybody else think that the NASA GRAIL's video of the Moon's far side is a CGI job?

Originally posted by mainidh

Originally posted by pshea38
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

Why anyone trusts anything that comes out of NAZI NASA is beyond me.
Have we not learned anything? Really?
The best way to proceed with NASA is to assume complete fakery until
categorically convinced otherwise!

Lol, that's brilliant, from a logical view.

Another one would be "I will believe in faeries until GOD proves to me they do not exist!"

lol

You obviously have faith in NASA. Good luck with that!

reply to post by pshea38


One doesn't need faith in science because science bases it's conclusions on solid evidence rather than baseless assertions of blind belief. I tend to trust was NASA has to say because it's a legitimate scientific organization that put people on the moon only six decades after the Wright brothers first flight. A feat like that takes some ACTUAL scientific know-how, as does much of what NASA does, and thus there's plenty of reason to trust them. That's no reason to always accept everything they have to say without question, but enough to earn them more credibility, then, say, some conspiracy theorist making youtube videos and zooming in on blurry images claiming absurd things about them.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by pshea38

 

One doesn't need faith in science because science bases it's conclusions on solid evidence rather than baseless assertions of blind belief. I tend to trust was NASA has to say because it's a legitimate scientific organization that put people on the moon only six decades after the Wright brothers first flight. A feat like that takes some ACTUAL scientific know-how, as does much of what NASA does, and thus there's plenty of reason to trust them. That's no reason to always accept everything they have to say without question, but enough to earn them more credibility, then, say, some conspiracy theorist making youtube videos and zooming in on blurry images claiming absurd things about them.

What are we to make of this often compelling evidence of NASA subterfuge?

www.cluesforum.info...
www.cluesforum.info...

It cannot lightly be dismissed!

Fool me once...etc.

You, of course, are free to believe what you will.

CGI? You mean like the Japanese 'high def' video that looked like a plaster of Paris ball?

Well lets see...

Below is an area from the video NASA just released. Below that is the same area in a Lunar Orbiter 5
photo from the 60's. Which looks more real?

For educational purposes I'm embedding a low-res copy of an actual 8192 × 4096, 15 mb textured map of the Moon, which can provide a perfect material for creating a rendered video of a space scene. Depending on the program used and the render engine, the final result will hardly be noticed as CGI. If any ordinary person with a domestic computer can do it, what the might computers and high qualified personnel working on NASA, can't do??



That's a link to the original hi-res map which by the way is a link of NOAA.

A person with certain skills in CGI animation and a good computer set for work as a render farm, can even use more than one sphere layered with enhanced bump maps in order to create a full realistic object. Despite what shills and debunkers say, the odds of this 1st video of GRAIL being a CGI job, are pretty good.

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
Not to mention that those twin crafts are supposed to be the cutting edge technology of NASA to remap the Moon, and the first video released is way too low res to justify the whole buzz made around this mission.

Grail is not there to remap the moon with photos. the G in GRAIL stands for Gravity (Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory)

In other words NASA sent the mission to analyze the GRAVITY on the moon. Makes you wonder how they managed to land there all those years ago but need to study the gravity now

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
For educational purposes I'm embedding a low-res copy of an actual 8192 × 4096, 15 mb textured map of the Moon,

15 megs is nothing. That image you just posted is from the Clementine data set and the full size is 2.1 gigabytes in .cub format but you need a Linux machine and ISIS to view it

You can also get it in two parts Farside 40 megs tiff and Nearside 38 megs tiff

ser.sese.asu.edu...

reply to post by zorgon


Who would use a 2.1 giga map to render an object for a 15 sec. 640x360 internet video?? Is just not productive. Anyway I never heard of the .cub format you told, but I assume any person would convert it for tiff or lossless jpg.

reply to post by zorgon


And regardless the size of raw images, I just wanted to show people that a fake video of the Moon, with the same characteristics of this one of GRAIL, CAN be done without much hard work.

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard

.....

Here is a photo of the moon on the 19th of January 2012 the day this video is alleged to have taken place

From here ( thanks to flikr user)) www.flickr.com...


The brightness seen in the 19th of January shot from EARTH on one 1/8 edge of the moon, should have a corresponding 1/8 darkness on the other side of the moon taken by MOONKAM which should be visible in the video you posted Noho. I can nay see it anyway.



The New moon was on the 23rd of January. Fully dark our side. Fully bright other side.

This moonkam of the 19th actually then depicts the full moon of the 23rd (?). As such then, the lens flares apparent do not make sense: the light source would be directly behind the camera at a full moon. (I.e its all a crock cooked up in after effects).....GRAIL MOONKAM = KARMA LOOMING...cont.

www.cluesforum.info...

reply to post by zorgon

Below that is the same area in a Lunar Orbiter 5 photo from the 60's.

Really? Are you sure? Since this shot has Zeeman crater (the one with the two craters on its rim) in it I would think that this is closer to showing the region seen in the still from the video. It's from frame M-21.


Of course, the lighting is quite a bit different from that in the GRAIL shot. When the Sun is directly behind the camera like that you tend to lose a lot of the variations in the terrain. Note the long shadows in the Orbiter image, that adds a lot of relief. And of course, the video cameras used on GRAIL aren't the most impressive optical device either.


But then, it isn't a photographic mission, the cameras are there to get school kids interested. The mission is to provide the most detailed mapping of the Moon's orbital field yet. Such mapping will provide information about the inner make up of the moon including the famous mascons. It will also enable future satellites to remain in orbit for longer periods of time, something the uneven field currently makes somewhat of a problem.

reply to post by pshea38

Since you don't seem to have anything of your own to contribute I'll comment on this

The brightness seen in the 19th of January shot from EARTH on one 1/8 edge of the moon, should have a corresponding 1/8 darkness on the other side of the moon taken by MOONKAM which should be visible in the video you posted Noho. I can nay see it anyway.

If the probe had been over longitude 180º on the Moon, a terminator would have been seen.
But it wasn't. Judging from the location of the craters the probe was somewhere around 130ºW.

Originally posted by Phage

edit on 2/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply to post by pshea38

 

Since you don't seem to have anything of your own to contribute I'll comment on this

The brightness seen in the 19th of January shot from EARTH on one 1/8 edge of the moon, should have a corresponding 1/8 darkness on the other side of the moon taken by MOONKAM which should be visible in the video you posted Noho. I can nay see it anyway.

If the probe had been over longitude 180º on the Moon, a terminator would have been seen.
But it wasn't. Judging from the location of the craters the probe was somewhere around 130ºW.

edit on 2/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Unlike you Phage, I can't claim to know everything.

What about the apparent lens flare at the beginning of the footage?

reply to post by pshea38

Well that's the problem, you made no comment so I didn't know where you were coming from.

The moon is very bright in the video (thus no stars). Why wouldn't it produce reflections?

Do you believe a satellite cannot orbit the Moon?

Ummm.. I'm pretty sure I can get just as much detail of the moon from my porch with my telescope (not the farside but still...)I'm not so sure about towers and ancient structures though. Maybe project horizon reached a different conclusion than we a lead to believe.was there ever a point in history where the far side of the moon actually faced earth? I mean facing the earth would be the prime real estate. I hear the view is stunning.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Now that I look at it again.

Yes def looks cgi....there is a part near the end right as it gets midway to the moon and it almost jumps slightly or just the way it moves is fake looking.

How is it looking at far side with bright sun though?

I know phage didn't want to explain it in a similar thread because of previous threads that touch on the subject but I was just wondering this and I KNOW I'm not the only one.

If the near side always faces earth and the earth rotates while revolving around the sun then shouldn't this be looking at the moon from opposite the side of earth with the sun facing the near side of the moon ( opposite of what is shown ) ...

or how does this all work ?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pshea38

 

Well that's the problem, you made no comment so I didn't know where you were coming from.

The moon is very bright in the video (thus no stars). Why wouldn't it produce reflections?

Do you believe a satellite cannot orbit the Moon?

edit on 2/5/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

If the reflection from the moon is that bright, wouldn't the lens flares/reflections
remain and even intensify as the camera transits from the north to south pole over
the full moon, or shouldn't the lens flares/reflections at least return as the camera
passes over the south pole, as when approaching the north pole?

No comment on the 'no stars' except to say, No surprise there.

I think we have been and are being lied to so much (on all aspects of life) that it is
very hard to know what to believe. You know that expression, 'Fool me once...'
Well, I am So shamed, for having been fooled time and again!

Now, I Say:
Fakery Fakery Everywhere.
And We Lap It Up.

This is regrettably the better and more realistic approach to take, although
I am pretty sure their is some fantastic hidden technology out there.
There is a whole other hidden reality with NASA. This I do believe.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Let's pretend though that there are structures on the moon, presumably ancient and alien in origin yes? Hiding them for a short-while makes sense but hiding them for half a century? And if they are so easily spotted by these brilliant amateur astronomers you mention why would they deny their existence still? The scientists discovering these structures would be Nobel prize winners, they would end our cosmic loneliness and prove life exists beyond the Earth, why would they hide the information?

We should scour the moon for ancient traces of aliens, say scientists ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh I simply LOVE this picture of the Moon...


www.nasa.gov...



Looks almost as good as ours... almost At least the lights are on at Aristarchus


10% scale taken by a 10 inch scope in London



80% Scale available from my site here

(100% scale is reserved rights so don't ask )

Just thinking out loud. If the movie is taken from orbit, then shouldn't the Moon be centered for the whole clip?