More Moon fakery

reply to post by wmd_2008


I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.

You don't have to be an expert on space flight to know that the sunlit Earth is very bright compared to stars, and if you want a properly exposed Earth in your shot, stars will not be visible. Same goes for photos taken on the lunar surface under sunlight.

Photographing stars requires long exposure, typically several seconds or even minutes.

DJW001
I never posted that image, so I feel under no obligation to explain how it was made... and I do know exactly how it was made. I do not know how ASU plans to remove the reseau marks. Just Photoshop, probably. Now please explain why the reseau marks are relevant, given that the originals will always be available?

This applies not only to the Apollo/Hasselblad/70mm negatives (each camera was equipped with a uniquely numbered reseau plate) but it also applies to the NASA/ASU/LRO "landing site" images which are post-processing, digital enhancements.

#6 on the NPPA Code of Ethics,

6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

NPPA SPECIAL REPORT: ETHICS IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

Ethics of digital editing, Source nppa.org...

But if we just remove the lines, what is the big deal? Who is harmed? As far as I am concerned, we are all harmed by any lie, big or small.

I do not think the public cares if it is a little lie or a big lie As far as they are concerned, once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way.

Any change to a news photo - any violation of that moment - is a lie. Big or small, any lie damages your credibility. Source John Long NPPA Ethics Co-Chair and Past President

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.

Someone may have decades of camera experience... and violate the ethics of photojournalism. The NASA/ASU agreement to remove cross-hairs from Apollo images is a flagrant and willful violation of those ethics.

NASA/ASU wants to have a full catalogue of Apollo images (sans-reseau, sans-cross-hairs, sans-fiducial marks) to brainwash the next generation of school kids and teachers who were born after 1972 and don't understand what the cross-hairs really mean:

Apollo lunar surface images taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras should have cross-hairs.
If any such image were found to not have the cross-hairs then that image is a undoubtedly a FRAUD.

The Pixel Flag, therefore, comes under even greater scrutiny when the facts come out how NASA is violating ethics of photojournalism. Speaking of flags, this one illustrates what I think is going on with NASA, the Moon and Apollo.

SayonaraJupiter

This applies not only to the Apollo/Hasselblad/70mm negatives (each camera was equipped with a uniquely numbered reseau plate) but it also applies to the NASA/ASU/LRO "landing site" images which are post-processing, digital enhancements.

your entire post was rendered pointless due to this paragraph..

you know full well that the reseau marks will not be removed from the negatives..

you know full well the reseau marks will not be removed from the many copies that have been collected by private collectors over the years..

Stackpot

Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”

Lynn Radcliffe was also Deputy Manager for Spacecraft Assembly and Test for Grumman's lunar module. He knows damn well that the LM was no "aluminum foil covered fantasy", and he knows that it landed on the Moon. He speaks passionately and at length about the sacrifice made by the people who built Apollo here.

Stackpot
Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable.

...to you, who knows absolutely nothing about rocketry, or guidance or control systems, but will latch on to a single turn of phrase by someone who does, and then ignore everything else that person has ever done or said in his professional life.

Cherry-Picking noted.
Argument from (Personal) Incredulity noted.

Incidentally, if you find it "unbelievable" that a rocket can land on the Moon, do you therefore believe that the Soviet Luna 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 24 probes, along with Surveyors 1, 3, 5,6 & 7 were also all faked?

Stackpot
Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.

The descent engines left large, clear signatures on the lunar surface visible from ground-level and orbit...
...but they don't look like what you expect, so they were faked?

Stackpot
The combined computer power at mission control ...

Blah-blah-blah. More argument from incredulity.

"In its most basic and bare-bones from, argument from incredulity takes the form of "I can't even begin to imagine how this can work / be possible, hence it must be fake". This is a variation or subset of the argument from ignorance. Of course conspiracy theorists don't state the argument so blatantly, but use much subtler expressions.

...In essence what the conspiracy theorist is saying is "I don't understand how rocketry can work, hence this must be fake", and trying to convince the reader of the same.

The problem of basic rocketry (ie. how a rocket with a propulsion system at its back end can maintain stability and fly straight) is indeed quite a complex and difficult one (which is where the colloquial term "rocket science", meaning something extremely complicated and difficult, comes from), but it was solved in the 1920's and 30's. This isn't even something you have to understand or even take on faith: It's something you can see with your own eyes (unless you believe all the videos you have ever seen of missiles and rockets are fake). "

Link

Saint Exupery
Incidentally, if you find it "unbelievable" that a rocket can land on the Moon, do you therefore believe that the Soviet Luna 9, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21 & 24 probes, along with Surveyors 1, 3, 5,6 & 7 were also all faked?

Don't forget the Chinese Chang'e 3 lander (with the "Jade Rabbit" rover). Chang'e 3 also used a single main descent thruster, similar in concept to the Apollo Lunar Module descent stage.

China's Chang'e 3 Lander:

Image Source

SayonaraJupiter
Someone may have decades of camera experience... and violate the ethics of photojournalism. The NASA/ASU agreement to remove cross-hairs from Apollo images is a flagrant and willful violation of those ethics.

You're making up bs to support your argument. Tell me again how removing the crosshairs in any way changes the content of the pictures? There's a difference between manipulation and enhancing. Manipulation changes the reality of the pictures. Removing the crosses does not do that.
Also you do realise that once they've released the images as they are with the crosses and all they've done their "photojournalism" as you like to say it. What happens to the images after that is irrelevant. There's thousands of enchanced and even manipulated pictures used for all matter of publication and art.
And before you ask, I'm a photographer by profession.

Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

I didn't "waive" illegitimate evidence, I provided a fairly well put together video raising some important questions as to manipulation. Where do you pompous windbags come up with your lines?

I said 'handwave', not 'waive', and you didn't provide any evidence - I used it because what you are doing is ignoring anything inconvenient to your argument.

You effectively did it again by completely ignoring the rest of my post and resorting to insults: I provided evidence that the video you linked to was talking nonsense. I could have done it with every image in that video, but couldn't be bothered. See my website for more. You then claimed that the images were manipulated with recent technology, but haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that that is the case. That was the handwaving - you dismissed something that proved you wrong with an unsupported claim.

On the topic of feasibility of this fairy tail mission

To quote Dave McGowan:

Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”

Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable. Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.

Unbelievable is not impossible. Difficult is not impossible. Your lack of belief does not render something impossible.

The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.

Horse manure.

Exactly how much computing power do you think was required? All the LEM computer was required to do was have data input so that it could carry out basic functions. All the main computing was done on the ground. All the ground computers were doing was calculating trajectories, working out fuel consumption and so on - simple maths. How much computing power was required there do you think?

SayonaraJupiter

NASA/ASU wants to have a full catalogue of Apollo images (sans-reseau, sans-cross-hairs, sans-fiducial marks) to brainwash the next generation of school kids and teachers who were born after 1972 and don't understand what the cross-hairs really mean:

Apollo lunar surface images taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras should have cross-hairs.
If any such image were found to not have the cross-hairs then that image is a undoubtedly a FRAUD.

Cool - so all the original photographs with the cross hairs in are not frauds and are genuine. Result.

Do tell us SJ, are they removing all of the cross hairs from all of the images NASA holds in secret without telling everyone, or are they doing it to just some of them and publicly telling everyone on their website that this is what they are doing?

Are they doing it to the negatives?

Are they doing it to all the hard copies out there, including the ones I have in magazines, journals and slides in my house?

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I wasn't aware that being an amature phographer qualifies you as a forensic evidence expert. I'm sure you great with f-stops and exposure settings, but you're no expert on space flight, rest assured.

Sorry but lets remind everyone what YOU said and what I replied to!!!

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

This fellow seems to know his way around photography. I wonder what kind of excuses I'm in for now.

www.youtube.com...

So lets see was your youtube guy an expert on space flight

Stackpot
The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.

Horse manure.

Humanity has sailed the oceans, flown early airplanes, and even launched early rockets, with zero computing power. Humanity did incredible and difficult things, thought impossible by many, but they did them.

Not everything depends on computers, many things can be done by performing manual calculations and measurements. Early computers in the 50s and 60s amplified that ability by many times.

SayonaraJupiter

Apollo lunar surface images taken with the Hasselblad 70mm cameras should have cross-hairs.
If any such image were found to not have the cross-hairs then that image is a undoubtedly a FRAUD.

Only in YOUR reality you can still find the image with the cross-hairs we all know images are enhanced for publications, little Jimmy when he buys a poster or print from an image doesn't want cross-hairs in the exact same way that any teenage boy/girl doesn't want that spot on their face in their school prom picture.

If the spot is removed does that mean they were not at the prom or the image wasn't taken, over the past year or so you are getting more desperate in your attempts to find a reason to prove the Apollo missions didn't happen.

So one simple straight question lets see if you can really give an honest answer What would YOU require as proof

reply to post by wildespace


Soyuz spacecraft flew for almost 20 years before the Soviets added an on-board computer. The Zond spacecraft - which was a Soyuz modified for manned circumlunar flights - also did not have an on-board computer. Nor, for that matter, did the Soviet manned Lunar Lander.

here's some moon-fakery by me.

www.liveleak.com...

Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

I didn't "waive" illegitimate evidence, I provided a fairly well put together video raising some important questions as to manipulation. Where do you pompous windbags come up with your lines?

On the topic of feasibility of this fairy tail mission

To quote Dave McGowan:

Lynn Radcliffe, who managed the facility at White Sands that was specially constructed to test and develop the LEM’s rocket engines, describes the technology required to land the lunar modules: “This was an unbelievable maneuver when you stop and think about it. You’re sitting on a column of thrust, just hovering there, like a, a helicopter, and then as you let it go, the throttle, a little bit, you lower it just a few feet per second until you make contact. All of this is an amazing set of requirements to put on anyone trying to design a rocket.”

Radcliffe is absolutely right; I did stop to think about it and it is unbelievable. Oh, and to leave barely a mark in the silty moon dust too.

The combined computer power at mission control was roughly that of a 2005 laptop computer, all those monitors were run on a single main frame. The LEM had the computing power of a digital watch. It was an aluminum foil covered fantasy that went nowhere near the moon.

Horse manure.

And yet the Rolls Royce Thrust Measuring Rig, popularly called the Flying Bedstead, achieved pretty much the same thing a full fifteen years earlier in 1954 with no computer at all, just a pilot with a joystick and throttles for the pair of opposed Nene turbojets. It achieved vertical take off and horizontal flight and a vertical landing ahead of the Short SC.1 VTOL aeroplane programme.

You underestimate the fruits of human endeavour.

reply to post by waynos


...And remember, folks, that it is more difficult to do in 1 Gravity with air blowing you around than it is in 1/6th G with no air.

Saint Exupery
reply to post by waynos

 

...And remember, folks, that it is more difficult to do in 1 Gravity with air blowing you around than it is in 1/6th G with no air.

pics

or it aint happening .. cuz' that little machine nearly killed the astronaut that attempted to pilot it.. without ANY stablizer rockets it's going down .. simple mechanical logic ..

and you can TY that all day.. I don't have time ..