Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Can you see the pattern of a crop circle when you are standing in it? Or do you just see flattened grass?

Is that the 'official' excuse, or is it all of your own invention?

Angles of the sunlight, and so forth, are/were already well known, and are/were accounted for, if that's what you're getting at....

Anything else, then?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Can you see the pattern of a crop circle when you are standing in it? Or do you just see flattened grass?

Is that the 'official' excuse, or is it all of your own invention?

Answer the question, please.

a reply to: turbonium1

You will, of course, be able to provide a source for your claims that the size of the burn halo has changed, like I provided for mine.

I'll wait for you to do that.

My own measurement came from overlaying an image from a paper I linked to on google moon an using the measuring tool from that.

You are free to measure it yourself.

Do the images from Japanese and Indian probes show the disturbed ground left by Apollo activity, yes or no?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

You will, of course, be able to provide a source for your claims that the size of the burn halo has changed, like I provided for mine.

I'll wait for you to do that.

My own measurement came from overlaying an image from a paper I linked to on google moon an using the measuring tool from that.

You are free to measure it yourself.

Do the images from Japanese and Indian probes show the disturbed ground left by Apollo activity, yes or no?

The 'halo' was first claimed to be 150 m in diameter, according to this source...

adsabs.harvard.edu...


You say it's about 200 m in size, which is obviously one-third more than they said it was ...

But let's say it is 200 m, anyway...

You think it is so large an area, that it can't be seen/imaged from anywhere on the ground, it can only be seen from very far away on the surface, or from orbit...

It's absolute nonsense, as I'll explain...

This area is (to your account, at least) about 200 m in diameter.

You say this is too large an area to be seen/imaged....we can't see the surface over 200 meters away, from images taken at close range...

Yikes!

First, it is your own measurement, not theirs...

The LM is (supposedly) sitting about mid-point, within this 200 m area....yes?

So the 'halo' goes halfway out, all around the LM... for 100 m...


Going by your own measurements...

Look at all the Apollo 15 images, showing the (supposed)) lunar surface around the 'landing site'....

Many of these images show the surface beyond the LM....

Some of the images show the surface well beyond 100 meters distance from the LM, in fact.

None of them show the slightest change in appearance of soil, past that 100 meters...ever.


These images would certainly show the surface changes.. far better than any images taken from orbit!

originally posted by: DJW001

Can you see the pattern of a crop circle when you are standing in it? Or do you just see flattened grass?

Is that the 'official' excuse, or is it all of your own invention?



Answer the question, please.


If you were standing in a crop circle, would you really see nothing but "flattened grass"?

No, you would see flattened grass, and you'd also see upright grass, at both sides of the flattened grass...right?

You'd see the grass changes from being upright, then flattened, and then upright again, on the other side.....and you'd see it change with great clarity..yes?

Just like you'd see lunar soil that's been disturbed, and where it changes (not disturbed), when close up to it, and with great clarity...

originally posted by: turbonium1

The 'halo' was first claimed to be 150 m in diameter, according to this source...

adsabs.harvard.edu...


You say it's about 200 m in size, which is obviously one-third more than they said it was ...

But let's say it is 200 m, anyway...

So you haven't bothered to check if I'm right or not? You're taking my rough estimate from Google Earth as gospel without even bothering to do your own verification? Why not?

For one thing, I'm comparing an image from a paper using relatively low resolution, El-Baz's paper uses Panoramic Camera images, which are far higher resolution. Who's right? Why don't you download some of the high resolution images and check for yourself?

You think it is so large an area, that it can't be seen/imaged from anywhere on the ground, it can only be seen from very far away on the surface, or from orbit...

It's absolute nonsense, as I'll explain...

This area is (to your account, at least) about 200 m in diameter.

You say this is too large an area to be seen/imaged....we can't see the surface over 200 meters away, from images taken at close range...

Yikes!

You are either misunderstanding the obvious or deliberately misrepresenting my argument. We ar etalking about a small change in the appearance of the lunar surface observed from above in photographs taken 110k+ above the surface, and you think you'll be able to spot this difference looking horizontally across the surface from a couple of metres?

Yikes!

First, it is your own measurement, not theirs...

The LM is (supposedly) sitting about mid-point, within this 200 m area....yes?

So the 'halo' goes halfway out, all around the LM... for 100 m...


Going by your own measurements...

Look at all the Apollo 15 images, showing the (supposed)) lunar surface around the 'landing site'....

Many of these images show the surface beyond the LM....

Some of the images show the surface well beyond 100 meters distance from the LM, in fact.

None of them show the slightest change in appearance of soil, past that 100 meters...ever.


These images would certainly show the surface changes.. far better than any images taken from orbit!

Really? Your evidence for this claim is? Got any examples you can show of us of the same kind of phenomenon? Or are you just making a totally baseless claim with no foundation whatsoever?

Now, do the Japanese and Indian images show evidence of surface disturbance exactly where the Apollo 15 lunar module is or not? In all your apoplectic bluster about what think should or not should be visible you completely ignored what is actually visible, and for someone with such self-proclaimed acute eyesight that is surprising.

Now, ass for the Panoramic Camera images, they are of very high quality, and I have been playing with the ones you can download from here wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Here's the lunar module at around the time of the SEVA in AS15-P-9370



and here's the same area after EVA-1 in AS15-P-9430:



Complete with a correctly positioned lunar module:



(That image is rotated to match the orientation of AS15-86-11602)

and finally after launch back to orbit:



As you can see, the Panoramic camera was pretty good and capture not only mission hardware but changes in the surface over time, and changes in shadow length matching what should be visible. The images are all time-stamped, which you can check yourself. I've done the same thing with Apollo 16 and 17 landing sites, which I am happy to post if you insist they are wrong without checking for yourself. Meanwhile, have Apollo 14's LM viewed from orbit by Apollo 16 in AS16-P-4707:

After the 'halo' was discovered by scientists, they soon realized it is at the exact, precise spot the Apollo LM landed on the moon...

The scientists said this was a genuine physical feature on the lunar surface, without a doubt.

They said it was a disruption of lunar material, in fact.

How did they come to that conclusion?

Because they worked from a universal belief in Apollo, so this was the absolute confirmation. This was going to prove the Apollo landings were genuine, without a doubt....

They said the LM landing had caused the 'halo', disturbing the lunar soil, all around it....

They only helped to prove the opposite, ironically.

a reply to: turbonium1

No, they did it by scientific analysis of the images and data, for example in the 3 papers quoted in this thread.

Do you have any evidence that there is no change in surface albedo at the Apollo 15 landing site, yes or no?

Do the photographs from Japan and India show disturbed ground in the same location as the Apollo 15 lander, yes or no?

Do the time-stamped panoramic camera images show evidence of human activity that changes in line with documented fact over the course of the mission, yes or no?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You are either misunderstanding the obvious or deliberately misrepresenting my argument. We ar etalking about a small change in the appearance of the lunar surface observed from above in photographs taken 110k+ above the surface, and you think you'll be able to spot this difference looking horizontally across the surface from a couple of metres?

Nonsense!

Less change would be LESS noticeable from far away, not the opposite!

Imagine going into a desert, or a field of grass, or a wheat field, etc.

And you want to change the terrain, in such a way, so that it can only be seen from far away, like from orbit.


Why not explain how you would be able to achieve this....since you have yet to prove your claim...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

No, they did it by scientific analysis of the images and data, for example in the 3 papers quoted in this thread.

Do you have any evidence that there is no change in surface albedo at the Apollo 15 landing site, yes or no?

Do the photographs from Japan and India show disturbed ground in the same location as the Apollo 15 lander, yes or no?

Do the time-stamped panoramic camera images show evidence of human activity that changes in line with documented fact over the course of the mission, yes or no?

So, the images taken from orbit have shown a similar feature on the lunar surface, at the exact same location on the moon...

Why would you think that helps your argument, simply baffles me...

None of the Apollo images from the area show ANY feature. Not in the slightest, not anywhere.


I'd like you to explain this unique phenomenon, and show any examples of it, in the real world...

I don't think anyone can show an example of this phenomenon existing in the real world...

Perhaps being that it is all just crapola..

a reply to: turbonium1

So your answer is yes, the Japanese and Indian photographs match the LRO images of the Apollo 15 landing area.

What you think and what you believe are irrelevant. There are numerous scientific analyses that have examined the effect. Here, have some more:

www.hou.usra.edu...

www.researchgate.net...

Feel free to prove any of these scientific papers to be incorrect with your comprehensive science knowledge.

And you are lying to yourself if you don't think you can see the physical disturbance from feet and wheels around the lunar module and the tracks to the ALSEP in Apollo images, because you can. That's what is more important in the Japanese and Indian photographs, because they match exactly what is shown in LRO images, which match exactly what is shown in Apollo images.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

So your answer is yes, the Japanese and Indian photographs match the LRO images of the Apollo 15 landing area.

What you think and what you believe are irrelevant. There are numerous scientific analyses that have examined the effect. Here, have some more:

www.hou.usra.edu...

www.researchgate.net...

Feel free to prove any of these scientific papers to be incorrect with your comprehensive science knowledge.

And you are lying to yourself if you don't think you can see the physical disturbance from feet and wheels around the lunar module and the tracks to the ALSEP in Apollo images, because you can. That's what is more important in the Japanese and Indian photographs, because they match exactly what is shown in LRO images, which match exactly what is shown in Apollo images.

Only one of those papers cites an Apollo surface image, from Apollo 11.

And this image only shows nearby surface of the LM, which does NOT confirm any change of appearance (ie: a 'halo')..


The papers assume it's an established fact that we landed men on the moon, and so, of course, these landing sites are really on the moon, at those specific locations...


You claim that these papers refute my argument? Nice try...

What do you think the papers say - specifically - which refutes my argument?


One of the papers shows one image from Apollo 11...

This image only shows the lunar surface nearby (and below) the LM...

They claim this image shows a disturbance of lunar soil. Caused by the nearby LM.


Get serious!!

originally posted by: turbonium1

Get serious!!

So are you saying the the US did not land on the moon??

Get serious!!

What shred of proof do you have that they didnt and I will show you 100 more that they did.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

So your answer is yes, the Japanese and Indian photographs match the LRO images of the Apollo 15 landing area.

What you think and what you believe are irrelevant. There are numerous scientific analyses that have examined the effect. Here, have some more:

www.hou.usra.edu...

www.researchgate.net...

Feel free to prove any of these scientific papers to be incorrect with your comprehensive science knowledge.

And you are lying to yourself if you don't think you can see the physical disturbance from feet and wheels around the lunar module and the tracks to the ALSEP in Apollo images, because you can. That's what is more important in the Japanese and Indian photographs, because they match exactly what is shown in LRO images, which match exactly what is shown in Apollo images.

Another point...

The paper cites an image from Apollo 11, and claims it shows the disturbance of soil, caused by the LM's landing...

So, your own sources are claiming to see this feature close up, but you've insisted it cannot be seen at close-up!

You will now tell me that these disturbances can - and have - been identified, and seen, and imaged - from close-up... but it's extremely rare to see it at close range....right?

This disturbance is almost impossible to see from the ground. But, when it IS seen from close-up, it is very clear, and obvious to see...

Anything else we should know....about your magical 'disturbance'?

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: turbonium1

Get serious!!

So are you saying the the US did not land on the moon??

Get serious!!

What shred of proof do you have that they didnt and I will show you 100 more that they did.

I'm giving you proof, right now....

A surface feature that is not found anywhere in the Apollo surface images.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Another point...

The paper cites an image from Apollo 11, and claims it shows the disturbance of soil, caused by the LM's landing...

So, your own sources are claiming to see this feature close up, but you've insisted it cannot be seen at close-up!

reading your reply, it looks like you didnt exactly understand what was being shown and decided to make up random arguments that dont make sense..

what part of using the LRO images is close up?
or have you been arguing with everyone with the mindset that 50km is what you consider close up?

These images were/are supposed to prove that Apollo landed men on the moon, but only proved the very opposite, which is quite ironic...

They can produce images far, far better than these images, of course.

I've heard all sorts of bs excuses...

- we have good enough images already, to prove the landings were genuine, so why should they bother?.... just to make you 'hoaxers' happy?

- the images would have almost no scientific value, of course.

Sure, if all the world's scientists had 'morphed' into utter morons!


The scientific value alone justifies getting the best images possible... beyond any doubt!

All the scientists who study the lunar environment, do not care to see/know/study/research what effects 40+ years has in the lunar environment?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: turbonium1

Get serious!!

So are you saying the the US did not land on the moon??

Get serious!!

What shred of proof do you have that they didnt and I will show you 100 more that they did.

I'm giving you proof, right now....

A surface feature that is not found anywhere in the Apollo surface images.

A number of people went to the moon, and and even bigger number of people helped them get there, an even bigger number of people monitored them going there (including the enemy) and possibly an even bigger number of people paid for it.

And yet you think it was fake?

There are now probes from other nations taking photos of the moon showing pictures that 100% match what the Americans took 50 years ago.

I do not understand that against overwhelming evidence you still refute it, I hope it doesn't consume you.

Man has landed and walked and talked on the surface of that there Moon, they filmed it, they took samples, they came back and have spent 50 years talking about it.

God speed to the next brave explorers.