Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Optical Illusion or bad photoshopping?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fd4e2925db6.gif[/atsimg]

In this photo it appears that the astronaut's PLSS is partially blocking the Camera.
Which would be impossible, because the camera is attached to the rover and the Astronaut is standing next to the rover and not sitting in it.

Pay close attention to the top portion of the PLSS, notice its outline is actually superimposed over the camera.

AS15-85-11492
history.nasa.gov...

reply to post by FoosM


The camera's pointing out to the side dopey, like in this photo:

www.nasaimages.org...:View-of-the-Lunar-Roving-Vehicle

Don't try and think it doesn't suit you.

reply to post by FoosM


That's right. Skip happily along to your next finger painting. It is what you say it is, right? Too bad we all can't share in your delusion. Why bother defending one, when you can just summarily declare to yourself: "victory complete!"?
If you had to name ONE smoking gun, one indisputable piece of real evidence, what would it be?

[Removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]

reply to post by FoosM


What? The camera is clearly in front:

You can even see where the out of focus edge of the camera covers the highlights on the PLSS:

Here's a photo from a similar angle taken during training (AP15-72-H-1123):

If the data acquisition camera was turned just slightly more to the left, as it is in AS15-85-11492, the battery (the white box) would completely obscure the lens and present a clean line, just as we see in AS15-85-11492.



Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by FoosM


And tell me exactly how did they photoshop pics back in the 60's? Oh yeah, they didn't...

Hello, but excuse me, why doesn't anyone want to comment on this... it is a credible question. Usually you are a very talkative bunch. What happens when it is discovered the moon landings were fabricated. My main concern is that the astros that do eventually manage this astonishing feat it won't be recognised as the first.

Originally posted by ppk55
Here is where a major problem occurs for the next or first moon landing... depending on what you believe.
The images we will receive from a real, future landing will look so vastly different to what we witnessed on alleged Apollo moon landings.

This will throw up all sorts of awkward questions. I think this might be why everyone is saying, no need to go to the moon again .. Let’s go to mars instead.

One last thing, when the first men/women do eventually land on the moon, the travesty is they will never be rightly attributed and honoured as being the first on the moon. When this future crew do finally master the ability to overcome the many almost insurmountable obstacles in their path to landing on the moon, they will never receive the recognition they deserve. This will be a tragedy.

reply to post by ppk55


We're not discussing it because it's nothing to do with this thread, and because at least half the persons responding in this thread don't believe the moon landing is fake.

You're asking a hypothetical question which doesn't present any new evidence.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

See any carbon in that rocket fuel formula? It's carbon, or "lamp black" that causes the black residue of oxidation.

Well after looking at this more closely .. I do see some carbon.

And it's in the Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) component of Aerozine 50, which was used in the ascent module's 16 RCS thrusters. And there's plenty of oxygen in the other component nitrogen tetroxide(N2O4).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60290e9a19a3.png[/atsimg]
So, why is there no residue.

Here is a report on residue from aerozine 50 and n204 ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f426e6582e4d.jpg[/atsimg]

Why there is no residue on any of the RCS thrusters needs to be looked at more closely.

Originally posted by ppk55
This video from Jarrah about the engine plume missing from Apollo got me thinking.

www.youtube.com...

Why do these thruster nozzles from the Apollo images look like no burn has taken place ? They look so clean inside, like an exhaust pipe in a car that's never been used.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0bfd6372a46.jpg[/atsimg]

From what I understand, they use the same hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fuel as the main engine.

reply to post by ppk55


Please provide a link to the article cited. It is not only courteous, but mandatory under the ATS T&C.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55

 

See any carbon in that rocket fuel formula? It's carbon, or "lamp black" that causes the black residue of oxidation.

Well after looking at this more closely .. I do see some carbon.

And it's in the Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) component of Aerozine 50, which was used in the ascent module's 16 RCS thrusters. And there's plenty of oxygen in the other component nitrogen tetroxide(N2O4).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60290e9a19a3.png[/atsimg]
So, why is there no residue.

Here is a report on residue from aerozine 50 and n204 ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f426e6582e4d.jpg[/atsimg]

Why there is no residue on any of the RCS thrusters needs to be looked at more closely.

Originally posted by ppk55
This video from Jarrah about the engine plume missing from Apollo got me thinking.

www.youtube.com...

Why do these thruster nozzles from the Apollo images look like no burn has taken place ? They look so clean inside, like an exhaust pipe in a car that's never been used.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0bfd6372a46.jpg[/atsimg]

From what I understand, they use the same hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide fuel as the main engine.

From your source (which is Reduction in Lunar Surface Visibility Due to Glare During a Landing into the Sun):

I notice you cut off your quote right before that part. The "residue" is primarily hydrazine nitrate, which is a clear liquid at atmospheric pressure and a clear crystal under vacuum (from A Proposal for a new LM Window/RCS Plume Residue Experiment):

and

One of the sources cited in the visibility report is Ignition Transients in Small Hypergolic Rockets:

Samples of the residue were water, fuel, and fuel nitrates. And they determined that changing the duty cycles can prevent accumulation of residues inside the engine.

Back to the Plume Residue Experiment report:

The residue in the nozzle was a fine, whitish-tan powder.

There's no evidence that any carbon deposits would be produced. There is evidence that the duty cycle of the engines were specifically designed to prevent any material deposition int he engines. And there's no evidence that any residue that might remain in the nozzle under vacuum would be easily visible, since the materials involved would be clear or whitish powder.

reply to post by ppk55


This is so educational, and continues to solidify the REALITY of Apollo, with each aborted attempt by the two-most prevalent posters in this thread ... educational because at every twist and turn is an opportunity to show that some intentionally pick and choose rather selectively, in order to attempt this "argument" about Apollo being "hoax". Ironic that those making such claims have to resort to "hoaxing" and subterfuge, isn't it?

Here is a nice, and very detailed and pretty photo of the nose of a Space Shuttle, where you can see ITS RCS thrusters. (Of course, they are streamlined and embedded within the airframe, for aerodynamic reasons. Such as re-entry).

As opposed to the Apollo spacecraft, with the externally-mounted RCS clusters....since those craft operated ONLY in a vacuum:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1fe82b58dba.jpg[/atsimg]

Deposits?? See any?? Pretty subtle, if at all, isn't it? (Remember, this is a RE-usable craft....you can see that it shows some wear-and-tear in the form of heat discoloration from previous flights).

Some sharp-eyed observers will note that RCS clusters were "hanging out in the airstream" on Apollo, at launch. The ones on the Service Module. However, the 'streamlining" wasn't needed, at the airspeeds encountered during launch...as the air gets progressively thinner, higher you go, and as you accelerate.

As in the Shuttle, the RCS openings are covered with shrouds...which blow off during launch, or when the RCS is activated.


What does the Space Shuttle use for RCS reactant/propulsion? Almost the exact same chemicals as Apollo did.

Apollo used the Aerozine-50 which is a 50/50 mix of the monomethylhydrazine (MMH) and unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH).....

Which,

..... have a key advantage that they are stable enough to be used in regeneratively cooled rocket engines. The Apollo Lunar Modules used a one-to-one mixture of hydrazine and UDMH (called Aerozine 50, or A-50)....en.wikipedia.org...

The Shuttle uses the MMH, instead of the 50/50 mix that includes UDMH. Same as in the OMS engines.

(Apollo also used the same A-50 mixture in the Ascent Module engine on the LM....)

Really, this stuff is quite easy to research, when one bothers to take the time to learn.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

Really, this stuff is quite easy to research, when one bothers to take the time to learn.....

Granted; if you know what to look for. If your science education came from comic books, then no, it isn't easy.
It is much easier to make things up that sound sciencey, but have nothing to do with real science.
If your guru's favorite children's shows - like Thomas the tank and japanese pedo anime - are his inspiration, fantasies about moon hoaxes make perfect sense.

Excellent post, his arguments are well thought out and detailed as you described. Why would the government lie to us about a lunar landing? Perhaps there is something on the moon that they'd rather not have us discover.

reply to post by NeedsNoName


Don't be shy. Do tell us what it is, please. Is it the ruins of ancient cities? forgotten relics of a long dead alien race? Perhaps the Moon is hollow or is actually a gigantic Dyson sphere. I do enjoy Science fiction.
Please be entertaining.

Originally posted by NeedsNoName
Excellent post, his arguments are well thought out and detailed as you described. Why would the government lie to us about a lunar landing? Perhaps there is something on the moon that they'd rather not have us discover.

I'm assuming the cryptic "they" is "the government".

Which begs the question, now that the US, the old USSR (which includes Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and many other countries), Japan, the ESA (which includes much of Europe), China and India, have ALL sent probes to the moon, are you saying "they" are all in on the conspiracy?

Do you realize how many people you are talking about here???

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM

Optical Illusion or bad photoshopping?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fd4e2925db6.gif[/atsimg]

In this photo it appears that the astronaut's PLSS is partially blocking the Camera.
Which would be impossible, because the camera is attached to the rover and the Astronaut is standing next to the rover and not sitting in it.

Pay close attention to the top portion of the PLSS, notice its outline is actually superimposed over the camera.

AS15-85-11492
history.nasa.gov...

What? The camera is clearly in front:

Here's a photo from a similar angle taken during training (AP15-72-H-1123):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7faddc94f29.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by FoosM

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7faddc94f29.gif[/atsimg]

No, see where the highlight on the PLSS is showing through where you drew the edge? On a defocused edge between the camera taking the picture and the object in focus, the out of focus area extends beyond the actual boundary of the out of focus object. Hence, you have drawn the boundary too far to the right.



Here is a more realistic illustration of the edges:

Originally posted by nataylor

Here is a more realistic illustration of the edges:

Sorry Nat,
But I dont agree with your assessment on the photo.
The top portion of the PLSS clearly cuts into the camera.
Blurry or not, there should have been a distinct edge-line from the top of the camera to the bottom because
it is supposed to be in front of the PLSS.
This is not the case.
We can clearly see the corner outline of the to PLSS without obstruction overlapping the edge of the camera.

reply to post by FoosM


Why are you wasting time and effort on this one, FoosM? If it was all shot in a studio, why would they need to "photoshop" this shot? Explain.

Originally posted by FoosM

Sorry Nat,
But I dont agree with your assessment on the photo.
The top portion of the PLSS clearly cuts into the camera.
Blurry or not, there should have been a distinct edge-line from the top of the camera to the bottom because
it is supposed to be in front of the PLSS.
This is not the case.
We can clearly see the corner outline of the to PLSS without obstruction overlapping the edge of the camera.

Well first, the specific thing you're talking about is the OPS (which sits on top of the PLSS).

Second, I see a distinct straight edge going down the camera. I think you're getting confused because there's probably a very tiny gap between the camera and the OPS such that if everything was in focus, you'd be able to see a sliver of the background between the two. The PLSS does pass behind the camera, so it appears slightly different when looking at the out of focus edge.