Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: choos

so are you saying that this bright spot is seen in ALL LRO images??

No, I didn't say that. I said it is ONLY seen in images from orbit, while it is not seen at all in any Apollo 'surface' images.

originally posted by: choos
first of all, yes i have multiple times, you have continued to ignore it..
OBMonkey has also provided links to this that you have ignored multiple times.

Do you actually have any QUOTES from these sources which explain all these points, such as

What makes the soil become more reflective after being disturbed?

Which specific particles in the soil are responsible for greater reflective properties?

How is it possible that millions of soil particles are blown about an area, randomly, over various distances, landing down on uneven ground, at various angles relative to the surface, yet manage to reflect more light only in an upward direction, in unison?

And finally, what proof is there for all of the above questions?


I've looked through all of your links, and have not found any answers to these questions.

Saying 'it's all explained in these sources, but you never read them', is utter bs. YOU need to cite from YOUR sources, to support YOUR argument. It's not up to me to sift through all your links, trying to find an explanation - which is not even there, to begin with.

originally posted by: choos
no one ever said it reflects upwards only.. it is just visible from a few LRO images because the LRO took images of those at the right time.

Oh, so now it isn't that it only reflects upwards, it is because they took images from orbit "at the right time"?

Perhaps it's the "right time" to review how reflectance actually works. Here is yet another source on this subject, so you can (hopefully) begin to understand the problem with your argument...

Reflection from rough surfaces, such as asphalt, paper and clothing are examples of diffuse reflection. In diffuse reflection, light rays are scattered randomly at different angles from the reflecting surface.

Ideal diffuse reflection results in equal luminance in all directions at the half-plane adjacent to the surface. This ideal form of diffuse reflection is called Lambertian reflectance. Such ideal reflecting surfaces are hypothetical, and actual reflecting surfaces are anisotropic, reflecting more in certain directions than in others. Surfaces with a high degree of diffusive efficiency include plaster, paper, white marble and talcum powder.
Specular reflection is exhibited by a mirror or a calm water surface, where coherent incident light rays are coherently reflected according to the law of reflection. The incidence angle and the reflected angle are equal in perfectly specular reflection. All reflection obeys the law of reflection, but diffuse reflection results in scattering because the reflection angles from each part of the material are different due to the random orientation of the surface.
Even slight surface imperfections make perfect specular reflection impossible, so any reflection from a real surface will always be some combination of diffuse and specular. Diffuse reflection is used form ambient lighting applications, such as frosted glass bulbs, while specular reflection is used for optical applications, such as microscopes and telescopes.

www.reference.com...#

You claim an area disturbed by the LM is more reflective than the undisturbed area which surround it, right?

While I'm waiting for you to explain how this is possible, let's go along with it, for argument's sake...

According to the law of reflection, both the disturbed and undisturbed areas would reflect light in all directions. As both are rough surfaces, with DIFFUSE reflections.

So when light hits those two areas, at the same time, at the same angle of incidence, they both reflect light in all directions.

If one of the areas has greater reflective properties than the other area, it will reflect more light in all directions than the other area reflects in all directions. Follow that?

No matter what the angle of incidence, this area will reflect more light than the other area will reflect - in all directions.


There cannot be a "right time" or "wrong time" for this disturbance to be seen, because it would ALWAYS reflect more light than the other area, in all directions, no matter what angle of incidence.

If you look at all the Apollo surface images, there is no difference in brightness over the entire surface, outward from the LM, beyond where that area of disturbed soil is claimed to be.

That cannot happen, as explained by the law of reflection, noted above.

originally posted by: choos
so where is your proof of your theory that this reflection should be more visible the closer you get???

That's not my theory, first of all.

I said a real, physical feature on the surface, such as a crater, or a footprint, or a rover track, or a soil disturbance, should be, and would be, more clearly seen the closer you get to them.

Of course, that's why you are trying to twist the disturbance (supposedly) caused by the LM as not a real, physical disturbance. That it is merely a 'reflective' issue. Because in your world, blowing around soil over an area >200m in diameter doesn't mean it's a physical disturbance! It just reflects more light, after being thrown about!!

Right, of course!

a reply to: turbonium1

You clearly haven't read the links you have been given, or you would understand what causes the change in surface reflectance.

I even posted a photograph of a book from 1972 with the information you need in it.

No-one has ever said that the reflection of light is only upwards, only you have, so dump that strawman.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You clearly haven't read the links you have been given, or you would understand what causes the change in surface reflectance.

I even posted a photograph of a book from 1972 with the information you need in it.

No-one has ever said that the reflection of light is only upwards, only you have, so dump that strawman.

I've read your links, and I have not found any sort of explanation for how this disturbance would not, could not, should not, be seen in any surface images.

You've never once quoted anything about it from your so-called sources, either.

It's your burden of proof. Your sources, that you claim support your argument. It's not up to me to look through your so-called sources.

You don't really have anything to quote from your so-called sources, obviously.

Otherwise, you'd have quoted them by now.

Support your argument, if you can. And please, stop this crap.

a reply to: turbonium1

I think you calling for people to stop this crap is beyond hypocrisy given the pages of BS we've all had to wade through while you prevaricate and deny and obfuscate. I have supported my arguments all the way, and just because I haven't spoonfed you what you're jumping up and down screaming like a petulant child for doesn't mean it hasn't been supplied or that it is somehow not relevant to refuting your completely bogus point.

What you are doing here is wriggling on a hook trying to find a way of legitimising your claim that it isn't evidence and desperately building strawmen to fire at.

You denied there was evidence. You were given it. You denied it existed for other landers, you were proved wrong. You denied it had been replicated on Earth, you were proved wrong. You claimed there was no explanation given for the phenomenon, you were proved wrong. If you've read those links and think there is something in there that proves you right and everyone else wrong then go ahead and post it. I'm not jumping because you tell me to. Review the evidence you've been given, if you find it to be false then point out specifically where instead of resorting to knee-jerk denial.

You claimed that there was no explanation for there being a brighter zone around the LM as a result of the interaction of the LM exhaust plume with the ground. That claim has been shown to be BS. You have had it explained to you why it is easier to see the impact of that plume from orbit, and you've even had a simple example that a child could comprehend. I am at a loss to understand why someone who presumably thinks of himself as intelligent is unable to grasp the simple concept that a large and subtly graded feature seen from up close may not be easy to discern but is much easier to see when viewed from a distance. It really isn't difficult. What's your problem?

If you think that the mechanism by which the surface reflectivity increase should be visible from close up, then you see if you can find us some examples where that is the case. The example I showed you from 1972 even from a poor quality camera photo of a page shows that the brighter area extends over 150 metres. Why do you think this would be easy to see when viewed from a few feet above the ground?

originally posted by: turbonium1

Do you actually have any QUOTES from these sources which explain all these points, such as

What makes the soil become more reflective after being disturbed?

do you actually read any of the sources provided??? or do you just ignore it?? its all explained in the papers.

we are not here to spoon feed you.

Which specific particles in the soil are responsible for greater reflective properties?

stupid questions deserve stupid answers.. in this case im not going to bother.

How is it possible that millions of soil particles are blown about an area, randomly, over various distances, landing down on uneven ground, at various angles relative to the surface, yet manage to reflect more light only in an upward direction, in unison?

if you read the papers you would understand that your understanding is not what we are explaining.

And finally, what proof is there for all of the above questions?

all the papers and surface images which these papers are using to explain.

I've looked through all of your links, and have not found any answers to these questions.

clearly you havent.. you have looked at the title and assumed nothing is in it..

i have already explained to you that the LM engine compacts the lunar regolith, compacted lunar regolith becomes more reflective.. loose regolith ie. non compacted regolith does not reflect as well. which explains directly this also, one of many images that you choose to ignore and cannot explain:


it is all in the papers. you failed to read it, you failed to understand it.

Saying 'it's all explained in these sources, but you never read them', is utter bs. YOU need to cite from YOUR sources, to support YOUR argument. It's not up to me to sift through all your links, trying to find an explanation - which is not even there, to begin with.

ive already explained to you what the papers are saying.. it is not my problem that you have failed to read it.

You claim an area disturbed by the LM is more reflective than the undisturbed area which surround it, right?

While I'm waiting for you to explain how this is possible, let's go along with it, for argument's sake...

you know the explaination is in the papers right?? if you read the papers you wouldnt be asking this over and over...

oh and its my claim is it?? i wrote the papers did I???

So when light hits those two areas, at the same time, at the same angle of incidence, they both reflect light in all directions.

If one of the areas has greater reflective properties than the other area, it will reflect more light in all directions than the other area reflects in all directions. Follow that?

i follow it, but that isnt the argument.. how about you go and read the paper thoroughly before making assumptions on the argument.

No matter what the angle of incidence, this area will reflect more light than the other area will reflect - in all directions.

There cannot be a "right time" or "wrong time" for this disturbance to be seen, because it would ALWAYS reflect more light than the other area, in all directions, no matter what angle of incidence.

you mean like how in the first image the bootprint is brighter than the surrounding regolith? and in the second image the regolith brightness is the same??

according to your interpretation both images should have the bootprint much brighter than the surrounding.

I said a real, physical feature on the surface, such as a crater, or a footprint, or a rover track, or a soil disturbance, should be, and would be, more clearly seen the closer you get to them.

Of course, that's why you are trying to twist the disturbance (supposedly) caused by the LM as not a real, physical disturbance. That it is merely a 'reflective' issue. Because in your world, blowing around soil over an area >200m in diameter doesn't mean it's a physical disturbance! It just reflects more light, after being thrown about!!

Right, of course!

trying to twist?? or simply you not understanding what it is everyone is talking about??
answer a simple question:
is the bright patch of regolith the LRO imaging a physical object or a reflection of sunlight?

I think turbonium would do well, if was to read just one of the links supplied, to look at this one:

www.researchgate.net...

While that links just to the abstract, you can download the entire pdf, and it does identify exactly what's going on and relates the details visible from orbit to those on the ground. It even very kindly picks out an Apollo 11 image to look at. There are even other references to follow that show how long this topic has been researched.

The 'blast zones' it describes are identified for all the Apollo landers as well as other craft, and the one of Apollo 17 is interesting given the photograph that choos posted some pages ago. I could also point to images like this for Apollo 15 where I would suggest a lighter surface exactly where the paper says there should be one, but turbonium will deny:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

That panorama wa taken before they'd even set foot outside.

This article might also help explain things for him:

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Although naturally he might find that one hard given that he has denied that the LRO has the capability to pick out the LM and associated features, and China's little lander and rover are much much smaller than that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I think turbonium would do well, if was to read just one of the links supplied, to look at this one:

www.researchgate.net...

While that links just to the abstract, you can download the entire pdf, and it does identify exactly what's going on and relates the details visible from orbit to those on the ground. It even very kindly picks out an Apollo 11 image to look at. There are even other references to follow that show how long this topic has been researched.

The 'blast zones' it describes are identified for all the Apollo landers as well as other craft, and the one of Apollo 17 is interesting given the photograph that choos posted some pages ago...

I've downloaded the entire pdf, and here's what it says regarding the Apollo surface images...

Surface photographs taken during the Apollo missions also show photometric differences around the landing sites. Fig. 9a shows a photograph taken beside the lunar module at the Apollo 11 landing site. Close to the lander, the regolith has lower reflectivity. A high reflectance streak possibly due to rocket plume effects is visible directly beside the LM. Fig. 9b also shows another view under the nozzle of the LM and the regolith appears to be less reflective than the surroundings. This area is roughened-up, and appears to be disrupted and pitted beneath the nozzle (see also Figs. 7–9 in Metzger et al. (2011)). In addition, a region farther from the nozzle appears to be smoother than the disrupted region, and has been brightened, likely due to interaction with the exhaust plume. The region of decreased
reflectance beneath the engine nozzle is part of the lower reflectance blast zone (LR-BZ) for the landing sites.

Smoothing of the surface (macroscopic roughness) and destruction of the fine-scale roughness of the regolith (including fairy-castle structure, which is commonly thought to be key in the highly backscattering character of lunar regolith) are supported by the photometric characteristics and modeling, by lunar surface photographs, and by exhaust-flow modeling.

The paper says that Apollo surface images show higher reflectance around the LM's...with one image, that doesn't even match up to the images from orbit!

All the other images don't show a higher reflectance around the LM, but they point to one image that has a lightened area near the LM, which doesn't even match up to the area shown in orbit images!! And that's their idea of valid evidence??!? Sheesh...


The paper also says...

Ongoing efforts are aimed at quantifying our understanding of how the changes in physical properties associated with either smoothing or roughness at different scales and redeposition of fines in a very thin surface layer would affect the photometric properties of the regolith, and how these can best be treated in photometric modeling. We are also testing our photometric model using a wider range of emission angles. These future steps will help to better understand what process(es) occurred at the landing sites to create the observed blast zone characteristics, as well as provide valuable information about the behavior of potentially damaging lunar soil during powered descents for future human and robotic missions to the lunar surface.


You insist that this 'phenomenon' exists, and they have explained it....right?

What do they say in bold, about it?

They have no explanation for it, right?

So that's your job, to pretend they said it, even if they didn't say it, then??


It is all 'debunked' and 'refuted', thanks to you!!



But to claim - as they do in the paper - that the disturbed areas (around the LM's) can be seen in the Apollo surface images...is utter nonsense...


They claim a 'high reflectance streak' is near the LM, which doesn't match up to any of the images from orbit.

And they see a smoothed area near the LM, and this doesn't match up to the orbit images, either.


They have hundreds of other images, to support their case, but none of them are used in their paper....

Not because the other surface images show nothing of the disturbance, of course!!


In fact, the Apollo surface images show nothing at all of the supposed disturbances, caused by Apollo LM's.

None of the surface images even come close to 'supporting' their case - Not a chance.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The paper says that Apollo surface images show higher reflectance around the LM's...with one image, that doesn't even match up to the images from orbit!

All the other images don't show a higher reflectance around the LM, but they point to one image that has a lightened area near the LM, which doesn't even match up to the area shown in orbit images!! And that's their idea of valid evidence??!? Sheesh...

Apart from where they point out the features visible from orbit you mean? Why don't you email the paper's authors and ask them? I'm sure they'll re-write their paper based on your expert opinion.

You insist that this 'phenomenon' exists, and they have explained it....right?

What do they say in bold, about it?

They have no explanation for it, right?

So that's your job, to pretend they said it, even if they didn't say it, then??

That's not that they say. What they are doing with their work is using the change surface photometry caused by the exhaust from rocket engines to describe how the soil has physically changed. That's what they are continuing to work on, not that they are somehow mystified by the whole thing.

The also say this:

Both LROC NAC images and photometric analysis reveal that there are regions of changed reflectance around the Apollo, Surveyor, and Luna landers, created by disturbance resulting from rocket exhaust.

They also describe in detail what happens and why. Doesn't look like they doubt the existence of the Apollo landing sites?

It is all 'debunked' and 'refuted', thanks to you!!



But to claim - as they do in the paper - that the disturbed areas (around the LM's) can be seen in the Apollo surface images...is utter nonsense...

Saying it don't make it so...

They claim a 'high reflectance streak' is near the LM, which doesn't match up to any of the images from orbit.

Except where they show pictures taken from orbit and they match up.

If you believe it doesn't match up, show us why not, where. Try going back to the Apollo 17 image Choos posted and comparing it with the one in the paper. Or the one I posted from Apollo 15. Prove it doesn't show what the orbital image shows.

And they see a smoothed area near the LM, and this doesn't match up to the orbit images, either.

Says who? Again, if you disagree, point it out. I am not going to take your word for it, prove it.

They have hundreds of other images, to support their case, but none of them are used in their paper....

Not because the other surface images show nothing of the disturbance, of course!!


In fact, the Apollo surface images show nothing at all of the supposed disturbances, caused by Apollo LM's.

None of the surface images even come close to 'supporting' their case - Not a chance.

Don't you find it suffocating with your head so far in the sand?

You deny evidence exists, you demand it's provided, then when you do you just deny the content matches up to whatever BS you've decided as the criteria that will satisfy you.

This paper doesn't want facts, or truth, or to seek out the truth...

Claiming the surface images show these same disturbances (around the LM's) as seen from orbit images....is a blatant falsehood.

They present a couple of surface images as support for their claim.

The whole point would be to show how the Apollo surface images DO match up with images taken from orbit.


Your argument is that everything should match up - like all the footpaths, and all the rover tracks, etc.

Why do you want everything to match up?

Because if everything matches up, you can hold it up as confirmation of the Apollo moon landings being genuine....right?


Your side first brought up this very same argument. The images taken from lunar orbit showed 'Apollo's landing sites' matched up exactly to the official account. The Apollo surface images, and surface footage, matches up to the images from orbit...it is clearly not a fake, then!!

Your argument is about the images from orbit, as matching up perfectly, entirely, to the Apollo surface images, and footage.

That was your argument - everything matches up perfectly will show that it is genuine.

So therefore, anything not matching up will show that it is a fake...


You can't have it both ways, even though you persist in this fantasy

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

That's not that they say. What they are doing with their work is using the change surface photometry caused by the exhaust from rocket engines to describe how the soil has physically changed. That's what they are continuing to work on, not that they are somehow mystified by the whole thing.

Unlike yourself, I'm not afraid to actually QUOTE what they say...

Ongoing efforts are aimed at quantifying our understanding of how the changes in physical properties associated with either smoothing or roughness at different scales and redeposition of fines in a very thin surface layer would affect the photometric properties of the regolith...

So you think they aren't 'mystified' by the whole thing?

What are they actually talking about in this quote - as you see it, anyway?

Their efforts are "aimed at quantifying our understanding of how the changes in physical properties..and redeposition....would affect the photometric properties of the regolith.."

What does "quantifying our understanding" mean?

Disturbed soil causing higher reflectance than undisturbed soil is an "understanding".

An "understanding" is a 'belief', an 'assumption', a 'view'...

It is not a fact, nor a truth, nor is it scientific knowledge.

That is exactly what I've been telling you over and over - they assume what is true. As in, 'our understanding' of what is true...

Get it, so far?


It is a belief they have. An 'understanding' of it.

From that belief, that assumption, this understanding, they go forth with it, as if it were a fact, as if 100% true.

For sure, all scientists start with one universally accepted belief, and then take it as if it were 100% fact, and nothing else is ever considered, forever after!!

Good one!

a reply to: turbonium1

The quote you used illustrates exactly the point I said they were making.

Rocket exhausts change the photometric properties of the surface. Fact. Indisputable fact. There are many examples of it from numerous landing craft in lunar and terrestrial environments (remember you claimed that wasn't true)

The mechanisms producing that change are well documented and have been discussed for decades (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

The changes themselves are well documented (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

What they are doing is refining the understanding of those changes to allow for more precise modelling. Refining a model does not mean they do not have a model. Improving understanding does not mean they don't have any understanding.

Now how about you stop cherry picking a report of which you have only the flimsiest understanding and try and explain how it is that those orbital photographs taken by the LRO contain rocks, craters, equipment and evidence of human activity that exactly matches the images taken by Apollo cameras and live TV.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The quote you used illustrates exactly the point I said they were making.

Rocket exhausts change the photometric properties of the surface. Fact. Indisputable fact. There are many examples of it from numerous landing craft in lunar and terrestrial environments (remember you claimed that wasn't true)

The mechanisms producing that change are well documented and have been discussed for decades (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

The changes themselves are well documented (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

What they are doing is refining the understanding of those changes to allow for more precise modelling. Refining a model does not mean they do not have a model. Improving understanding does not mean they don't have any understanding.

No, they don't understand it.

What do they actually know - for a fact - about it?

They have samples of lunar soil. They've tried to duplicate the effect with lunar soil. They failed to duplicate the effect, however.

If they couldn't replicate the effect with actual lunar soil, that only proves the effect doesn't even exist, at all.

There is no proof it even DOES exist.

They only proved it doesn't exist, in trying to prove that it really does exist.. very ironic, indeed.

At the soil level, it failed to be replicated. No more proof is needed, just from that fact, alone.

They had the soil to show it exists, but only showed that it never existed, instead.

It's over, now.

Modeling what, exactly?

The actual lunar soil proved the effect doesn't exist, so modelling sure the hell won't fly, that's for sure.

originally posted by: turbonium1

They had the soil to show it exists, but only showed that it never existed, instead.

It's over, now.

So what you are suggesting as your reality is that NASA forgot to make the landing site bright as **** giving away the hoax.

Even though they knew for a fact that the bootprint would compact the regolith therefore making the bootprints brighter and remembered to display this for the world to see in surface images.

Even though they knew that the engine would compress the regolith and deliberately took high definition images of directly under the descent engine.

They still just happened to forget to put in the bright blastzones not once not twice, but in every single surface image in existence..

That's your reality right?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The quote you used illustrates exactly the point I said they were making.

Rocket exhausts change the photometric properties of the surface. Fact. Indisputable fact. There are many examples of it from numerous landing craft in lunar and terrestrial environments (remember you claimed that wasn't true)

The mechanisms producing that change are well documented and have been discussed for decades (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

The changes themselves are well documented (remember you claimed that wasn't true).

Fact.

What they are doing is refining the understanding of those changes to allow for more precise modelling. Refining a model does not mean they do not have a model. Improving understanding does not mean they don't have any understanding.

No, they don't understand it.

What do they actually know - for a fact - about it?

They have samples of lunar soil. They've tried to duplicate the effect with lunar soil. They failed to duplicate the effect, however.

Firstly, yes, there are samples. Apollo samples. Think about that. Secondly, if read the paper properly you will see that they didn't have them, they used data collected by other people in their analyses. Thirdly, not duplicating the effect' is not the correct interpretation of the data.

What they found firstly was that there were very clearly defined blast zones around the landers, a darker one corresponding to the area of greatest astronaut activity and a brighter one attributed to the action of the engine exhaust. They found that there was a difference in brightness between landing sites attributable to variability in soil properties but no significant difference in soil properties within a landing zone. They explain likely reasons for that related to the sampling strategies employed.

If they couldn't replicate the effect with actual lunar soil, that only proves the effect doesn't even exist, at all.

As above, they were not using actual soil, just data about actual soil. they were not trying to replicate the brightening of the soil, they were looking at differences in the soil material. The fact is that the brighter zones do exist.

There is no proof it even DOES exist.

Wrong, there is every proof that there is a change in surface reflectance around the landers. They are quite specific about that.

They only proved it doesn't exist, in trying to prove that it really does exist.. very ironic, indeed.

Wrong - this is entirely the wrong interpretation of their data..

At the soil level, it failed to be replicated. No more proof is needed, just from that fact, alone.

They had the soil to show it exists, but only showed that it never existed, instead.

It's over, now.

See above. You failed to understand the paper, and your eyes musty have just skipped over the bits that describe in detail the changes caused by human activity

eg

Profiles for the Apollo landing sites, shown in Fig. 10, indicate that, outside of the LR-BZ, reflectance is greatest close to the LM, within 20–40 m, then tapers off with distance from the LM, reaching background levels typically at 70–140 m distance from the landers. The reflectance is lowest directly at the LM in the LR-BZ, where the astronauts disturbed the regolith, and perhaps directly beneath the landers where disruption of regolith by descent engines was chaotic.

The shape of each blast zone depends on the final descent trajectory of the lunar modules, and varies depending on whether they hovered above the surface or took a steeper approach to the surface.

A decrease in reflectance is observed in the area directly beside the Apollo lunar modules. This decrease corresponds to areas of astronaut activity, as well as the area where the largest volume of particulate material was likely removed, especially the areas directly beneath the landers.

I notice you're still avoiding going back the specific photos choos and I posted. Why?

Oh, and you obviously don't understanding the concept of scientific models.

While turbonium tries to come up with some other deflection, here's something I found today in Japan's coverage of Apollo 14:



In the centre is the LRO shot of the landing site, with the red circle picking out the LM. You can make out the tracks they made running east west.

Either side of this are morning and evening views of the same scene taken by Japan's probe, with the circle also picking out the LM. The morning view also shows the same tracks.

Boom.

originally posted by: choos

So what you are suggesting as your reality is that NASA forgot to make the landing site bright as **** giving away the hoax.

You are suggesting it is "reality" that NASA couldn't have ever have made any mistakes, obviously!

The fact is that we humans make mistakes all the time. Nobody is perfect. Not even your great heroic icons at NASA....

Deal with it.

originally posted by: choos
Even though they knew for a fact that the bootprint would compact the regolith therefore making the bootprints brighter and remembered to display this for the world to see in surface images.

Even though they knew that the engine would compress the regolith and deliberately took high definition images of directly under the descent engine.

They still just happened to forget to put in the bright blastzones not once not twice, but in every single surface image in existence..

That's your reality right?

The reality is that no blast zones are seen in any of their surface images.

Nobody but NASA knows why they didn't recreate blast zones for their surface images. Perhaps they simply forgot to put them in, or perhaps they DID know about it, but made a decision to not follow through with it, for whatever reason(s) at the time...

It is not relevant to know why they didn't do it.

That's like saying a criminal can't be stupid enough to leave evidence of a crime, since he'd obviously know such evidence would incriminate him.

You would argue that NASA isn't comparable to a typical criminal, because NASA would have had all sorts of resources available to them, unlike any other criminal would....

This is quite true, but mistakes happen, no matter how great the resources....


It's a mistake, and nothing will excuse it...

The papers have only one real agenda - making NASA's official account hold up. Despite reality, logic, facts, or a shred of scientific evidence ....

They claim surface images show the disturbance (supposedly) caused by the LM.

Their 'proof' is a single surface image, appearing to show a bright spot on the surface near the LM....which doesn't even match up with the area it's being compared against!!

I suppose this one image must have been considered the best example, since no other examples were even required!!

Actually, they knew that all other surface images showed nothing at all, so they COULDN'T use any of them to try and support their case!!

Scientific evidence is ignored, because it would destroy their entire argument at once...

I like how you 'prove' the phenomenon exists...

The same thing has happened when other spacecraft landed on the moon, too!!

That proves it is real, obviously!


Many examples exist - none can ever be proven to exist, but they are fine examples, indeed!

I'm bored of trying to educate you, there's no point reposnding to your demands for information that you then ignore or just plain don't understand. I think I'll decide what I post for a while, not you.

Here is some more evidence that we went to the moon. On Apollo 14 they took a very very high end Hycon camera based on the best spy camera around at the time used in the Corona programme. It took photographs during the 4th orbit. Not many high resolution versions of these exist online, but a couple were found recently in the US National Archive site. here's one of them:

catalog.archives.gov...



I've drawn a red square around a crater that is identified in a photo taken a couple of frames earlier that appears (in a lower resolution format) in several publications just after the mission.

So how does that crater in the photo compare with others? Here it is top left, compared with the LRO (top right), Japan's Kaguya prove (bottom left) and the best Lunar Orbiter image available prior to the mission (bottom right).



It's pretty obvious that the image taken prior to the mission just doesn't have the detail in the Apollo photograph or the the LRO & Japanese ones. Japan's detail isn't of as high a resolution but still allows us to confirm the broad details of the other ones.

Let's zoom in on the central peak:



The Hycon view is on the right, LRO in the centre, Japan's on the right. I've not bothered with the Lunar Orbiter image it would show nothing. The width of this image is around 165 metres, and the smallest objects visible are 2m across. The details are an exact match.

The timings of the photographs are covered in detail in the mission transcript, where they also record the technical problems with the camera, and the sun angle of 44 degrees is entirely consistent with what you can see there.

Other photographs taken by Apollo 14 show Venus exactly where it should be and Earth exactly how it should look.

If they weren't there, how did this happen?