Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

NASA in recent years has become engaged in a herculean effort to locate missing moon rocks. Why don't they just offer a reward for finding them and returning them? Instead, they made it a "sting" operation. NASA is doing this because they know that these rocks are terrestrial in origin.

Oh, so now everyone at NASA knows they're terrestrial in origin? I thought only Farouk al Baz and a small handful of Nixonites knew that. In any event, you are merely speculating. NASA is being very consistent in their "government property" policy. You yourself have pointed out that they've been going after astronauts who have tried to pick up some cash by selling "souvenirs."

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM
Do tell, what type of shielding, and how much of it did Van Allen say was needed to get through the belts?

You obviously missed this from a previous post of mine:

No, I didnt miss it.
What Im missing is van Allen's calculations on the type of shielding and the amount of shielding needed to traverse the belts. So, can you tell me what van Allen said about shielding?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
NASA blew an O-ring on this poor old lady.... look at these headlines today... WHAT IS NASA AFRAID OF?

Granny: NASA scared me into returning moon rock
NASA interrogates 73-year-old grandmother for selling moon rocks

What right do they have to do this?
What if she found the moon rock in her backyard?
Or it was given to her from some expedition in the desert or antarctica?

reply to post by FoosM

What right do they have to do this?

Attempting to sell government property is a Federal crime, that gives them the right, assuming it was a stolen Apollo lunar sample. If it's not, NASA doesn't have a case. The FBI's fraud division would.

What if she found the moon rock in her backyard?

If it was an Apollo sample encased in lucite, it's still government property and it is a crime to sell it.

Or it was given to her from some expedition in the desert or antarctica?

Then it's hers. I might even buy it from her... but not for $1.7 million!

reply to post by FoosM


Simple - if it is actually a moon rock that was bought back by an Apollo mission then it is US Govt property.

If it is a meteor remnant then it isn't.

She claimed it was the former.

You seem like a clever guyh - how come you couldn't figure this out when it is clearly articulated in that thread?? Are you just being argumentative??

Originally posted by FoosM
No, I didnt miss it.
What Im missing is van Allen's calculations on the type of shielding and the amount of shielding needed to traverse the belts. So, can you tell me what van Allen said about shielding?

I don't have a direct quote from Van Allen, but reading what he did say strongly suggests that Van Allen wasn't too concerned with additional "shielding" of the Apollo craft, other than what Nasa had already factored into their craft.

This may help you understand a little more about the subject:

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly thought out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!

www.clavius.org...

Originally posted by backinblack
Were those pictures not artificially enhanced a great deal ??

Look them up and find out, view the originals, and maybe even come up with something useful from it.

The techniques used don't appear to be particularly special. Actually, I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could find out their method.

Link

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Did you see what happens when I did a 3x enlargement?

And what did you enlarge it in? What function did you use for the scaling operation?

You probably ended up using a Dirac Filter, or nearest neighbor filter. Which pretty much does as it sounds ... it takes existing pixels nearby and duplicates them. Especially if you just zoomed in and screenshotted it's going to be even worse. Perhaps you might want to look into a Mitchell filter or something similar?

Basically, when you scaled up that image you're lucky it didn't grow attennae the way you treated it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The shadowing and black levels around the "Challenger descent stage" do not look the same, as they do, in the 3x enlargement. If you follow your eyes around the shadow of the "Challenger descent stage" you can see what I am talking about.

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats their game? It makes no sense.
Could it be the enlargement was just another photo taken at a different time?
Their software creates artifacts?

No, the tonal range likely isn't an artifact issue.(At least not how you mean it)

Generally speaking when you do this type of work you should look at the image throughout the process for starters: Link

Secondly though ... an image has tonal range and integrity. Enhancing a photo isn't about making it look pretty and 'okay', it's about revealing information. In this case, the tonal range has been expanded to reveal detail. That detail can be compared to the original picture which is why they include it for reference.

You need to expand tonal range for this type of work since the human eye operates mainly on contrast ... so while there may be varying shades of grey, your eye won't pick up on them unless there is a contrast from light to dark. Also a lot of images like this are taken originally with the goal of capturing as much data as possible. It's not meant to look pretty. This means you can end up with some quite flat looking images which need processing to actually be suitable for digestion by human eyes. Generally you do this whilst looking at various scopes and things to keep yourself aware of what data you're blowing out and crushing, and what data you're actually viewing.

Regarding Sayanora eye balling black values, I'd also suggest using RGB values in future to compare values since your eyes are really unreliable.

Foosm, I can suggest a few books you can read about image engineering if you would like to learn some information before your next post. I've left them in 'too hard basket #2' by your door; the other one was full!

Originally posted by backinblack
Odd isn't it?

If a moon hoax believer put up that standard of pic as proof they would all be criticizing it because it is heavily enhanced..

Double standards are a wonderful thing..

I'm not sure why you're being so mocking about it when most of the people presenting these ideas know zero about what they're supposedly presenting. Its been over a hundred pages since these images were presented and apart from saying 'heavily enhanced ' and agreeing with a person that has incorrectly upscaled an image ... not much has been said that's useful.

If there was photography of a UFO landing, and then leaving tracks on the moon and the two things matched I'd be impressed. Evidence for moon landing in this regard:

- Astronauts say they did it
- Astronauts took holiday snaps
- The government spent money on it
- Scientists say we did it, and had benefit from it
- We have photos of the same areas on the moon which show tracks and other things in the exact spots they're meant to be

Evidence for UFO:

- Bad photo
- YouTube post
- No exact location given in most cases
- No large number of witnesses

If you find me a UFO case that satisfies the same amount of evidence as the moon landing I will paypal you perhaps $10.

Besides any of that, people are just jumping to conclusions without research at all then waiting on others to refute things. I shouldn't have to type an essay because someone's full research was using the roller ball on their mouse to badly rescale an image. (Nice Lady Gaga images btw)

Pinke would have to write a text book to explain all of this. Pinke isn't sure why people still get sucked into this thread. Pinke knows that people will complain about star distribution.

Originally posted by FoosM
If thats the same suit and PLSS they used for the moon, how did they manage to sustain the 185 pounds of weight?

The astronauts had three suits. One for the actual mission, one for training and one backup. I would assume all three suits are the same.

As for the PLSS. It would have to be different, since the cooling system worked by sublimation, which wouldn't work in an atmospheric environment. Originally they pumped chilled air into the suits during training, but that didn't work good enough. Later on they hooked up water hoses to the PLSS and pumped cold water through the LCG. That required a second person to follow the astronaut during their training. Which brings me to this quote and commentary from Apollo 17:

From: ALSJ
118:39:41 Cernan: Okay. (Pause) Hey, Jack, you notice there's none of those guys up there holding those hoses as we go around the LM?

118:39:52 Schmitt: What do you mean? I saw one just a minute ago.

[Schmitt - "In the early days of EVA training, down in Florida on a not-very-well-simulated lunar surface we had outside the simulator building, we were operating with air cooling; we were just forcing (chilled) air through the suit. I was responsible for orchestrating a lot of the training, and I remember for Apollo 12 I got increasingly worried about the heat loads that were building up during this EVA training in the pressurized suits. Even with the lightweight backpack, Conrad and Bean were working awfully hard and getting awfully hot, just as I had in running some of the simulations. I was afraid we were going to hurt somebody because some of these guys, probably myself included, once they got involved in a task, were the sort who wouldn't say 'quit' until they passed out. And we certainly didn't need that. So I started to talk with the support crew and basically asked them if we could figure out a way to use ice water in the liquid-cooled underwear. Several guys went to work on that and what they did was add a water hose to the air hose we were already using and connected it to the liquid-cooled garment and then carried around a supply of ice water on their own backs. It made all the difference in the world; it was still tough, but at least you didn't get overheated. So there was always a guy around carrying your ice-water supply, but they were very good at staying out of sight behind you, and you had to turn real quick to know they were there. And that's what I was talking about."]

I also noticed in that bit of commentary that a "lightweight backpack" is mentioned. But I need to investigate further as to its exact weight.

reply to post by Pinke


You didn't explain how NASA's image has the "extra bulge" and my 3x enlargement shows an entirely different shape.
Shadows don't change shape when a photo is only enlarged........ the shape of the shadow should scale exactly to the original.

NASA's 3x enlargement should be labelled as an "enhancement". It is clearly not "enlargement".
Therefore, NASA is guilty of "enhancing" photos to prove their claims.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Pinke

 

You didn't explain how NASA's image has the "extra bulge" and my 3x enlargement shows an entirely different shape.
Shadows don't change shape when a photo is only enlarged........ the shape of the shadow should scale exactly to the original.

Either the many scaling algorithms/filters created by image engineers over the past 100 years were completely un-neccessary, your image is completely accurate, and your theory on image scaling is perfect and a huge leap forward in science and needs immediate writing into a journal and white paper to stop the huge amounts of CPU cycles and person hours we're wasting (not to mention a complete reworking of the microbiology fields)... OR ... you're wrong.

You should get a text book or two instead of asking me to copy and paste one here.

NASA's 3x enlargement should be labelled as an "enhancement". It is clearly not "enlargement".
Therefore, NASA is guilty of "enhancing" photos to prove their claims.

From Dictionary.com!

en·large·ment   /ɛnˈlɑrdʒmənt/

1.an act of enlarging; increase, expansion, or amplification.
2.anything, as a photograph, that is an enlarged form of something.
3.anything that enlarges something else; addition: The new wing formed a considerable enlargement to the building

en·hance   /ɛnˈhæns, -ˈhɑns/

1.to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify: The candelight enhanced her beauty.
2.to raise the value or price of: Rarity enhances the worth of old coins.

In the forensic field where I live it is also referred to as an enhancement and can be submitted in a court hearing like any other science related evidence such as fluid samples, and finger prints. Both of these are also often subjected to 'enhancements' including 'enlarging' for jurors and court staff prior to submission. Do you have an 'enlarging' process that doesn't 'enhance'? If you do, go straight to being a millionaire, do not pass go, do not collect $200 cos you're already rich!

There is a large number of 'enhancements' which are accepted in courtrooms based on various precedents and all the rest of those awesome legal terms. (Enlargements are included)

I have a new image that mostly sums up the thread:

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Let me get this straight? You manipulate a photograph. You make it look different. Nasa is enhancing photographs? So you work for Nasa now?

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by FoosM
No, I didnt miss it.
What Im missing is van Allen's calculations on the type of shielding and the amount of shielding needed to traverse the belts. So, can you tell me what van Allen said about shielding?

I don't have a direct quote from Van Allen,

Well why aren't you looking for it?
Its pretty easy to find.
Its mentioned in the JW's videos.
Its mentioned in this thread.
Its a google search away.

but reading what he did say strongly suggests that Van Allen wasn't too concerned with additional "shielding" of the Apollo craft, other than what Nasa had already factored into their craft.

This may help you understand a little more about the subject:

I understand the subject.
But as long as you dont go the distance and get this info, you dont have an argument.
You are taking shots at JW, without taking a deep hard look on what van Allen had said DURING the Apollo era.

The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in spa

ce or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Who said "six feet of lead" for the VABs?
Sounds like a "straw man" argument.

Originally posted by Pinke

If there was photography of a UFO landing, and then leaving tracks on the moon and the two things matched I'd be impressed. Evidence for moon landing in this regard:

- Astronauts say they did it
- Astronauts took holiday snaps
- The government spent money on it
- Scientists say we did it, and had benefit from it
- We have photos of the same areas on the moon which show tracks and other things in the exact spots they're meant to be

Evidence for UFO:

- Bad photo
- YouTube post
- No exact location given in most cases
- No large number of witnesses

If you find me a UFO case that satisfies the same amount of evidence as the moon landing I will paypal you perhaps $10.

What makes you think I believe in UFO's?
And anyway, I dont have the ability to go to other planets to ask their astronauts if they ever landed on Earth.
And where they left tracks and artifacts on our planet.

And regarding 'large number of witnesses', what do you consider large?

Originally posted by Pinke

You guys are idiots with this "shadows are all going different ways man" thing. The topography of the moon makes the shadows LOOK like they're going in different directions, when they really aren't. Let me ask you guys a question, if there are so many different lights that are making all these different shadows, then why are all the shadows lines so crisp and defined? If there were multiple light sources, all of the shadows would be effected, meaning you would have lots of different shadows coming from the same object, giving it a very blurred edge.

Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Pinke

 

You didn't explain how NASA's image has the "extra bulge" and my 3x enlargement shows an entirely different shape.
Shadows don't change shape when a photo is only enlarged........

When it comes to Apollo, shadows change shapes.

This video talks about the TV troubles section in the video library of Apollo 12.
Even if there really were TV troubles, why does the shadow of the LM change so much?

115:58:21 Bean: Okay, Houston; I'm going to move the TV camera now.
115:58:24 Gibson: Roger, Al.

[As Al takes the TV off the MESA, we get brief views of his suit and various pieces of the spacecraft. (TV still)]
115:58:28 Bean: Hey, it's real nice moving around up here. You don't seem to get tired. You really hop like a bunny.
115:58:36 Conrad: Where, oh where, is Earth? There it is. (Pause)

115:58:41 Bean: Here is the TV. And it's pointing toward the Sun. That's bad. Point it here a minute.

[As mentioned previously, the section of Al's checklist covering the TV panorama says "omit up-Sun" which indicates that the sensitivity of the camera to bright light was known. Nonetheless, as Al sets the camera on the tripod, we see a bit of ground (TV still) and, on that patch of ground, shadows that indicate that the camera is looking up-Sun (TV still). As the view stops changing, the Sun comes into the field-of-view. (TV still). During these few seconds, the top portion of the vidicon tube becomes permanently damaged. It will take some time before Houston and the crew give up on the camera. There is more discussion of the accident below.]
115:58:47 Conrad: Dum dee dum, dum dum dum.
115:58:48 Bean: (Garbled)

115:59:07 Conrad: Dum dee dee dum dum. (Pause) There's that. Look at that go. (Laughs) (Pause)

115:59:26 Bean: Hey, Ed; I was going to deploy this 20 feet at 10 (o'clock) but, because of the Sun being where it is, we're going to have to deploy it a little bit more toward the 2 o'clock position. I think that will be okay, though. That will give you a good shot; right in here. I'll see if I can keep the Sun from getting in the camera at all.

[The Apollo 11 camera was deployed at about the 2 o'clock position.]
RealVideo Clip (3 min 04 sec)
115:59:45 Gibson: Al, we have a pretty bright image on the TV; ... (TV still)

115:59:46 Bean: (Garbled).

115:59:47 Gibson: ...could you either move or stop it down?

115:59:52 Bean: Okay, I'm going to have to stop it down. (Pause) That's as far as it goes, Houston. How does that look to you?

116:00:08 Gibson: No, it still looks the same, Al. Why don't you try shifting the scene?

116:00:15 Bean: Okay, I'm going...The problem is the LM is very reflective. Let me...Well, I got two choices. Let me go over here further to the side, and you check and see if it reflects too much. And if it does, I'll have to go stick it in the shade. And then maybe shine past the LM. Of course, that makes it not be too good either, but it may be the best we can do.

116:00:37 Gibson: Okay, Al. And also, you might try the automatic light control to the Out side. (Pause)

[Journal Contributor Markus Mehring notes, "The TV cameras used during the Apollo program were simple and easy to handle, with nothing more than an On/Off switch, the objective lens, and an In/Out switch. The latter switch set the automatic light control for camera use inside or outside the vehicle"]

So wait a minute... what am I missing here. Didnt Bean just say "Okay, I'm going to have to stop it down."
What is he referring to when he says STOP IT DOWN?

As far as I can see you couldnt control the aperture

[Conrad - "It was the first color camera. Neil and Buzz had a black and white camera. And, I think, the real (color) camera showed up three days before the flight. And we never saw it before that. As a matter fact, the first time we saw the real camera was on the lunar surface, if I remember correctly. (To Al) Didn't we have a wooden block that looked like it? That's all we had to train with. What's your remembrance of that?"]

[Bean - "I don't know. The thing I remember is that I wasn't worried about pointing it at the Sun. It didn't seem to be a big deal."]

[Conrad - "We were never told it was a big deal."]

[Bean - "I thought it was just like a (photographic) camera. But let me see what I said (in the Technical Debrief). (Reading) 'I put the camera over in the shadow of the LM, as we planned to do originally. Then, when the MESA was in shadow, you wouldn't be able to see the MESA. So I said 'I think I'll take it and put it over on the opposite side.' That isn't when I burned it out, though. (The point is that) I wasn't even worried about it. I was just throwing it around...Well, not throwing it around, but I was..."]

I thought these guys were well trained. LOL

Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?

I dont know, why are you holding people's hands? Sounds like a personal issue you have.
Regarding the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Originally posted by Pinke

I have a new image that mostly sums up the thread:

Yep, thats what you get when you fake photos...

reply to post by FoosM


Not sure if you could have found a more worthless "video".....that one is so poor, by comparison it (almost) makes some of JW's nonsense look *good*.

Utterly useless vid. No context, and certainly no *proof* of anything amiss. Typical, though, of that particular YouTube-er.......


Resorting, now, to more *White* noise to distract from the "star" of this show, and his bleating noises?

Originally posted by FoosM

Why is it that I always have to hold peoples hand? Are people really that stupid?

I dont know, why are you holding people's hands? Sounds like a personal issue you have.
Regarding the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Read my post again, and imagine I've quoted that picture you guys are talking about with all the arrows referring to different shadows.

Christ.

reply to post by FoosM


When questions like this are *posed*, and left dangling as if rhetorical, with intent to sow doubt and derision:

So wait a minute... what am I missing here. Didnt Bean just say "Okay, I'm going to have to stop it down."
What is he referring to when he says STOP IT DOWN?

As far as I can see you couldnt control the aperture

Makes one wonder just how deep attempts to discredit Apollo will sink, and if those who claim to be "researching" simply wish to play games, and feign *ignorance* when it suits them?

(Or, to put another way -- pretending to be an ace "researcher", but playing *dumb* on purpose?)


WEC Color TV Manual

Section 2, paragraph 2.1.1

'....The iris limits are F/4 to F/44..."

The Cameras of Apollo

Apollos 12-14: Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera