Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

It's not that I "can't see them" but that you "see" what you want to "see", without a single name of a peer reviewed, independent scientist to back you up. So far the only name that has been offered has been a NASA-funded geologist.

Lol this is getting pretty desperate, looks like this grown up will have to help. 'Missing crater'? Really? Look at the shadow on the piece of foil - the sun is almost directly overhead by the time Apollo 15 ended and the camera is at an angle that stops it seeing the shadow, that's why you can't see the crater. Try darkening the image and see what happens - I have, the crater is there. Better still, actually watch the 16mm footage and look at 35 seconds. Still claim it's missing?



You can then fast forward to 1:21 and see if you recognise Hadley Rille and then work out the answer to the question I put elsewhere - which is the LRO and which is Apollo 15 16mm.



Spot the difference.

I can also think of a perfectly good reason why trudging footsteps would create a darker surface marking than hollow wire mesh tyres that spray dust behind them when the LRV drives around. Are there enough clues there? Your claim that they are the same in the Apollo film is wishful thinking.

Not enough objects? Oh dear. i suggest you look at what the LRO is capable of imaging and the relative sizes of the objects in the images.

I never said "NASA said so". I said so, because I'm prepared to actually look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions, as opposed to ramming my head firmly in the sand and refusing to look at anything that proves me wrong.

choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

you are a funny guy sayonara..

why are you playing spot the difference??

Choos, you are not being fair to the other posters in the thread. Did you ask OBMonkey why he is playing a game of spot the similarities? TOUCHÉ.

choosfoorprints & tyre track have same albedo?? footprints much darker?? missing crater?? not enough debris in debris field??

some people might be led to believe that you are suggesting that NASA doctored these images and made mistakes while doing it you wouldnt be suggesting that now would you?

Choos, I am merely suggesting that people, generally, (includes ATS members too) ought to dig deeper into the Apollo source materials and to ask questions about the source material. That's all, really. REALLY!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter



YOU should question yourself on why you don't understand what you see in images!!!! REALLY!!!

SayonaraJupiter

choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

you are a funny guy sayonara..

why are you playing spot the difference??

Choos, you are not being fair to the other posters in the thread. Did you ask OBMonkey why he is playing a game of spot the similarities? TOUCHÉ.

choosfoorprints & tyre track have same albedo?? footprints much darker?? missing crater?? not enough debris in debris field??

some people might be led to believe that you are suggesting that NASA doctored these images and made mistakes while doing it you wouldnt be suggesting that now would you?

Choos, I am merely suggesting that people, generally, (includes ATS members too) ought to dig deeper into the Apollo source materials and to ask questions about the source material. That's all, really. REALLY!

How old are you really?Anyway well we saw you trying to deceive us by altering the image and changing the contrast if thats what you mean. See What you don't understand about NASA they dont do anything by themselves anymore LRO is under control of several groups including boston universities and Russian Federal Space Agency Institute for Space Research even helped they built the LEND unit and get information directly from LRO. So there is no doubt the information is correct because its not just NASA involved. But im betting you didnt know this did you ? See thats the problem with your hoax conspiracy to many people need to be involved. Your lies require scientists at universities and other countries to be involved. See your whole theory never involved only NASA but every scientists in the world who would have had to be included. Thats the insanity of your position all the research and exploration by other countries even would have to be altered to match apollo even from other space agencies like JAXA or the russian federal space agency.

choos

they are about the same..

the difference is the start of the jump and the height obtained.. you are comparing john young about half way or more to his apex and the mythbusters still touching the ground, OBmonkey has already pointed this out.. any reason why there is such a large difference at the start??

Here's a revised version of the two jumps...

www.youtube.com...

Now, the Mythbusters jump starts well before Young's jump begins.

See these two frames from the clip, during their descent ...

www.youtube.com...

The first frame shows the Mythbusters guy is touching his toes to the ground, or very close to it. Young is NOT YET touching ground, he is completely in mid-air at this point.

But the second frame shows Young lands FIRST!!

Game over.

choos

also, why do you keep ignoring my question??

do you or do you not deny that if an object is dropped from a 1m height that it will hit the ground in 1.111 on the lunar surface and in 0.452 seconds on earths surface?? simple question..

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see it as relevant.

SayonaraJupiter
Choos, you are not being fair to the other posters in the thread. Did you ask OBMonkey why he is playing a game of spot the similarities?

And did you consider answering any of the points I raised instead of stepping sideways and reverting to questioning other posters?

Choos, I am merely suggesting that people, generally, (includes ATS members too) ought to dig deeper into the Apollo source materials and to ask questions about the source material. That's all, really. REALLY!

Your question is a typical smokescreen tactic - it implies that people who disagree with you have not examined Apollo source materials in detail, and that you know more than they do. I for one have examined them in detail. I have looked at every single Apollo image and seen most, if not all, of the 16mm and TV footage. I have compared it with other sources and made logical deductions from them. You have done nothing of the sort.

Did you watch the Apollo 15 ascent video? Did you see that the crater you claimed was absent is clearly visible? Did you notice that the LRV and astronaut tracks in the Apollo and LRO views are the same? Did you notice that the flight (taken after several minutes of continuous 16mm footage) over Hadley Rille shows features that are identical in the LRO image? Features that are also visible in photographs taken from the ground and published in magazines decades before the LRO photographed them in the same detail?

I think you did see that, but you are unable to account for it and because it makes a complete mess of your 'theories' you will shortly revert to discussing Nixon.

reply to post by turbonium1


Have you noticed the myth busters jumps higher though?? Would it not make sense that the one jumping higher would spend more time in mid air??

If by going with your argument that john young is falling too fast at 2.46 x then he is falling too slow at 1.5x about 0.3 seconds too slow...

Also why do you believe my question is irrelevant?? I've show. You the physics and maths of a falling object in a vacuum..

Do you deny that if you drop an object from a 1 meter height it will take 1.111seconds to hit the ground on the lunar surface and likewise it will hit the ground in 0.452 seconds to hit the surface on earth?? Do you deny this?? It is not irrelevant so answer the question.

It will prove to you that the timescale factor for falling objects is 2.46x so very much not irrelevant so answer the question.

P.s. I'm not at home so using my phone and can't make full replies, sorry

Here's the correct revised clip and two frames ..

www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...


Clear enough.

turbonium1
Here's the correct revised clip and two frames ..

www.youtube.com...



www.youtube.com...


Clear enough.

Ummm the clip shows them falling at nearly the same rate...

Looking at the PLSS they both fall from their apex about the same rate..

Also stop ignoring my simple question, do you deny that an object will take 1.111 seconds to hit the ground when dropped from a 1 meter height on the lunar surface??

And do you deny that an object will hit the ground in 0.452seconds if dropped from a 1 metre height on earths surface??

choos

Have you noticed the myth busters jumps higher though?? Would it not make sense that the one jumping higher would spend more time in mid air??

Look at the clip of those two frames..

The first frame shows the Mythbusters guy closer to the ground than Young, who is still in mid-air.

The second frame shows Young landed down to the surface - before the Mythbusters guy does.

turbonium1

choos

Have you noticed the myth busters jumps higher though?? Would it not make sense that the one jumping higher would spend more time in mid air??

Look at the clip of those two frames..

The first frame shows the Mythbusters guy closer to the ground than Young, who is still in mid-air.

The second frame shows Young landed down to the surface - before the Mythbusters guy does.

Yes because the myth busters jumped higher..

Funnily enough they reached tier respective apex fairly close to each other..

Pay attention to the PLSS on both the myth busters and john young.. They fall from their apex at roughly the same rate

So once again, do you deny that an object will hit the ground in 0.452 seconds when dropped from a 1 metre height on the earths surface??

Because it sounds to me that you are actually denying this according to you an object will not hit the ground in 0.452 seconds if dropped from a 1 metre height, you are defying physics

I think it's also time, once and for all, to put to bed this ridiculous nonsense about the ASU's removal of the Reseau marks.

For people who haven't followed this particular canard that SJ brings up like reflux on a routine basis, here is the ASU website that describes what they are doing:

apollo.sese.asu.edu...

and here is the bit that gets him all excited:

Image Processing Notes

The scans of the Apollo flight films are processed using a standard set of procedures. First, the unexposed portions of the film along the edges of a scanned frame are cropped, and the frame is straightened. Second, the background is removed from all of the scans, by assuming that the average DN values of the unexposed regions at the edge of each raw scanned image represent the background (i.e., film base and fog). Third, a flatfield correction (derived from the actual image data) removes vignetting to the first order. Fourth, the reseau patterns (the small crosses visible on Apollo images published elsewhere) are removed from the images. Fifth, a logarithmic histogram transformation is applied to the image. This is necessary because of the logarithmic response of film, which makes the raw scans appear very contrasty. Since photographic paper also has a logarithmic response and reverses the films response, conventional paper prints have a natural contrast range. The logarithmic histogram correction applied to the scanned images therefore produces a virtual print that simulates the natural contrast of a conventional paper print. Sixth, since the uncompressed images produced by the initial scanning process result in extremely large images, the scale is reduced by a factor corresponding to the square root of 2, which serves to reduce the image size by 50%, and the images are converted from 16-bit to 8-bit. The original, unprocessed raw scans are also provided on this website in full-resolution 16-bit TIFF format. More details about the file formats are provided in a following section.

I have emboldened two key areas. The first one is the bit that exercises him so, the Reseau mark removal.

The second one is to point out that ASU is publishing the original versions, as well as the ones that they have processed. They have clearly identified the method they are using and what they are doing. By no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as some sort of secret programme designed to replace and subvert the original images as SJ repeatedly claims. Every link every image they have processed contains a link to the original image.

Here's another important bit on the home page:

Current Project Status

Metric processing is ongoing, with the current release to include darks and images taken prior to launch (see About the Scans and the Mapping and Panoramic Camera Photograph Indices found on the Support Data page).

Apollo 15 and 16 Panoramic processing has been completed. Apollo 17 Panoramic processing has begun! They can be viewed using the Browse Gallery interface.

The Apollo Metric Image collection now includes 9784 Apollo 15, 16 and 17 processed Metric images, they can be viewed using the Image Map

It's clear from this that the only photographs that they have processed so far are ones taken during the mapping process in the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions. None of the photographs from the lunar surface have been touched. Not one. In fact when you read through the site it's very difficult to draw any inferences that they intend to do any work on surface images. If SJ or anyone else, can find one from the lunar surface that has had the Reseau marks removed by ASU then let's see it.

So, let's have a look at what they've done. Here is an image from Apollo 17 saved on the Apollo Image Atlas - I've posted a link because it is a large file.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I use it specifically because I've looked at it for my research on weather satellite data and Apollo here onebigmonkey.comoj.com... and also because the ASU feature it on their featured images page here apollo.sese.asu.edu....

You can browse the processed version here wms.lroc.asu.edu...

Here's a section of that with the ASU processed version on the left and the original scan from the Apollo Image Atlas on the right. Anyone who cares to can download the 1.2Gb unprocessed raw TIFF image as well!



please feel free to identify any material alterations to the ASU image that have altered the lunar surface.

Just so people who aren't familiar with the view presented are aware, this is an Earthrise view, taken as the Apollo 17 CSM rounds the lunar far side. It is part of a continuous series of overlapping images and shows things that aren't directly observable from Earth.

You can download my kmz files for Google Moon showing where these photographs are on the moon here:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

The Earth in the photograph shows weather patterns that are exactly matched by the weather satellite photographs taken at the same time.

I'll repeat the challenge so it's clear for SJ:

1. Find any evidence that the ASU have, or even intend to, removed the Reseau crosses from photographs taken on the lunar surface.
2. Find anywhere on any image in the Panoramic or Metric photographs where the removal of the crosses has caused a material change to the view of the lunar surface.

If you fail to address those two questions, you pretty much prevent yourself from ever referring to it again, and every time you do refer to it without answering them, I will link you back to this post so that people can see that you are deliberately avoiding doing so.

In your own time. Put up or shut up.

choos


Ummm the clip shows them falling at nearly the same rate...

Looking at the PLSS they both fall from their apex about the same rate..

Also stop ignoring my simple question, do you deny that an object will take 1.111 seconds to hit the ground when dropped from a 1 meter height on the lunar surface??

And do you deny that an object will hit the ground in 0.452seconds if dropped from a 1 metre height on earths surface??

edit on 1-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

On the last point - I don't deny it, as I just told you. What's your point?

As for their jumps, you must be joking!

Young is still going upward as the Mythbusters guy is already descending. But Young lands before him, as the two frames prove!

The two jumps both reach around knee-level in height. At most, an inch or two difference. Not enough to account for it.

At 1.5x speed, they are 0.2-0.3 seconds from being an exact match. From start to finish.

At 2.46x speed, the only thing close to matching is their spacesuits!


Do you think the ascent is a great match, too?

Or is that part in a different speed? Like a 'multi-gravity' world of fantasy..

turbonium1

On the last point - I don't deny it, as I just told you. What's your point?

If you don't deny it then why are we having this argument??

The point is this,

If an object takes 0.452 seconds to fall 1 metre on earth and another object takes 1.111 seconds to fall 1 metre on the lunar surface what is the timescale factor??

1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46!!

Meaning if an object falls 1 metre and takes 1.111 seconds then 2.46x faster than 1.111 seconds is 0.452..

Get it yet??

Now that you can't doubt the maths anymore no more excuses for you..

If you continue to say speeding up lunar footage 2.46x means objects fall too fast you no longer have any argument to back you up since you do not deny that an object takes 0.452 seconds to fall from 1 metre on earth and 1.111 seconds to fall 1 metre on the lunar surface..

End of discussion right?

As for their jumps, you must be joking!

Young is still going upward as the Mythbusters guy is already descending. But Young lands before him, as the two frames prove!

Because the myth busters jumped higher....

The two jumps both reach around knee-level in height. At most, an inch or two difference. Not enough to account for it.

At 1.5x speed, they are 0.2-0.3 seconds from being an exact match. From start to finish.

At 2.46x speed, the only thing close to matching is their spacesuits!


Do you think the ascent is a great match, too?

Or is that part in a different speed? Like a 'multi-gravity' world of fantasy..

The rate they fall are about the same you can tell by watching the PLSS.

You cannot tell they fall the same rate by looking at when the feet leave the ground and when the land again, as you cannot judge accurately how high both of them jumped..

How much taller is john young to the myth busters??

But if you compare the rate the PLSS falls you can clearly see it's about the same speed

Where as if you compare the 1.5x slow down the difference is even more clear.. But in that case the person jumping higher lands before the person jumping lower which means the person jumping higher is falling at a faster rate..

P.s I can't compare the ascent, the time difference between them is too far apart, you did get the descent fairly close and that why you can see they fall at about the same rate but you seem to be in denial about it all.

reply to post by turbonium1


Ok at this point you're just embarrassing yourself. Look you dont measure a jump from when they start and when they finish you measure a jump from when they reach their apex to when they land.Even mythbusters knew this thats why in the show i suggest you watch they explain the rate of falling not how high they jumped. Since you have a problem with understanding how jumps work we can use the same math on this video as well.What shows lunar gravity is the time it takes the object to fall.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

choos


The point is this,

If an object takes 0.452 seconds to fall 1 metre on earth and another object takes 1.111 seconds to fall 1 metre on the lunar surface what is the timescale factor??

1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46!!

Meaning if an object falls 1 metre and takes 1.111 seconds then 2.46x faster than 1.111 seconds is 0.452..

Get it yet??

Now that you can't doubt the maths anymore no more excuses for you..

If you continue to say speeding up lunar footage 2.46x means objects fall too fast you no longer have any argument to back you up since you do not deny that an object takes 0.452 seconds to fall from 1 metre on earth and 1.111 seconds to fall 1 metre on the lunar surface..

The problem is that putting Young's jump (or any other Apollo footage) to 2.46x speed does not show/simulate 1g Earth speed. It is faster than normal Earth 1g speed

Young's jump is an example of this.

choos

The rate they fall are about the same you can tell by watching the PLSS.

You cannot tell they fall the same rate by looking at when the feet leave the ground and when the land again, as you cannot judge accurately how high both of them jumped..

How much taller is john young to the myth busters??

But if you compare the rate the PLSS falls you can clearly see it's about the same speed

Here's another frame-by-frame comparison of the two jumps, as they descend to ground...

www.youtube.com...

My clip begins at Frame 25. The Mythbusters guy has been in descent for 4 frames already by this point (Frames 21-24), while we see Young still ascending.

I think Mythbusters guy is closer to the ground than Young is in Frame 25. But let's go on..

In Frame 26, they are both in descent. The MB guy still looks to be closer to the ground than Young.

In Frame 27, the MB guy gets closer to the ground, while Young doesn't even move.

Now we come to Frame 28. Both of them are in descent.

Look at their feet. It is beyond any doubt. Anyone with normal eyesight can tell that the MB guy is closer to the ground than Young is at this point. The MB guy's feet are almost touching the ground, while Young's feet are well above the ground, in mid-air. But don't take my word for it - take all the measurements if you need more proof!

No movement occurs in Frame 29..

In Frame 30, they both descend to ground.

Compare the respective distance of each descent from Frame 28 to Frame 30 - look at how far their feet move before touching ground.

Young's feet are fully down to the ground at the same time, or even before, the MB guy!!

This proves 2.46x speed is FASTER than normal 1g Earth speed. (Or at least, what you consider to be an example of normal 1g speed. Do you recall my point about why a harness isn't a valid free-fall?)

choos
Where as if you compare the 1.5x slow down the difference is even more clear.. But in that case the person jumping higher lands before the person jumping lower which means the person jumping higher is falling at a faster rate..

The 0.2-0.3 seconds difference was explained to you before. Both jumps are done on Earth, using a harness/pulley system,. That's the reason they are nearly a perfect match, from start to finish.

choos
P.s I can't compare the ascent, the time difference between them is too far apart, you did get the descent fairly close and that why you can see they fall at about the same rate but you seem to be in denial about it all.

edit on 1-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

The ascent doesn't match up at 2.46x speed, either. But I'm sure you realize that by now.

Since the descent was proven to be too fast, we don't really need to show the ascent is too fast as well - right?

onebigmonkey

Here's a section of that with the ASU processed version on the left and the original scan from the Apollo Image Atlas on the right. Anyone who cares to can download the 1.2Gb unprocessed raw TIFF image as well!

Apart from the fingerprint,I prefer the original image that has more detail and information still present in it.Although really not practical in cases like this,for me this is one reason NOT to trust fancy named algorithms to do a job that can be done better by a human with eyes.

reply to post by turbonium1


You realize your argument is inconsistent right??

You acknowledged already that an object will fall 1 metre in 1.111 seconds on the lunar surface an 0.452 second on earth which is a timescale factor of 2.46x..

It is a fact that NASA would not get the fall of john young incorrect as he is a large object and it is obvious that john young falls at 1.62m/s^2..

Since you acknowledged these two points already you would know that the correct timescale factor is 2.46x faster than the original lunar footage will resemble objects falling on earth..

Do you even understand this??

You acknowledged already the timescale factor and you acknowledged john young must fall at 1.62m/s^2, so how is it that when you speed up the footage 2.46x you believe he falls too fast???

I mean you have no problem admitting that 1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46 but when it comes to applying that logic to john young it's suddenly not correct?????

I've given you the explanation that the myth buster jumps higher and is in the air longer than john young you frame by frame comparison shows the myth busters toes touching the ground before john young even (frame 28)

And your previous video showed john youngs PLSS falling at the same rate as the myth busters PLSS which is a better indication of fall rate instead of using airtime which you are so concerned about.

Everything is indicating they fall at about the same rate yet you continue to deny it

P.s speeding up the lunar footage to 1.5x will prove that john young was filmed at gravity of around 4m/s^2 as proven by the dirt !!! Did you forget about this??

Pps. also how are you even able to explain that he falls too fast?? When you know the correct timescale factor for falling objects is 2.46x if he falls at 1.62m/s^2 at 1x speed and you know for a fact that speeding that up 2.46x will show objects falling at 9.81m/s^2 how do you explain that he falls faster than what gravity can pull him down??

Saying it's filmed at 1.5x doesn't cut it. Because you know for a fact that when shown to the public at 1x speed john young falls at 1.62m/s^2.. So if you speed that up 2.46 x how is it possible to be faster than what gravity can pull him down?? Do you even understand the contradiction in your argument?? Or are you just hellbent on believing it a hoax you are willing to throw very very well established maths and physics out the window?

reply to post by Imagewerx


I think some of that is down to the eye of the beholder. I like the 'newer' version, though it's worth remembering that both are just scans of an original hard copy print, so both will have been subjected to fancy algorithms of one sort or another. My only criticism of newer copy is that it is too bright, which does mask some of the detail. In the image below I've taken a small section of the new one and altered the levels to make it darker. I've done nothing with sharpening or anything like that. Which one has more detail?

choos

You realize your argument is inconsistent right??

You acknowledged already that an object will fall 1 metre in 1.111 seconds on the lunar surface an 0.452 second on earth which is a timescale factor of 2.46x..

It is a fact that NASA would not get the fall of john young incorrect as he is a large object and it is obvious that john young falls at 1.62m/s^2..

Since you acknowledged these two points already you would know that the correct timescale factor is 2.46x faster than the original lunar footage will resemble objects falling on earth..

Do you even understand this??

You acknowledged already the timescale factor and you acknowledged john young must fall at 1.62m/s^2, so how is it that when you speed up the footage 2.46x you believe he falls too fast???

I mean you have no problem admitting that 1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46 but when it comes to applying that logic to john young it's suddenly not correct?????

I've given you the explanation that the myth buster jumps higher and is in the air longer than john young you frame by frame comparison shows the myth busters toes touching the ground before john young even (frame 28)

And your previous video showed john youngs PLSS falling at the same rate as the myth busters PLSS which is a better indication of fall rate instead of using airtime which you are so concerned about.

Everything is indicating they fall at about the same rate yet you continue to deny it

P.s speeding up the lunar footage to 1.5x will prove that john young was filmed at gravity of around 4m/s^2 as proven by the dirt !!! Did you forget about this??

Pps. also how are you even able to explain that he falls too fast?? When you know the correct timescale factor for falling objects is 2.46x if he falls at 1.62m/s^2 at 1x speed and you know for a fact that speeding that up 2.46x will show objects falling at 9.81m/s^2 how do you explain that he falls faster than what gravity can pull him down??

I've already shown it is too fast.

The Mythbusters guy is closer to the ground than Young is, in every frame I noted, until the last frame. That frame shows Young lands at the same time, or before, the Myhtbusters guy.

You can keep on ignoring this fact, but it still proves you are wrong about 2.46x being normal 1g Earth speed. It is not. It is too fast.

As for this...

"It is a fact that NASA would not get the fall of john young incorrect as he is a large object and it is obvious that john young falls at 1.62m/s^2.."


I have no idea why you think I've "acknowledged" that point. I did no such thing. You just make things up out of the blue, to try and avoid the real issue - which is the frames I showed you.

Sorry, it won't work.

Either you man uo and address the frames, or man up and admit you were wrong.