The moon landing is fake.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Yant0s, Mar 28, 2019.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well no, once I saw that the reflections were smudges and not lights I relied on an independent account. I withdraw the "same place" statement. But the pictures are all taken from different angles and directions and it is pretty much roughly in the same place - upper left / upper middle. The first 3 are close enough to each other accounting for visor movement and all 3 taken at roughly 45 degrees to the camera, the second 3 all straight on and again more or less the same accounting for visor movement. On certain angles light is hitting only some of the marks, this can clearly be seen on AS12-49-7281. It can also be clearly seen that not one of these images is a row of lights.

    One at a time(unless you start acting the fool):-

    AS-12-48-7134
    [​IMG]

    The red arrow points to the reflection of the solar panel array - the smudges are in front of this! The yellow arrow points to one of the smudges being on the upright. Also, in the same place, the "barn door" light much clearer on this image (I suspect this may be a light smudge on the inner visor).

    AS12-48-7134HR.jpg (2340×2370) (nasa.gov)

    Straight questions:

    1. Does the following image show what look like smudges or lights?
    2. Does it show what appear to be less illuminated smudges in the center area?


    [​IMG]

    Check out his analysis of 911.

    It goes quiet for a week then the spammer comes back with the same crap! There really is no reasoning with such lunacy.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what I read.
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/th...why-not-use-telescopes-to-look-at-the-landers
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble.

    That’s a pretty big surprise to most people. They’re used to seeing magnificent detail in Hubble images, stars in galaxies and wisps of gas in beautiful nebulae. But those objects are far, far larger than the Moon. Hubble’s resolution is 0.1 arcseconds no matter how far away an object is. Those wisps of gas appear to be finely resolved, but they’re billions of kilometers across. That’s a bit roomier than the lunar landers were.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've told you before that I think he was gotten to. He's no moron and he's certainly seen the proof that 9/11 was an inside job*. Some goons from the government could have paid him a visit and made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

    Alfred Schaefer 2014 “The Gatekeepers of 9/11“ HD


    The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers: Zwicker (#3
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+shame+of+noam+chomsky&&view=detail&mid=82BAE3AF98B7CB95721582BAE3AF98B7CB957215&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=/videos/search?q=the+shame+of+noam+chomsky&FORM=HDRSC3

    They seem to have gotten to a lot of anti-establishment pundits.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-official-story.514874/page-2#post-1072504731


    *
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So typical of you, deliberately concentrate on small fry and ignore the big stuff. Objects on the Moon cannot be seen by any Earth or orbit based telescope. LROC sees them though and kindly spare us your spam about it. You always ignore the response to your spam.

    Uhuh, non credible source then. He still makes almost exclusive anti-government speeches and writes books that are far more damning to the US, than a stupid claim of a Moon hoax by the least educated in society. Your claim is preposterous. Tell me, why haven't they silenced you?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pictures are fakable so they are not proof.

    The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped


    MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1


    MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1



    Most of what Chomsky says reflects reality.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/american-imperialism.371897/

    Don't forget what happened to Thomas Baron.

    Moon Hoax; "Apollo; Hoax Of The 20th Century" Part 2 of 2

    (1:48:14 time mark)


    If you don't play ball, they'll kill your whole family. If I were in Chomsky's place, I'd do exactly what he did.
     
  5. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,513
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All of your evidence is based on pictures and since they are fakable you have no proof of your claims.

    No family has been killed for not playing ball
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Pathetic spam. Once again for you to completely ignore:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248
    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.

    ************************************************************************************************************

    This was taken from a forum post many years ago, referencing an expert:-
    This is some of his work - http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html

    "There are several reasons why it would be impossible to doctor the LROC images. I will list the various reasons, in no particular order, as I think of them:

    1. The LRO Team, not NASA, controls the LRO. The LRO mission control center is on the campus at Arizona State University. Thus it is the LRO Team who schedules what targets the LRO shoots, and when. Not sure, but I believe that these target commands are uploaded to the LRO on a daily basis.

    2. There is no way to upload images to the LRO.

    3. Jarrah believes that the LRO images of the landing sites are doctored after they are transmitted to earth. The problem with that theory is that the LRO transmits around 280 GB of data back to earth every day. This data is transmitted as analog data by the LRO's Ka band antenna, is received at White Sands and converted from analog to digital data on-the-fly, and then the data is piped directly to the LRO mission control center at ASU. If NASA or any other entity were to take the time to doctor LRO images of the landing sites, then the LRO team would certainly notice the delay when receiving LRO images of the landing sites.

    4. Let's imagine the impossible -- toss out 1 through 3 -- and assume that the LRO images of the landing sites somehow are doctored before they arrive at ASU. Here are the technical hurdles which would have to be overcome. They could be overcome, but only if you took a lot of time, as in a couple of days:

    4a. All fake Apollo hardware must be positioned with sub-pixel accuracy. It would be very easy to tell if this wasn't done, simply by 2x or 4x bicubic resampling LRO images of the landing sites and then overlaying the images.

    4b. The LRO almost always has to be slewed towards the east or west in order to look at the landing sites. This is because the LRO rarely passes directly over a landing site. This now imposes the need to make sure that viewing perspective of the fake Apollo hardware overlaid on the LRO images is correct.

    4c. And now one would have to fake the shadows cast by the fake Apollo hardware. That would be very difficult to accurately accomplish since of course the lunar terrain is far from level at the half meter scale.

    4d. Even after all of the above, faking the Apollo hardware -- especially the shadows of said hardware, becomes very difficult. Why? Because each NAC CCD is read out by first reading out all of the even numbered pixels (called the A channel) and then reading out all of the odd numbered pixels (the B channel). The problem is that this readout method (which is slightly faster than reading out the entire row of pixels) introduces the pattern of dark 1 pixel wide bands seen in the LRO images. This banding pattern is non-linear in terms of brightness for a variety of reasons, but my point is that trying to overlay a "correct" banding pattern on top of the fake hardware now becomes virtually impossible due to issues which I will describe further below.

    5. Each of the LRO's Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) optical systems consists of an 8" aperture 700 mm focal length Ritchie-Chretien telescope with a group of field corrector lenses placed ahead of the focal plane. The field corrector lenses are mounted in a metal assembly in similar fashion to the way that lenses are mounted in older camera lenses which featured all metal mechanical construction. Temperature changes which occur when the LRO passes from the sunlit side to the dark side of the moon cause these lens elements to creep around very slightly, on the order of a few ten thousandths of an inch. This results in very slight random optical decentering.which in turn produces a very slightly different PSF function for LRO images taken each time the LRO's orbit shifts back to the sunlit side of the moon.

    5a. It would be impossible for me to get the results which I do when deconvolving and enhancing the LRO images of the landing sites if the PSF function for the "fake" overlaid Apollo hardware didn't match the PSF function for the rest of the image. There is no getting around this issue. If a somewhat incorrect PSF function was applied to the "fake" image data to be overlaid, then the fake image data would stand out like a sore thumb as showing either an obviously incorrect deconvolution result or showing slight trailing in a random direction compared to the rest of the image.

    5b. Image deconvolution involves the use of a PSF which is either calculated from the image (takes a while to do), or which is present in the image itself. For PSFs, I select and use one of the small pieces of highly reflective Kapton film which was blown off the LM descent stage when the ascent stage lifted off. The PSF of one of these pieces of Kapton film usually involves at least 10 to 20 pixels of PSF data. That is a lot of PSF data which one would need to generate not only for each pixel of the fake image to be overlaid, but which also must be fully merged into the actual PSF data of the original image. This would have to be pulled off with 64-bit depth precision since I perform image deconvolution at 32-bit depth precision. In other words, some serious number crunching would be involved in order to make sure that the fake overlaid image is not detectable.

    5c. Assuming that, somehow, issues 5a and 5b are tackled, and after taking the time to test the results, then one would have to tackle the repeating electronic noise patterns which are present in every LRO image. The placement of these repeating electronic noise patterns are random since the noise patterns come from all of the electronics on-board the LRO itself. Want to see the noise patterns? Simply use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. The upshot is that the repeating electronic noise patterns, present in the rest of the original image, would have to be incorporated into the fake image of the Apollo hardware which was to be overlaid onto the original LRO image. But wait...one would have to do this, while at the same time factoring in the issues mentioned in 5a and 5b! And each LRO image contains a few hundred repeating electronic noise patterns from transistors, diodes, capacitors, various circuits, other instruments, and the LRO's Ka band antenna. Lots of stuff, all very faint, but readily visible using FFT analysis.

    6. Okay, now let's assume that somebody takes the time to address all of issues described in 4 through 5. The best way to actually fake the Apollo hardware would be to, and if you had plenty of time...

    -- decompand the original LRO image,
    -- then fully calibrate the original LRO image,
    -- then to use FFT to identify and remove all of the original electronic noise patterns in the original image,
    -- then to simulate the perspective of the fake Apollo hardware which one wishes to overlay,
    -- then to simulate the shadows of the fake hardware in the fake image which one wishes to overlay while at the same time taking into account the terrain of the original image and making the shadow patterns correctly match to at least at or better than the image scale which generally is around 0.5 meters,
    -- then properly simulate the effects of the A and B channel vertical nonlinear CCD readout patterns in the fake image,
    -- then overlay the fake image of the Apollo hardware onto the original LRO image,
    -- then reapply the original image's electronic noise pattern,
    -- then de-calibrate the image,
    -- then re-compand the image,
    -- then insert all of the original LRO spacecraft data which was sent along with the original image's data stream,
    -- then calculate and apply new but fake checksums for both the image and the data stream,
    -- and finally, then send the fake image to the LRO Team's mission control center at Arizona State University,
    -- and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the LRO Team as to why, each time the LRO images one of the Apollo landing sites, that the resulting image is mysteriously delayed for several hours or days in order to accomplish all of the above, to simply to keep alive some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax which other countries would be able to prove within a decade, if not much sooner.

    7. Obviously the dozens of scientists and researchers involved with the LRO, if one is to believe conspiracy theorists, would have to be "in" on the conspiracy -- more than 40 years later. That is beyond being patently absurd.

    8. On average, every year roughly a half dozen research papers are published which reveal new and completely unique findings related to studies of the moon rocks returned by the Apollo astronauts. Findings which are impossible to duplicate, unless one is willing to believe that to this day research scientists are part of some sort of 40-year-old moon hoax conspiracy.

    9. You can't bounce data off of the LRO. You would have to bounce data off of the moon itself since LRO's reflectivity in radio wavelengths is several orders of magnitude less than the moon. Any Ka band (since that is what the LRO uses) transmitter strong enough to bounce a fake signal off of the moon in order to simulate the LRO's Ka band transmission to earth would be picked up by radio astronomers around the world, and they would be very pissed off due to the interference with their work.

    Every LRO image of an Apollo landing site is unique. By this, I mean that the solar altitude above the terrain, the direction of solar incidence onto the terrain and direction of solar emission off of the terrain, and the LRO's viewing perspective when looking at an Apollo landing site and surrounding terrain always is unique for each image. Thus, I just realized that absolutely everything in the LRO image would have to be faked if the fake image were to somehow be uploaded to the LRO prior to the LRO team commanding the LRO to actually image one of the Apollo landing sites. In order to do this, one would have to have a DTM of the terrain with better than 1/2 meter accuracy in terms of both the position and altitude for every single object in the image. That is one hell of a huge swath of terrain to model down to 1/2 meter accuracy in both position and elevation in a DTM. To do so would require at least several dozen LRO images of each landing site over a several year period, combined with supercomputer crunching of all of the image data. So far the best LRO DTMs produced from NAC images have accuracies in the neighborhood of around 5 meters -- far short of what would be needed to properly simulate the height of every object plus the shadow direction and shadow length cast by every object in the image. The altitude component of a NAC DTM is what has by far the least resolution and thus the most amount of error. And this is just to fake one single LRO image. In a nutshell, I realize now that it is utterly impossible to fake a LRO image and upload it to the LRO beforehand."

     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They could just use a computer to fake some pictures and then say they are from the LRO team. How do you know the LRO team didn't work for NASA? Everything you posted was very weak.

    Maybe I should post this again.
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-ever-happened.512081/page-27#post-1068295062
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."

    He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such.

    So your crap argument is that these LROC images are computer generated. I just gave you a huge post detailing many things and you come up with this horseshit?

    Prove they do! Exactly how many damn people are in on this 50 year bullshit? Did you even read the account of somebody who has received and deconvolved the images directly?

    Maybe you should take a few years off and get some education you ridiculous spammer.

    In your own time, answer the following

    For future reference and for anyone who encounters this person again on their travels, I am going to summarise as much as possible the things he has avoided.

    • He put up a video that had the youtube user "hunchbacked" claiming the LROC pictures were photoshopped, because he found some metadata of a tiny cropped section from the large original transmission. The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this. The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation.

      Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this?

    • Counter claim about the soil getting up to jump height:
      Video 1 shows a gravitational analysis of the Cernan hopping sequence. I would also state that this is part of a massive unbroken sequence where the astronauts travel hundreds of yards from the rover and cross over numerous times. The analysis proves that the jump is perfectly consistent with lunar gravity. It shows the adjustment for Earth gravity.

      THIS is MY VIDEO!!
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U

      Video 2 shows a piece of soil being kicked up - to jump height just like your volleyball player, that hits the ground at the SAME TIME as Cernan. This proves they are not on wires.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG5FuVxDcPU

      Can you explain how this is possible, because the 245% footage is clearly ridiculous?


    • Numerous points raised here - https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...40#post2455240 and none properly responded to. In particular, when given a plausible alternative to his "wall of air" claim, concerning soil striking the flagpole, he dismissed it saying the pole needed to move. Notwithstanding such a tiny movement needs just a tiny pole vibration mot necessarily visible, the rod DOES move. I posted a video of it and he said the video was doctored because he couldn't see it with his mouse! I asked him to prove it was doctored. He ignored this.

      Neither of your videos precludes two events. I don't know what causes the initial movement, but it isn't air, because air doesn't behave that way from so far away. I suspect he simply kicked a bit of soil along the ground, something like this at 21 seconds...


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE

      The flagpole moving:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

    • From post#56, he conceded that they were lens flares, he conceded that the Apollo 14 footage looked doctored. He then posted a ludicrous video about the LRV being a model! His claim amounts to 3 things:-

      1. The astronaut is not moving. So what, why should he?
      2. The soil is different colours. Phase angle changes to retro-reflective surface.
      3. It is comparable to front screen projection on 2001. Ridiculous observation. This was a fixed shot, the moon footage is moving constantly. It is this, more than anything that makes me question his credentials or motive.
      Direct questions:

      Can you verify his credentials please?
      How do his alleged credentials allow him the skillset to pose a credible analysis?

    • Concerning his nonsense claim about the flap on the LRV Apollo 15 traverse, he claimed the sky was blackened ON AN IMAGE using modern software! My reply, unanswered:

      So your method involves using modern digital software on a single image, to create a 20fps video in 1971? Forgive me if I ask you to try again!

      It is a continuous video with mountains that don't get any nearer over several miles. The surface is lit for as far as can be seen. The sky is black. When the rover turns across Sun, the phase angle of the Moon changes and the whole surface is less reflective.

      Can you explain in detail how that could possibly be done?

    • Concerning the Apollo 15 flag movement. He claimed the following are ruled out:

      Show me exactly where these are ruled out:

      1. Video artefact blooming.
      2. Flagpole settling in stand.
      3. Static discharge.
      4. Kicked soil striking the bottom of the pole sending small vibration.

      Do NOT post another video, especially when you seem to think Jarrah White rubbing a balloon against his head rules out the enormous static discharges that can occur in a vacuum!

      He then posted a video of that very thing!

    Quite breath taking how he can have the audacity to roll up yet again and post the same stuff he has already posted here about 50 times, whilst avoiding so much aimed at him from another forum, from the same spam.
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that it can't be proven that they don't means it what they produce can't be used as proof.

    How do you know he wasn't lying? You seem to have a naive willingness to believe when you look at official info.
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Unbelievable!. You make a claim that is crap, can't prove it - therefore the evidence presented to you must be faked because of your horseshit?

    Because I have sufficient education to enable me to understand what he is saying and the reasoning he uses.

    It is from a third party and you have immediate dismissal from ignorance, of anything that shows your pathetic claims to be disproven.

    Failure from you as always to respond honestly:
    For future reference and for anyone who encounters this person again on their travels, I am going to summarise as much as possible the things he has avoided.

    • He put up a video that had the youtube user "hunchbacked" claiming the LROC pictures were photoshopped, because he found some metadata of a tiny cropped section from the large original transmission. The images posted on the internet are edited tiny segments taken from absolutely massive uncompressed images. Of course they use an imaging software to create this. The originals, TIF files, show no such manipulation.

      Your claim is dismissed, do you have any rebuttal to this?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to study logic. You're not using the scientific method.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=sci...0l5j46j0l3.6318j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    You have a naive willingness to believe. Simply taking someone's word for something is not the scientific method.

    A person declares something. We don't know whether he's lying, or telling the truth. We can't prove that he's lying. Therefore, he's telling the truth.

    This would get you laughed out of the debating hall.
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. You need to study everything, you know nothing.

    You know nothing about it. Let alone when an expert presents testimony.

    You have an ignorant need to disbelieve anything that contradicts your horseshit.

    Whch is why I read it fully and examined what he said. You did neither.

    In your case we do.

    Ludicrous. You analyze what he says and determine its veracity.

    You'd never get in spammer. Point me to anything said that you think may be a lie.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248
    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.

    You ignored this:-
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It may have escaped your attention, but pretty much every single thing you have ever typed is based on "somebody's word". Only in my case my referee is an actual expert in complex photography and analysis.

    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Narrow Angle Camera Views of the Apollo Landing Sites (mem-tek.com)

    Repeat bullshit still makes it bullshit. Isolate any part that he could be lying about.

    Why are you so afraid to answer this below? Are you chicken? In response to your mega spammed LROC crap:-


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248
    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Look at this guy, quotes one line out of a large post and ignores the rest!


    Only in my case my referee is an actual expert in complex photography and analysis.
    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Narrow Angle Camera Views of the Apollo Landing Sites (mem-tek.com)

    Repeat bullshit still makes it bullshit. Isolate any part that he could be lying about.

    Why are you so afraid to answer this below? Are you chicken? In response to your mega spammed LROC crap:-


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248
    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Once again, back to bump a dead thread and ignoring countless responses.



    Really? This provably incompetent "steve the chemist" comes up with another dumb claim. These heat shields have a major requirement that the components are highly efficient at heat dissipation! The Command Module was coated with ablative materials designed to do just that, take enormous heat and dissolve.

    Perhaps to explain this simple thing to a layman, go find a piece of aluminum and place it in an oven for 10 minutes. Take it out. It will be room temperature in a matter of a 30 seconds! The CM has 10's of thousands of feet falling at normal terminal velocity, plus 9,000ft falling with parachutes on a material specifically designed to dump its heat!

    Do something amazing, read and learn something!
    CSM25_Apollo_Manufacturing_pp245-252.pdf (nasa.gov)
    Ch4.1.7(10).fm (faa.gov)

    Buzz Aldrin Gyroscope Demonstration - YouTube

    Are you now suggesting that the Command Modules were not even in space? That is seriously dumb and disproven by numerous instances of extended weightlessness.

    ANSWER PLEASE!
    Only in my case my referee is an actual expert in complex photography and analysis.
    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Narrow Angle Camera Views of the Apollo Landing Sites (mem-tek.com)

    Repeat bullshit still makes it bullshit. Isolate any part that he could be lying about.

    Why are you so afraid to answer this below? Are you chicken? In response to your mega spammed LROC crap:-


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248
    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Once again, back to bump a dead thread and ignoring countless responses. And more on this utterly moronic "hot splash" crap! Aulis, the internet equivalent of sewage.

    Really? This provably incompetent "steve the chemist" comes up with another dumb claim. These heat shields have a major requirement that the components are highly efficient at heat dissipation! The Command Module was coated with ablative materials designed to do just that, take enormous heat and dissolve.

    Perhaps to explain this simple thing to a layman, go find a piece of aluminum and place it in an oven for 10 minutes. Take it out. It will be room temperature in a matter of a few seconds! The CM has 10's of thousands of feet falling at normal terminal velocity, plus 9,000ft falling with parachutes on a material specifically designed to dump its heat!

    Do something amazing, read and learn something!
    CSM25_Apollo_Manufacturing_pp245-252.pdf (nasa.gov)
    Ch4.1.7(10).fm (faa.gov)

    Buzz Aldrin Gyroscope Demonstration - YouTube

    Are you now suggesting that the Command Modules were not even in space? That is seriously dumb and disproven by numerous instances of extended weightlessness.

    ANSWER PLEASE!
    My
    referee is an actual expert in complex photography and analysis.
    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Narrow Angle Camera Views of the Apollo Landing Sites (mem-tek.com)
    Isolate any part that he could be lying about.

    Why are you so afraid to answer this below? Are you chicken? In response to your mega spammed LROC crap:-


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-5#post-1068573248

    Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses.

    Video 1:-
    This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail.

    Video 2:-
    An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes.

    Video 3:-
    The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.

    Your reliance on stupid youtube videos that you don't even understand, is quite pathetic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2021
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't remember whether I've already posted this or not so here it is just in case.

    Jet Wintzer, MOON HOAX NOW
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "I don't remember" if scott/cosmored has ever had the honesty to respond to this, so bump.
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The irony. Read line 1 of this quote - needless to say he ignored this and countless other posts.
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,165
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The link started working again. Those videos were originally on YouTube but they disappeared. It's such good research that the powers that be don't want people to see it. It's all too clear to obfuscate. The only thing they can do is censor it.
     

Share This Page