-
There are so any problems associated with the Lunar Rover that it would seem almost farcical to believe they could possibly be real.
The construction:
It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).
It would seem to defy basic physics to build a weak design because the astronauts on the moon are not just gently putting their weight onto the vehicles, they are also imparting their considerable momentum onto the vehicles and that momentum will be the same on earth as it is on the moon, the mass of the astronauts and their suits do not change. If we take as an example the method the astronauts supposedly used for getting onto the Rovers we can see that they jump up and onto the vehicles:
Getting to sit on the Rover seat in a stiff pressure suit from the lurain was not so easy. The astronauts found they had to stand facing forward, then with an upward and sideways kick, jump up with their legs and arms stretched out ahead to hopefully land in the middle of their seat.
http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_15_mission/hl_Apollo15.html
p=mv tells us that the momentum that the astronauts have, and therefore the forces they will impart, are the same on the Earth as they are on the Moon as long as they are traveling at the same speed. This means that if the astronauts, in the final stage of jumping onto the rover, fall from a height of 6 inches on the moon then the forces they impart onto the rover will be the same as if they fell from a height of 1 inch here on earth.
Once we understand that the forces of momentum are independent of weight then it is nonsensical to suggest you cannot even sit on a rover on earth, but you can jump on one on the moon. The astronauts and their suits have the same mass on earth as they do on the moon and it is very hard to imagine that jumping onto the rovers on the moon they would have less velocity than sitting on them here on earth.
Similarly, driving the rovers on an uneven terrain where the chassis is often forced to change directions vertically, the forces will be very similar, if not the same as here on Earth. Hitting a mound at 10kph will impart the same forces on the vehicle as hitting a mound at 10kph here on earth, the mass and velocity are the same. If you can't hoon around a crater filled terrain here on earth with the vehicles then you can't do it on the moon. If you can't sit on a rover on earth then you can't jump onto one on the moon.
Traction:
To take a 4WD onto a loose ungroomed surface here on Earth would not be counter-intuitive to most people, however, most people would balk at the idea of taking a 2wd vehicle onto a loose ungroomed terrain here on earth because, quite sensibly, it is unlikely a 2wd, with half the traction of a 4WD, would have enough traction. Well, on the Moon a 4WD does not have anywhere near half the traction of a 4WD on earth, it has only a piddly 1/6 the traction and that is true for steering, braking, and accelerating.
Fully loaded the rovers on the moon have a mass of approx 1,500lbs, yet they only have approx 250lbs of weight on the ground to try and accelerate, steer, and brake the 1500lb mass, and they are on a loose surface. The suggestion anyone can go 4WD driving on a loose surface in 1/6g is ludicrous.
I know defenders of the apollo missions will say that the lunar dust binds together so it is not loose, and will quote astronauts as saying they had big trouble controlling the rovers. The problem with both these excuses is that it is not what we see in the video and photographic footage, instead we see a surface that is very loose with dust being disturbed very easy by the astronauts moving around in it, and we see no control problems with the rovers either in driving or the photos of the tracks. It would appear as though they are merely paying homage to the physics while, at the same time, not bothering to fake any traction difficulties for TV.
Power:
The rovers would appear to be massively underpowered, they have 4 x 1/4hp motors giving a grand total of 1hp to drive a 1,500lb vehicle. One horsepower is low powered even for a mobility scooter, imagine putting seven big blokes on a low powered mobility scooter and seeing what performance you get out of it, yet on the moon they hooned around no problems at all.
Uphill there would be some benefits from being on the moon but driving on a flat surface on the moon you would get the same performance as on earth, simply because it is the same mass that has to be accelerated.
Balance:
The rovers are horribly unbalance vehicles, they weigh approximately 460lbs and the astronauts weigh approx 400lbs each fully suited (3), this means when one astronaut is driving there is approximately 3/4 of the weight on one side of the vehicle:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4ltPrsNCLcRmVuvSCYeoMO_OSEvaHnWo1JNOeCmUgCDq31h4Pmg)
I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain here on earth, but on the moon where 1/6 g means it is much more likely to roll the suggestion becomes untenable. If the driver were to hit a rise on the unweighted side of the vehicle then the rover will rise 2, 3, or 4 times higher than it will hitting the same bump on earth (depending on the degree of the slope).
In conclusion:
We are supposed to believe they took a 4WD to the moon that was of such a lightweight design that they couldn't sit on it on earth, but they could jump on it on the moon?
They had no traction problems on a loose surface in 1/6g even though 1/6g equals a whooping 1/6th of the traction?
They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?
They could hoon around with one astronaut on one side of the vehicle (approx 3/4 the weight on one side), on an uneven terrain hitting bumps in 1/6g, with no worries at all about rolling?
(1) http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ApolloCat/Part1/LRV.htm
(2) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/ch23-3.html
(3) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf
-
Ok,
Let's compare the specs of your typical lunar rover to my car.
1957 Fiat 500.
Curb Weight: 499 kg (1,100 lb).
HP: 13 (original 479cc, later upgraded to 499cc, and 17 HP).
Top speed of about 55 MPH.
Construction, Steel.
Lunar Rover
Curb Weight, 209 kilos, 462 lbs.
Loaded weight, max of about 1600 lbs.
Power, 1 HP.
Top speed of about 8.7 MPH, or 14 KPH.
Construction: aluminum alloy.
If you notice while driving, getting up to about 10 MPH doesn't take much power, and many vehicles can do it at idle. In fact, it is hard to hold some vehicles down to 10 MPH.
And, with my Fiat, while it does seem a bit under powered on the Freeway, I've always thought it had excellent 0 to 10 MPH acceleration.
It may be that for a standard gasoline powered vehicle with transmission, the engine to wheel power conversion would be close to 50%, or less, giving the original Fiat 500 the equivalent of about 6 HP at the wheels. Direct drive, 1/4 HP to each wheel may give a higher power ratio, perhaps even 100% to the wheels.
I have never felt particularly unbalanced in my Fiat 500, although I might consider a different design for a lighter car. I have been thinking of a design for a multi-passenger pedal car, and have thought about a 3 person design with a single person in the middle position, 2 people at the sides, and 3 people across when at capacity.
The weakest point on the frame would be the vertical load. Starting, stopping, and turning, it is likely much stronger. It isn't flying over bumps very fast.
I've taken a 2wd drive vehicle in some pretty extraordinary places. While there are a few surfaces that one looses traction, I don't worry too much about dry ground. It is the wet mud (not on the moon) that is the biggest problem. Some wheel weight, of course, is good for traction, but a lightweight vehicle would also be much easier to get moving.
I probably would have chosen wide paddle tires like a dunebuggy, or perhaps a more aggressive agriculture tread. However, narrow tires can actually get good grip by concentrating the weight in a smaller area.
Anyway, I don't see why that vehicle couldn't be able to do a speedy 10 MPH on the moon.
-
Not another conspiracy theory .......... please!
-
LOL
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?
-
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?
It depends on if it was a Chinese Horse!!!!
Were the motors fan cooled or fin cooled?
-
Ok,
Let's compare the specs of your typical lunar rover to my car.
1957 Fiat 500.
Curb Weight: 499 kg (1,100 lb).
HP: 13 (original 479cc, later upgraded to 499cc, and 17 HP).
Top speed of about 55 MPH.
Construction, Steel.
Lunar Rover
Curb Weight, 209 kilos, 462 lbs.
Loaded weight, max of about 1600 lbs.
Power, 1 HP.
Top speed of about 8.7 MPH, or 14 KPH.
Construction: aluminum alloy.
If you notice while driving, getting up to about 10 MPH doesn't take much power, and many vehicles can do it at idle. In fact, it is hard to hold some vehicles down to 10 MPH.
And, with my Fiat, while it does seem a bit under powered on the Freeway, I've always thought it had excellent 0 to 10 MPH acceleration.
It may be that for a standard gasoline powered vehicle with transmission, the engine to wheel power conversion would be close to 50%, or less, giving the original Fiat 500 the equivalent of about 6 HP at the wheels. Direct drive, 1/4 HP to each wheel may give a higher power ratio, perhaps even 100% to the wheels.
I have never felt particularly unbalanced in my Fiat 500, although I might consider a different design for a lighter car. I have been thinking of a design for a multi-passenger pedal car, and have thought about a 3 person design with a single person in the middle position, 2 people at the sides, and 3 people across when at capacity.
The weakest point on the frame would be the vertical load. Starting, stopping, and turning, it is likely much stronger. It isn't flying over bumps very fast.
I've taken a 2wd drive vehicle in some pretty extraordinary places. While there are a few surfaces that one looses traction, I don't worry too much about dry ground. It is the wet mud (not on the moon) that is the biggest problem. Some wheel weight, of course, is good for traction, but a lightweight vehicle would also be much easier to get moving.
I probably would have chosen wide paddle tires like a dunebuggy, or perhaps a more aggressive agriculture tread. However, narrow tires can actually get good grip by concentrating the weight in a smaller area.
Anyway, I don't see why that vehicle couldn't be able to do a speedy 10 MPH on the moon.
I looked around and found a forum discussion where they say a 1hp buggy has 80% efficiency, that gives your fiat approximately 10 times the hp of the rovers (converting your current 17hp to 8.5 and the rovers to .8hp). If you put 2 people into the fiat it will near enough be equal in weight to the fully loaded rover, so you are more or less comparing the performance of two vehicles that have an order of magnitude difference in the power to weight ration.
You say you have never felt unbalanced in your fiat, well, to get a similar imbalance to the rovers with one astronaut on them you would have to put 5 men all on one side of the fiat (giving 3/4 the weight on one side). I would fancy you would not find this too appealing to drive even in a straight line, let alone over an uneven surface and cornering. Adding to the imbalance is the fact that it would be many times easier to roll a vehicle on the moon than on earth.
You say you have taken a 2wd off road many times and your only fear is wet mud, while if you live in a muddy area this may be largely true because dry mud can set like concrete, I live in a very sandy area and anyone with any brains knows the danger of taking a 2wd onto any sandy area that is not well grassed or at least deliberately compacted by machinery.
The point about the traction is that they didn't have anywhere near the earth equivalent of a 2wd up there, they had less than the equivalent of a 1 wheel drive for traction, it is simply true that 1/6g equals 1/6 the traction so I stand by the assertion that a 4WD is woefully inadequate for driving on a loose surface in 1/6g.
-
LOL
"They had ample power driving a 1500lb mass with a 1hp vehicle?"
So, a bit like a horse then?
More accurately, a bit like a low powered one of these, only instead of one person it has to transport the equivalent of 6 large men:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcS3h-MTbpukLrBotOMEPHsnuAYAbCYQlsA4r07L906TnV3HoIR6ng&hash=4611a98262aad1e8ae086d4231178c21)
Mobility scooters can come in up to 3hp, so 1hp is near the bottom end of power for one of these, if you were designing a vehicle to transport a massive* 1500lbs gross would you consider such a low power system to be adequate?
*Massive compared to what mobility scooters are designed for.
-
You can see where one has been driving about and where it is parked ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
-
I believe that many dune buggies are two wheel drive.
Often based on VW Bug engines.
And, with the typical open differential, it is not uncommon for a 2 wheel drive to become a 1 wheel drive.
4 wheel electric motors would be an excellent type of traction differential.
I'm not sure you can completely ignore gravity. On the moon, the rover would sink into the regolith 1/6 as much as on Earth. The weight on the bearings is also 1/6 as much. No wind resistance. Going up hill, it is 1/6 as much weight to move.
And, if one got stuck, it would be easy enough to get out and push.
I have no doubt that the astronauts were instructed not to drive into a hole they couldn't get out of.
-
You can see where one has been driving about and where it is parked ...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
This thread is about the physics of taking a 1hp, massively unbalanced, 4wd to the moon and having no problems with traction, rolling, power etc. It also asks the question whether you can build a rover so weak that it cannot be sat on here on earth and then take it to the moon and jump onto it before hooning around on an uneven surface (both of with should be impossible if it is so fragile that it cannot be sat on here on earth).
I think your post is valid but I am hoping my reply does not lead to a distraction from the subject matter of the thread.
I think those photos from the LRO do absolutely nothing to prove the Apollo missions took place, they are of poor quality compared to what most people would have been hoping for, and they are easily faked.
There are also a few questions about their validity like why are the tracks so clear even very close to the landers, in other words, why didn't the exhaust from the ascent rocket engine taking off disturb the tracks surrounding the lander?
Another question is why are the tracks darker than the surrounding soil? It is known that the lunar soil is darker on the surface due to radiation darkening so any disturbed soil should have a considerably higher albedo than the surrounding soil.
Once again, I hope my reply does not distract from the questions about the rovers and lead to a discussion about the LRO photos.
-
On the Earth, the rover has to support its own weight (and presumably gets a bit of structural support from the launch vehicle during the rigors of liftoff).
On the Moon, the rover only has to support 1/6 of its own weight, plus 1/6 the weight of its heavily-garbed passengers.
The momentum is the same at 10km/h on the Moon as at 10km/h on the Earth. However:
- The wheels don't have to hold up so much weight on the Moon, so you can make them very much "softer".
- Similarly, the chassis does not need to be so rigid - it can be much more flexible.
- They occasionally managed to get 1 or more wheels "airborne" (vacuum-borne?) at 10km/h horizontal speed, but because the Lunar gravity is so much lower, the vertical speed would be very much lower than 10km/h.
- Taken together, the change in momentum to stop a vertical impact is spread out over a much longer time on the Moon.
- So the forces on the vehicle would be much less than the impact of an airborne vehicle on Earth.
- And the forces on the vehicle would still be less than driving over the same terrain on Earth at 10km/h without getting airborne (because gravity is lower).
-
-
On the Moon, the rover only has to support 1/6 of its own weight, plus 1/6 the weight of its heavily-garbed passengers.
That is only true if both are stationary, I have put a link up which shows that the astronauts supposedly had to jump up and onto the rovers, this means that even before being driven the rovers are coming under a lot more force than the static weight of the astronauts either on earth or the moon.
Once we know that the astronauts jump onto the rovers then weight can be ignored in estimating what forces the rovers will come under because it is a combination of mass and velocity that will determine the force, and is a noncontroversial fact that your mass is the same on earth as it is on the moon.
Unless we are to rewrite p=mv to p=wv, meaning weight times velocity instead of mass times velocity, then it is nonsensical to say you can't sit on a rover here on earth but you can jump onto one on the moon.
The wheels don't have to hold up so much weight on the Moon, so you can make them very much "softer".
I don't believe this to be true at all (nor the other comment about the chassis), the wheels and chassis have to be designed for the worst stresses the vehicle will come under, and on both the earth and the moon that will be all the bumps and dips the vehicle hits while being driven, not the static loading.
On both the earth and moon, as you acknowledge, the momentum will be the same at the same speed, therefore hitting bump and rises will put the same stresses on the frame and wheels in both cases, or at least very similar stresses.
Similar stresses means basically that if you can't drive it around hitting bumps at 10 or 15 kph here on earth, then you cant do it on the moon. Yet they tell us you can't even sit on the rovers here on earth but you can drive around hitting bumps on the moon.
-
Ok,
So, on the moon, you have a vehicle that can carry the momentum of a 1500 lb vehicle, at 10 mpg.
However, it has a vertical weight of only 250 lbs.
It would be easy enough to add springs and shocks designed to support a 250 lb vehicle, but with a wide dynamic range, so that they could absorb the impact of say a 1000 lb dynamic impact. Likewise, your A-Arms and kingpin/spindle assembly would be designed to handle the 1500 lb dynamic load of say pushing into and over a rock. Furthermore, if you wished to carry 500 lbs of moonrocks, you would load those over the axles, rather than in the middle of the chassis. Each passenger would weigh only about 1/6 of 400 lbs, or about 67 lbs.
I could imagine a structure that could absorb the vertical impact of say tossing a 67 lb of grain on it, by using well designed springs, but would be unable to support 800 lbs of weight applied to the middle of the frame.
Assuming a left hand drive, you might instruct your drivers not to do hard right hand turns with a single driver, and no passengers. It wouldn't take much to convince the astronauts that their lives depended on safe driving. They might survive a roll-over, but damage to their spacesuits could be fatal.
Apparently they never ventured more than about 5 miles from the lunar module. It would be a long bunny hop back to the module, but they were pretty much within walking distance to get back.
-
I could imagine a structure that could absorb the vertical impact of say tossing a 67 lb of grain on it, by using well designed springs, but would be unable to support 800 lbs of weight applied to the middle of the frame.
Assuming a left hand drive, you might instruct your drivers not to do hard right hand turns with a single driver, and no passengers. It wouldn't take much to convince the astronauts that their lives depended on safe driving. They might survive a roll-over, but damage to their spacesuits could be fatal.
When the astronauts jump onto the vehicles on the moon it is not the equivalent of throwing a 67lb bag of grain onto it, it is the equivalent of throwing a 400lb bag of whatever onto it. The difference between earth and the moon is not in the weight because the mass never changes and, unless stationary, it is the mass which is relevant, the only difference will be in the speed at which the astronauts freefall onto the rovers.
Like I said earlier, if they jump onto the rover here on earth and clear the vehicle by 1 inch, and they jump onto the vehicle on the moon and clear the vehicle by 6 inches then the forces on the vehicle will be exactly the same.
However, sitting is a very controlled and relatively gentle process as opposed to jumping, there can be little doubt that jumping onto the vehicle on the moon will put more stress on the frame than sitting on it here on earth.
As you correctly point out any accident is likely to result in suit failure, and therefore death, so there has to be ample redundancy in the structure of the rovers to handle any foreseeable event, yet we are told these rovers are so weak that they cannot even be sat upon on earth but they can be jumped onto on the moon and driven at 15kph over uneven surface with complete confidence?
WRT your next point, there is no evidence the astronauts took it easy when they were in the rovers alone, in fact all the evidence is to the contrary with the highest speeds and most radical driving being done when there was only one astronaut on board belying the fact that there is 3/4 the weight on one side of the vehicle, it is uneven terrain, and that it is significantly easier to roll a vehicle in 1/6g.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQY9vOpO8_1-fEUKCKTPlZClC1LuDN69aOK-soJspOOKXIY4577ig)
-
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.
Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs.
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.
That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth. However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.
That may give one a strange sense of stability, that the rover would in fact exhibit similar resistance to flipping on the Earth and the moon., although it would be easier to maintain a wheelie on the moon as there would be less force bringing the airborne tire back down. Some things might feel like they were happening in slow motion.
If I was designing the rover, I would build it with extremely weak springs. This would mean that the effect of the majority of the bumps would be transferred to the suspension system, not to the frame and the passengers.
It is possible that the weakness of the frame was overstated, although the springs would likely bottom out if the rover was fully loaded on Earth.
Many of the moon/rover photos indicate that much of the driving was on relatively flat, but bumpy landscape.
Certainly nothing was as rugged as say the McKenzie Pass (http://www.axiomgear.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/A-Rocky-View1.JPG), in part because the regolith provides a generally sand-like surface.
-
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.
Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs.
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.
That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth. However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.
That may give one a strange sense of stability, that the rover would in fact exhibit similar resistance to flipping on the Earth and the moon., although it would be easier to maintain a wheelie on the moon as there would be less force bringing the airborne tire back down. Some things might feel like they were happening in slow motion.
You will rise significantly higher after hitting a bump on the moon, it may be 3 or 4 times as high depending on the slope of the bump you hit. You will also have approx 6 times the hang time due the parabolic arc being both longer and higher, meaning that it is much easier to roll a vehicle on the moon than here on earth.
There is no easy solution regarding the suspension, if you make it stiff you put more stress on the frame but if you make it soft then you increase the chances of rolling.
I cannot see any advantage to driving a car in 1/6g, only disadvantages like traction loss and rolling being more of a problem etc. Yet with the rovers they supposedly took a vehicle all the way to the moon that would be too unbalanced to operate safely here on earth and therefore many times more dangerous on the moon...
...too structurally weak to operate safely safely here on earth even though the stresses will be largely the same on the moon...
...of such low power that it would be insufficient on earth even though the mass that has to be accelerated is the same on earth as the moon...
....and has a drive system that is of a noted design for loose surfaces on earth (4wd), but makes no concessions for the fact that on the moon there will be only 1/6g and therefore 1/6 the traction.
And it all went swimmingly well with no problems at all???
-
BTW, the Soviets supposedly sent an unmanned rover to the moon, I say "supposedly" because there is a possibility, on both sides, that there was as much BS and bluffing going on at the time of the space race as there was genuine advances.
Anyhow, real or not, the soviets at least made concessions to the low traction of 1/6g by giving their rover 8 wheel drive.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F78%2FLunokhod_1_%2528high_resolution%2529.jpg%2F200px-Lunokhod_1_%2528high_resolution%2529.jpg&hash=bbeabed14f6856f7ec1fea7fb14d4f35)
It is also worth noting that because the soviet rover was unmanned and was crawling around in a quasi static manner, it required much less traction than the relatively high performance apollo rovers.
-
Ok,
So the astronaut on the moon will act both as a 67 lb weight, and a 400 lb mass.
Just sitting on the rover, the astronaut would exert a downward weight of 67 lbs.
Going over a bump, however, the astronaut would provide the same resistance to change as a 400 lb mass.
That would play both ways.
When you go over a bump, it would take essentially the same amount of force to get a wheel airborne as on the Earth. However, it will fall back down 6 times as fast on the Earth.
It will only fall back 6 times as fast if they both rise to the same height, but on the moon the rovers will, upon hitting a bump, rise many times higher so by the time it comes down the speed difference will be more likely around half as fast than 1/6th the speed.
So the way I see it is that driving around hitting bumps will put very similar stresses on the frames on the moon as on earth because the mass and velocity are the same, the chances of rolling will be far greater on the moon, but when the rover lands after hitting he bump then it will land lighter* on the moon than on earth.
* by "lighter" I mean slower and therefore with less stress on the frame, how much slower will depend on the angle of the rise.
-
Someone on another forum posted footage of them testing the rovers for 1/6g, they had ropes suspending 5/6 of the weight.
This really highlights how farcical driving a 4wd on the moon is, the only test they show is one that is designed not to fail where they take a run up on a firm surface, then just go straight over a short test bed. Effectively this test nothing on the loose surface, not braking, not steering, not acceleration.
The test is, like the whole notion of 4WDriving on the moon, a farce (starts at 2.04, video is set to then)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FVMfjPXwRO4#t=124s
Even with this mockery of a test you can see the back bobbling around, and that is at slow speeds and over a relatively smooth bed, this highlights how ridiculous the "Grand Prix" test runs were on the moon when they supposedly drove with full control at much higher speeds and over much bumpier terrain.
But the really funny thing about the tests in the video, the ones that were designed not to fail, is that they did fail. The third test shows a start of control loss even before they hit the test bed and they can't regain control instead slipping and sliding until they come to a stop while still on the test bed.
The tests really do highlight everything I have said about how farcical 4WDriving on the moon would be.
-
For the lunar rovers, traction in 1/6g is a massive problem to overcome, the vehicles only have approx 250lbs weight on the ground an yet have to propel a 1500lb mass, and to make things more difficult it is a loose surface they have to do this on.
To do this they had a wire mesh wheel with chevrons covering about 50% of the contact surface area, the chevrons are both smooth and shallow, so the wheel does not have a deep thread. The chevrons directly cover 50% of the frictive surface and they also recess the remaining frictive surface.
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSxMepNWMhYLTkjoi9pFcsgiVX31rjlgnGHOSc8vW2aiCPUTLFZnQ)
These wheels were tested by the US army engineers for NASA and the results appear to show that the rovers could not possibly have operated on the moon.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PerfBoeingLRVWheelsRpt1.pdf
They simulated 57lbs of weight on the wheels, they have a pull coefficient of approx 0.5 to 0.6 before slip becomes so bad it will immobilise the vehicle (1), now I read that as meaning with 57lbs weight the wheel can pull 85lbs to 92lbs before slip is too problematic, yet each wheel has to pull 342lbs to move the rover on the moon.
Does the testing prove that the rovers could not get enough traction to work on the moon?
(1) fig. A12. graph entitled "comparisons of relations off pull coefficients to slip obtained by three different recording methods", it is the last graph, third page from the bottom.
Mod: I've merged this post with a previous, nearly identical topic chain.
-
The construction:
It is often said that if astronauts could not even sit on a Lunar Rover here on Earth because the Rovers were built of such lightweight construction that they "would have collapsed in 1 g if the crew sat on it." (1), and that the " The vehicle could support its own weight on earth, but no more" (2).
You have to watch what you believe. This claim is bogus. See the two astronauts sitting inside one on Earth at http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html
-
... See the two astronauts sitting inside one on Earth at http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-rover-everything-you-need-to-know.html
That photo is on wikipedia ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Moon_Buggy_Ap16-KSC-71PC-777.jpg/748px-Moon_Buggy_Ap16-KSC-71PC-777.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Early_lunar_mobility_studies
-
For the lunar rovers, traction in 1/6g is a massive problem to overcome, the vehicles only have approx 250lbs weight on the ground an yet have to propel a 1500lb mass, and to make things more difficult it is a loose surface they have to do this on.
Makes you wonder how sled dogs manage to do anything useful, how a tiny tugboat can move a tanker, or indeed how I manage to push my car. Obviously, life on earth is a fake and Newton was a liar.
I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain
which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.
-
I doubt many of us would want to drive such an unbalanced vehicle over an uneven terrain
which is why it takes a lot of selection and several years of intensive training to produce an astronaut.
I have no doubt the astronauts were "adrenaline junkies" to some extent. However, explain to them that a car crash might be fatal, or running out of power could mean a long and dangerous walk back to the lunar module, and I have no doubt that they would pay attention to driving.
A modern lunar rover could be designed with a turn limiter so that it couldn't do a sharp left hand turn with a left hand load, however, undoubtedly in the 60's, a lot was dependent on skill and training of the astronauts.
-
The astronaut selection process sought out professional pilots with an engineering background and many hours of incident-free flying, not barnstormers. Test flying is about attention to detail and cautious approaches to the design specification of the machine, not shaking it to bits and parachting out of the wreckage. There was even a bias against bachelors on the grounds that married men were more interested in coming home than in impressing anyone with their bravado. Learning to drive half a ton of scientific equipment over rough and slippery ground is part of many expeditions on this planet.
-
It is obvious that you are not accepting the facts simply because you don't want to accept the facts. Ignorance and stubbornness is a deadly combination.
I'm not sure what would motivate somebody to hold on to such silliness but that is your right.
Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!
While the theoretical possibility that the Moon landing were faked is not 100% impossible...but ask yourself three questions,
1. Why would they fake it not once but 6 (almost 7) times? If you get away with it once you don't keep going back to the well. Especially if you have nothing to gain from it financially or politically.
2. Since there were over 400,000 people DIRECTLY involved in the Apollo program, do you actually believe that such a massive secret could be kept?!?!?!?!?!!?
3. Surely the Soviets knew...do you also believe that they wouldn't have outed us if we faked even the smallest part of the Apollo program?
I'll also add that subsequent Lunar probes had actually photographed Apollo landing sites complete with footprints AND rover tire tracks.
Finally, having some knowledge of electric vehicles, I happen to know of a 3200 pound electric Corvette that can do over 100 mph with a 40hp motor!!!
Electric motors are instant torque, instant power and ultra efficient.
So yes, four 1/4 hp motors are more than sufficient to drive a fully loaded rover on the Lunar surface.
Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.
-
How does a 1 hp, 2000 lb horse manage to swim? How does a 1/10 hp, 200 lb man walk on ice? How can I ski uphill? You can't ride a motorbike and sidecar with the sidecar empty.
All everyday life is a fake. Or just maybe there's less conflicting traffic on the moon.
constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.
unless you are a priest or a politician, in which case it is called a profession.
-
Here's the reality:
We went to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent rovers to the Moon. PERIOD!
The Russians sent a rover to the Moon. PERIOD!
We sent and continue to send rovers to Mars. PERIOD!
Your arguments are all easily and completely refutable.
And don't delude yourself into thinking you are simply being determined or resolute in your assertions; constantly arguing in the face of overwhelming facts is not just stubbornness, it is borderline mental illness.
The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked. It was faked with the help of Stanley Kubrick and the cinema techniques learned in "2001: A Space Odyssey'.
Researcher Jay Weidner has proven the case the footage is fake.
Start here:
-
The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.
Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
-
The vast majority of the Apollo moon footage was faked.
Why only fake "the vast majority" ? , either fake it all and don't bother going , or it's real ...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27912.msg293914#msg293914
The images that didnt need to be faked are the near earth images or inside capsule images.
All the moon landscape photos were staged. The most interesting fakes are from Apollo 15, 16, and 17.
Lets start with Apollo 17
Show me any Apollo 17 moon landscape photo from http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html that contains black sky and i'll show you how it was faked. Photo can be of anything just needs to contain black sky background to show the fake stage set.
-
I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.
How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Footage
http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo
-
I'm not saying NASA didnt go to the moon. I am saying the photos NASA released were faked.
It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films. Logically they could avoid the expense and the risk of failure by faking it all , or do it for real, (it's the latter as shown by the before after photos you can find here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-11-moon-base-before-after-pictures/photo4.html) ).
You're wasting your time regurgitating the "Kubrick" conspiracy-theory baloney in this forum ...
The Flat Earth Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society) was one of the first organizations to accuse NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Origins
-
It's totally nonsensical to only fake some photos/ films.
All the moon landscape photos were faked, not some. I dont know why they were faked however.
Show me any Apollo 15, 16, 17 photo supposedly taken on the moon with black sky and I'll show you the Kubrick set/background division line. Its in every NASA photo that shows sky.
See for yourself:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Every Apollo moon photo (that shows black sky) has two sectors. 1. The front stage and 2. the scotchlite background, just like 2001:Space Odyssey...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FBBJUyYuzivo%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=720ed970d26e76e0ab95ad42e9f1752f)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whale.to%2Fc%2Fimage034aa.png&hash=778e468539198c274e818716b7ba2ea8)
-
I've looked at hundreds of official NASA Apollo photos. They all have the fake Kubrick front screen 2 part signature.
Heres more fake rover pics...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whale.to%2Fc%2Fimage022aa.png&hash=49b30310ff73b49adfc207c9b873ad96)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%2Fimagenes_luna%2Fapollomissions11_14.jpg&hash=24fc290153756a6ab25a7083ec691372)
Researcher Jay Weidner here adjusts the GAMMA of the photo exposing Kubricks large stitched scotchlite screen...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sacredmysteries.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fimage048.png&hash=7c1a34a9b3134588452941f2b02b543d)
-
Here's another large archive of faked Kubrick Apollo photos...
See for yourself....
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?147
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzWQasB7.png&hash=9c72e964aefe6ee00c651b3ceef9d93e)
-
Another fake rover pic and anomalous background pic.
40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMh2an.gif&hash=6610e3d8564fcdd61413e91114dd9825)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzsHU6.gif&hash=82b7b3a4d145c770d222fb43b3f81689)
-
Another fake rover pic.
40 years ago they never envisioned an internet that would uncover careless mistakes such as re-using the same background slide...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMh2an.gif&hash=6610e3d8564fcdd61413e91114dd9825)
You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide". Reducing the interval between the frames helps make it even more obvious they are not "the same" , if they were "the same" there wouldn't be any movement [or local changes in brightness due to the changing position of the sun ] ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Like I said (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423817#msg423817) you are wasting your time here (and generally) by repeating this guff .
[ BTW flooding this forum with many consecutive posts could get you banned]
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fxz7WJ.jpg&hash=a04cdbd6931465319e591bf8a3183b77)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIwJvV.jpg&hash=3ce46340f4d4b6314e667c5eed3de2a5)
-
You're shooting yourself in the foot : the hill in the background is lit differently between the two frames and the viewpoint is slightly different too, i.e. not "the same background slide".
Patallax issues aside, are you beginning to at least see the horizonal line Kubrick used in EVERY landscape photo to hide the background screen.
I dont expect Apollo apologists to admit seeing something so obviously fake, but there is always hope for growth. See if you can pick out in this photo where the set ends and rhe background screen begins...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpravdu.cz%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpristani-na-mesici--c400xc371.jpg&hash=d34016802be9fc22c47d6b10f1dff29f)
-
Patallax issues aside ...
Parallax shows the images were taken from two different viewpoints , the changes in lighting shows they were taken at different times. Your allegation that it is the same faked backdrop is evidently false.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18164%3Bimage&hash=7cfe37e3fc59e640ad14f81d6680fa7c)
And yet you waste your time posting yet more of this tripe ...
Case of the magically appearing rovers.
Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
[ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]
On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made when it was tootling about on the moon's surface.
End of story.
-
Looking for LRVs ? , here's a link to a picture of one on the moon taken in 2011 ...
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584392main_M168000580LR_ap17_area.jpg
[ the "parked" LRV is very close to the right edge of the image]
On that image you can also see the tyre tracks it has made on the moon's surface.
End of story.
The ALL or NONE argument (a common fallacy used by Apollo apologists) does not disprove the BOTH argument to which evidence points is correct. Getting to the moon and faking footage is not incompatible.
Fake footage also does not disprove a landing. It just shows there were problems and faking was the chosen solution.
Kubrick was NASA's chosen solution for whatever reason. Proof is in the photos, video and science.
If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 237,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?
Havent even mentioned yet Kubricks use of miniatures and models...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1178.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx379%2FElvisinpersonator%2FApolo-11-lift-off-from-the-.gif&hash=becabe557fe20da9094319320f61f070)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.septclues.com%2FMOONHOAX%2FNASA_MOON-ROCKET_APOLLO-17.gif&hash=8424f019e5dd50afa133054a4196162a)
-
If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes ...
One of your sources of images Elvisinpersonator (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/Elvisinpersonator/profile/) seems to think photographic film can survive a trip to the moon, however it looks like debris , (such as flakes of anti-reflection paint, or couple of chips of film), inside of the camera have created similar triangular artifacts on consecutive frames of film. (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/Elvisinpersonator/media/LRO-Triangkles.gif.html)
Also Elvisinpersonator's "transparent astronaut (http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x379/Elvisinpersonator/TransparentNutts.gif)" is due to another normal artifact in electronic (not film) cameras called "afterimage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage)" .
[ If you are in contact with Elvisinpersonator please tell him his sanity has "left the building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_has_left_the_building)" ].
-
If ektachrome film cannot survive space radiation/magnetic/lunar surface heat extremes and SSTV cannot be transmitted 270,000 miles (the length of 30 earths) by a lunar module running on obsolete vacuum tubes and weak Exide batteries, why not fake it, eh?
Ektachrome is fairly insensitive to ionising radiation - no more so than humans, who also magically survived the other supposed physical hazards. We still use vacuum tubes for some UHF communication - they aren't obsolete and certainly weren't in the 1960's, though there was a deliberate policy not to put any new technology into space. As for the distance involved, there were already geosynchronous communication satellites and deep space probes in operation. You can get away with very low power in line-of-sight transmission, especially if you have receiver aerials the size of Jodrell Bank and Parkes.
-
I'd like someone to attempt to explain something so far I've addressed several times. Its been ignored and is becoming the elephant in the room.
Why does every Apollo photo [supposedly taken on the moon which shows a background] always contain a foreground hiding that background. I'm not talking about some Apollo moon photos with background. I'm talking about every one.
Please address this strange and bizarre coincidence which in my opinion is statistically impossible. Also address why every photo is set up as a front screen projection as Stanley Kubrick would do. To be precise, lets begin this issue by keeping focus first on Apollo 17 photos (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html) which can be found here: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
For example, I chose this below photo completely at random, it was the first background pic selected by my mouse from Apollo 17 archive....I've then added labels, and call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fj5SLcbc.png&hash=32cc026eebe30cabf4514a0351e3257c)
-
Going back into the archive I clicked on a second pic looking for the next Kubrick Horizontal and happened to find this GEM completely at random. It is image AS17-134-20400 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg
Anyone who is sentient, rational, with a keen sense of discernment, can see it is a scaled miniature. Also note the Kubrick Horizontal is there with the miniatures.
-
... call this phenomena the "Kubrick Horizontal"...
No let's call it what it is : normal perspective when you are on an undulating terrain (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1454903.jpg). On such a terrain the only landscape photos where the horizon does not appear like this are where the photographer is in an elevated position, e.g. photographs taken from the top of a mountain, or looking over the edge of a high cliff, or from air/space craft high above the surface (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGROPoLkMQM).
I doubt you have seen "every Apollo photo" : maybe there are some taken on the surface from an elevated viewpoint , but it must be a bit awkward to climb a mountain in a spacesuit.
-
RD (or anyone), can you show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation?
Also, was anyone able to discern the miniature rover just posted?
Here it is again...
Scaled Miniature Rover (with bizarre haze to shroud/cloak the miniature)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20400HR.jpg
-
RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.
Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.
-
RD (or anyone), show me an Apollo 17 photo (with a background) that does not contain a Kubrick Horizontal terrain separation.
Only if you ask nicely and promise never to post in this forum again.
RD, why are you stalling. Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?
Or would you rather choose to be like these guys...lol...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1082183%2Fthumbs%2Fr-POOP-IN-SPACE-large570.jpg%3F10&hash=cd2f0b9d30e0c4fedd219d51427948e7)
-
... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?
It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three ,
( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , Walt Disney (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423817#msg423817) maybe ?)
Like I said (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423869#msg423869) if you ask me politely , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,
I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.
PS
the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see inverse square law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) for the reason why) ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Front_projection_effect.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect
So if you're trying to use Scotchlite-screen to explain things [images] which are tens of meters in front of the camera (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423825#msg423825) it's simply not physically possible.
[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called "matte painting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_painting)" ]
-
...and I've had Hollywood special effects people from the 60's and 70's who were front screen projection experts tell me that I absolutely have nailed the Apollo footage as being the result of front screen projection. Just go to any Apollo site and look and you will see they have to hide the bottom of the screen....
- Jay Weidner, renowned author, filmmaker, Kubrick authority
Source:
[cue to 3:08 mark]
-
Where is the "Kubrick-line (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423863#msg423863)" hiding the bottom of the scotchlite-screen in this moon image ? ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001289.html
No Kubrick-line in this apollo image (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001123.jpg) , nor this one (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001133.jpg) either.
The real scandal about putting men on the moon was the cost : about 1% of America’s GDP per trip.
That huge sum of money could have been spent more wisely, e.g. like building additional secure mental health facilities‡ to house paranoid conspiracy-theorists.
[ ‡ preferably without internet access ]
-
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos? Did you know Hasselblad crosshairs are ETCHED into the glass and its impossible for it to be underneath a photo? All 3 Apollo 16 photos you posted are fake. (Your last photo also has missing crosshairs.) These photos have been tampered with.
Lets hear your explanation and excuse for this.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1vha1qm.png&hash=6454c057bfebcd4086209ace228c35ff)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmaestro.xp3.biz%2FGPN-2000-001123%2520close.jpg&hash=f548ceb966fcaecd960b3ebbc08d2924)
^WTF?
-
Did you know Hasselblad crosshairs are ETCHED into the glass and its impossible for it to be underneath a photo?
Which glass?
-
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?
See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423880#msg423880) from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].
-
Which glass?
The Apollo surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials".
"Fiducials" are always on top of the film.
Despite the tampering and editing of the photo #2, there is the Kubrick Horizontal right where it should be exposing the fake set....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIWqFRAR.png&hash=15cc0a7244572f3affe9dcbcfe5163cb)
-
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?
See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423880#msg423880) from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].
Thats actually a Jay Weidner quote, I'll fix that.
Weidner is a cinematographer and the sleuth who has uncovered all this fakery and that Kubrick was behind all this fake moon footage using front screen projection to do it.
Also it doesnt matter much about the crosshairs, they still cant hide the fake set. There is the Kubrick Horizontal on your photo #3...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBimcwcD.png&hash=ec11d6d4a5e773ad2c3bd61878f56af4)
-
I think you have drawn it in the wrong place!
You need to find the boundary between the local plain and the distant feature. This should be quite sharp if the camera is low enough bcause there is no atmospheric haze. Unfortuntately in this shot the camera is quite a bit higher than the middle-distance detail so there is no distinct local horizon for you to draw.
You have made the same mistake in the previous posting too.
-
RD,
Why is the Hasselblad crosshair UNDER the rover in your first 2 photos?
See "crosshair knockout" on this page ... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
The thread in front of the lens in the experiment shown on that badastronomy page,
(analogous to opaque cross-hairs in front of the film),
can be made to disappear completely in front of white objects if the contrast is increased ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm ["crosshair knockout"]
-
Here is the Hi-Res on photo #1....the crosshair is washed out but visible...I'll give you the crosshair anomalies...
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/hires/as15-82-11121.jpg
Found something very interesting about a process called Stereoscopic Parallax....and it exposes the Kubrick sets in a graphic fashion...bringing the Kubrick Horizontals to life...
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHjgds8L.gif&hash=313602d3461709a52573ac06cf14b2e9)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWJImwL0.png&hash=88b3a172d1da9f872ce7a507040dc867)
-
I think you have drawn it in the wrong place!
It's possible. I'll need to learn this process called stereoscopic parallax which UNVEILS the fake set.
In case RD missed it here it is again.....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKSp1a2C.png&hash=d5b374aa4ecdc6c81bb8cc0bb2489792)
RD are you seeing any light yet? Or are you still a diehard Apollo apologist in denial.....
-
Found something very interesting about a process called Stereoscopic Parallax....and it exposes the Kubrick sets in a graphic fashion...bringing the Kubrick Horizontals to life!
So what rotated the flat projected image of the mountains, and why?
-
[ BTW how about attributing the quote in your previous post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423880#msg423880) from an unnamed person claiming unnamed Hollywood "experts" told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].
Thats actually a Jay Weidner quote, I'll fix that.
Thanks for adding the attribution* [to Mr Weidner].
Apparently Mr Weidner's "authority (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423880#msg423880)" on the works of Mr Kubrick is not sufficient for him to have obtained the approval of Mr Kubrick's estate for his film (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-06-19/), i.e. Mr Weidner is not an official spokesperson for the late Mr Kubrick ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ * I don't suppose you could do the same for the unnamed Hollywood "experts" who told him his belief that Apollo footage was faked via front-projection was correct ].
... it doesnt matter much about the crosshairs …
Then why did you introduce the subject (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423887#msg423887) ?
There is the Kubrick Horizontal on your photo #3...
If such a screen existed it would have to extend across the entirety of the frame , not stop short as you have indicated (on LHS) (http://i.imgur.com/BimcwcD.png), [ BTW can you give us an insight into your deranged mind by drawing the “Kubrick Horizontal ” on image #1 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47147.0;attach=18176;image) [?] ]
Re : parallax effects
First you say (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423826#msg423826) absence of parallax effects , (when they actually exist (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47147.0;attach=18164;image) ), is proof of fakery,
now you say (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423914#msg423914) the effects of parallax do exist and are proof of fakery.
i.e. the presence or absence of the same phenomenon is proof of fraud,
i.e. no matter what evidence is produced it will be interpreted by you as evidence of fraud,
i.e. you are insane.
RD are you seeing any light yet? Or are you still a diehard Apollo apologist …
I have not said anything remotely apologetic about the Apollo program in this thread,
quite the reverse : I have criticized the Apollo program as a waste of money (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423881#msg423881).
So you must be mistaking me for some other contributor to this discourse , (one of the voices in your head perhaps ?).
-
So what rotated the flat projected image of the mountains, and why?
Looking closer at these, everything looks like part of a scaled down artificial panorama....
For example this Mt Hadley summit should be 22 miles away with a 1.5 mile horizon, but when you freeze the foreground and view in stereo parallax the summit looks only 40-50 meters away and the horizon 20 meters. Source of Mt Hadley gif here (http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm)
When you give a 200+ I.Q. Stanley Kubrick a blank check, he's going to produce some genius and brilliance....and filming of 2001 Space Odyssey (in collaboration with NASA East in England) was a 5+ year R&D vehicle for these cinematic techniques and the fakery we are seeing....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnWItRTV.gif&hash=830205ac28a4cf284d56bf56aa17d048)
-
Scaled down "artificial panorama" then explains the reason RD doesnt see a Kubrick Horizontal on his first photo. (I didnt see one either at first)
Kubrick Horizontal for RD photo #1 is located at the TOP of the scaled down mountain.
According to NASA this peak should be 1500+ kilometers away, but stereo parallax reveals its only 50 meters....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYwjEbGn.gif&hash=4e05b1e3e1d94af680c38fc42130181c)
-
Looking closer at these, everything looks like part of a scaled down artificial panorama....
That can happen with stereo photography if the camera positions are further apart than the distance between human eyes ...
... Pictures taken in this fashion take on the appearance of a miniature model, taken from a short distance, and those not familiar with such pictures often cannot be convinced that it is the real object
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography#Limitations_of_hyperstereo
[ Some photographic techniques can make reality can look like a miniature (models), e.g. http://vimeo.com/9679622 (http://vimeo.com/9679622) ]
... when you freeze the foreground and view in stereo parallax the summit looks only 40-50 meters away and the horizon 20 meters
It would be difficult to accurately judge distances by eye on a self-similar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similar) lunar landscape which doesn't include objects whose size is known. You haven't told us where you get these "looks only" numbers from.
... freeze the foreground ...
The image you have posted (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423942#msg423942) is highly manipulated, you should have added the caption to indicate that (according to "aulis.com") it includes ...
... Transformations of scale, rotation, reverse distortion, perspective, shift and the convergence of the two images into a stereoscopic image ...
aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
The aulis site says the separation of the camera positions in the lunar stereo image was "20cm" , (although I don't know where they got that figure). 20 cm is wider than the distance between human eyes and would account for the scaled-down miniature (model) effect ...
For making stereo images featuring only a distant object (e.g., a mountain with foothills), the camera positions can be separated by a larger distance (called the "interaxial" or stereo base, often mistakenly called "interocular") than the adult human norm of 62–65mm. This will effectively render the captured image as though it was seen by a giant, and thus will enhance the depth perception of these distant objects, and reduce the apparent scale of the scene proportionately
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_photography#Longer_base_line_for_distant_objects_.22Hyper_Stereo.22
-
When you give a 200+ I.Q. Stanley Kubrick a blank check, he's going to produce some genius and brilliance ...
Mr Kubrick’s actual IQ isn’t important, but that you apparently believe it was "200+" is ...
[Kubrick] did poorly in school and even stated that his IQ was below average.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/StanleyKubrick?from=Main.StanleyKubrick
[Kubrick] Claims that his IQ is below average.
http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2013/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-stanley-kubrick/
Average IQ is 100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ).
-
Not possible Kubrick had an 'average' I.Q.
Kubrick was not only a creative & artistic genius, but also chess master who could have achieved grand master. According to his biography Kubrick I.Q. tested 'above average' (http://books.google.com/books?id=PKMZ4_i60LYC&pg=PA23&dq=%22Interest+can+produce+learning+on+a+scale+compared+to+fear+as+a+nuclear+explosion+to+a+firecracker.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6a4EUe-WBcqaqQGf54G4CQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Interest%20can%20produce%20learning%20on%20a%20scale%20compared%20to%20fear%20as%20a%20nuclear%20explosion%20to%20a%20firecracker.%22&f=false)
"Claimed that his IQ was below average. It was rumored, however, that his IQ was around 200." http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000040/bio
Anyone with common sense would also know that NASA wouldnt hire someone who wasnt a genius to orchestrate and direct their Apollo moon hoax
-
Not possible Kubrick had an 'average' I.Q.
His true IQ is irrelevant, that he said it was below average, (below 100) , whilst individuals such as yourself repeat , without any hard evidence, that it was “200+” : i.e. you use fictional numerical values to support your argument , (you’re not going to get away with that in a science forum).
Neither of the pages you’ve linked to in the above post (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423964#msg423964) state that Mr Kubrick had his IQ measured by X and it was “200+”.
Biographies are usually written by a fanboys (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy) who are not objective, idolize their subject so are prone to exaggeration, and something which is “rumoured” is not proof of anything.
If Mr Kubrick has written an autobiography wouldn’t that be the ideal opportunity to say, “ I faked the Apollo moon footage ” as, if true, it would be his greatest achievement.
Has Mr Kubrick ever written, “ I faked the Apollo moon footage ” or “ my IQ was measured by X and is 200+” ?
[ the people who have been measured as having extremely high IQ can tell you exactly what it was , not approximate values like “200+” ]
… NASA wouldnt hire someone who wasnt a genius to orchestrate and direct their Apollo moon hoax
If NASA wanted to fake footage they would just need to hire the type of special-effects technicians Mr Kubrick used , they wouldn’t need to use a famous film director.
-
I have criticized the Apollo program as a waste of money
Apollo program certainly didnt waste any money on rivets...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4bBZ1lz.jpg&hash=39671f152046170dbd2477aace9c0bd0)
-
They did go a little heavy on the scotch tape however...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvvflXrU.jpg&hash=045373f7ae4abf1cf729aff65db29f59)
-
Apollo program certainly didnt waste any money on rivets...
They did go a little heavy on the scotch tape ...
As the lunar lander was a first, an innovation , to say "it looks improvised / not-right to me" , isn't valid criticism or proof that the moon landings didn't occur. What was the lander supposed to look like ? , like the spacecraft people have seen in fictional movies ?. The lander was not designed to land on a body with an atmosphere so wouldn't have to be aerodynamic or bullet-proof like the sci-fi versions of spacecraft.
It was made to be as light as possible, so being clad metal-foil just thick enough to shield the electronics from solar-radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening) was sufficient.
There is footage on YouTube of lunar lander trainers being flown on Earth , which despite looking like a "flying beadstead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8W2SI4c93s)" did work ..
[ sound-effects have been added , but not by NASA ]
But don't tell me, let me guess, all this footage has been faked.
-
What was the lander supposed to look like ?
Apollo Lunar Module (also known as LEM, not to be confused with LEMON) had a cost of $350 million usd, equivalent in 2013 dollars to $2,229,299,363.06
http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5k81cfr.png&hash=4acf6b18314f9ae61e605e1961aba096)
One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape. Common sense also tells anyone its risky to experiment ones life with tape to withstand extreme lunar surface temperatures or potential hit by small space meteorites or debris.
Lunar diurnal temperature range: (roughly -250 F to +250 F)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Term Apollo LEM was later changed to LM to avoid confusion with LEM(on)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiRU1ExK.png&hash=d1d6ed03722fc7f973fda1560acb1fe1)
-
Some photographic techniques can make reality can look like a miniature (models), e.g. http://vimeo.com/9679622 (http://vimeo.com/9679622)
That is really neat, I like that.
Have you seen this video....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
-
One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape.
Where is your source that "scotch tape" was the only adhesive used in the construction of the craft ?.
... potential hit by small space meteorites
The LM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module) was in-space & on-moon for about a week in total , the odds of it being hit by a meteorite would be about the same that your car on earth would be hit by one during the same period, i.e. astronomically unlikely. The high density of craters on the moon may give you a false impression that meteor impacts are much more frequent there than on Earth , but unlike on Earth, lunar craters are not erased by weathering and plate-tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics) , they just accumulate.
-
Have you seen this video....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
Re: [1:00 to 1:20 ]
You do realize that is a highly speeded up footage, [time-lapse photography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-lapse) ] ,
in reality (in real-time) what appear to be sudden rapid jerky movements on that video would have been much slower.
-
One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape.
Where is your source that "scotch tape" was the only adhesive used in the construction of the craft ?.
Don't misquote me. I never used the word "only".
However the way the tape is oddly and haphazardly applied suggests it is being used to assist in a fix of some type of insulation panel failure.
The real reason is however is Apollo LEM 11 we see in the NASA photographs never left earth, hence their arrogant and brazen disregard for safety.
-
Have you seen this video....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
You do realize that is a highly speeded up footage, in reality what appear to be sudden rapid jerky movements on that video would have been much slower.
No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.
Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonwalk_One
Moonwalk One on Youtube
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0DnzEJK.jpg&hash=5a6de2331bb609b7f347e17dc575e859)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-cyoqKjpQ)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-cyoqKjpQ
-
One would think a 2.2 billion dollar budget could purchase a safer heat resistant silicon or high temperature epoxy to hold critical life sustaining insulation panels instead of scotch tape.
Where is your source that "scotch tape" was the only adhesive used in the construction of the craft ?.
Don't misquote me. I never used the word "only".
You implied that other adhesives, e.g. “epoxy”, were not used.
The real reason is however is Apollo LEM 11 we see in the NASA photographs never left earth, hence their arrogant and brazen disregard for safety.
You're now accusing NASA of "arrogant and brazen disregard for safety", if your belief is true, that the LEM did not leave Earth, then there was no risk to safety : according to you it never left the ground so it wouldn't matter how poorly it was constructed.
[ I keep forgetting I'm talking to an insane person , I need to stop doing that ]
-
No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.
Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.
It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).
[ on the same YouTube there is another NASA docking where you can see the reflection of an astronaut in a window whose movements are speeded-up ... to 4m10s ]
-
There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.
Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
The docking footage is speeded-up, (time lapse photography), hence the jerky movements.
On the same YouTube there is another NASA docking where you can see the reflection of an astronaut in a window whose movements are highly speeded-up ... to 4m10s
I did mention the docking footage was speeded-up in another thread where KubricksOdyssey falsely accused me of dishonesty : they said I "made that up (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423995#msg423995)". [Isn't an apology in order ?].
-
No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.
Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.
It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).
Yup, much of the orbital maneuvering footage for popular consumption is time-lapse, otherwise it can be really boring. A few years ago, I went to the Science Museum in London, where they had a room set aside for a couple of weeks, showing film excerpts from all the manned space flights, and from cameras not normally shown. When I got there, they were showing some of the Gemini flights and space walks, in real-time; amazing, hypnotic stuff, and it all looked like slow-motion. I spent 45 mins in there watching one of the EVAs when they were trying out moving around using handrails - incredibly slow and difficult.
Having just come back from seeing 'Gravity' today, the contrast was striking - amazing though the zero-g scenes were, they mostly looked way too fast, especially the EVA scenes. But naturally they had to sacrifice realism in several areas in order to make an exciting film.
You should be able to find the real time taken for each Apollo 11 maneuver by checking the NASA logs and transcripts - for example, immediately after the trans-lunar injection burn, it took about 12.5 minutes after the separation of the command service module (CSM) from the launch adapter to turn it around and dock it with the lunar module (LEM). See EP-72 Log of Apollo 11 (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11-35ann/apollo11_log/log.htm) for the overview, and the Air-to-Ground Tech. Transcript (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS11_TEC.PDF) for the detail (pages 18-19). You should be able to find all the relevant transcript timings for the other LEM maneuvers in lunar orbit (although I don't think they had the camera on for the Apollo 11 LEM undocking).
For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether you think it was all faked or not - it simply makes it clear that much of the film footage is time-lapsed relative to the event sequences.
-
It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).
Nope, Look how SLOWLY the Apollo 11 LEM rotation is for docking. A 4th grader can see its in REAL TIME.
Apollo 12 clip immediately after is in REAL TIME and wasnt speeded up "to save time" either.
It is was clearly made with some type of hollywood effect.The question then becomes why is NASA releasing fake footage attempting to pass it off as real?
-
Here is Apollo 11 LEM speeded up to save time.
Note how it was filmed in either front or rear screen projection....this special effect was also seen in Dr. Strangelove B-52 scenes...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1178.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx379%2FElvisinpersonator%2FApolo-11-lift-off-from-the-.gif&hash=becabe557fe20da9094319320f61f070)
-
No, its not "highly speeded up" one bit. You made that up.
Its stock NASA footage that anyone can find in Apollo 11 documentaries such as Moonwalk One released in 1970.
It is quite reasonable that NASA speeded-up the footage: it would be tedious to watch in real-time, ( it would take hours).
Yup, much of the orbital maneuvering footage for popular consumption is time-lapse, otherwise it can be really boring.
Watch the "swinging antenna arm" in Apollo 12 clip immediately after Apollo 11.
The "swinging antenna arm" wouldnt be moving in a slow fluid motion if the video speed was tampered with.
Both clips were presented as "real time" by NASA in 1970. One only sees a short clip, not a sped up clip.
-
You should be able to find the real time taken for each Apollo 11 maneuver by checking the NASA logs and transcripts ...
As the ascent stage reached apolune at 125 hours, 19 minutes, the reaction control system, or RCS, fired so as to nearly circularize the Eagle orbit at about 56 miles, some 13 miles below and slightly behind Columbia. Subsequent firings of the LM RCS changed the orbit to 57 by 72 miles. Docking with Columbia occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html
128-125= 3 hours , I'm not sure for how long of those 3 hours "Eagle" would have been visible to "Columbia" as it approached, ( from how many miles can you see something the size of a camper-van without atmosphere impeding visibility ? ).
-
RD you seem clearly disturbed by this fake Apollo 11 docking model.
If you find out this clip is in REAL TIME what will your next excuse and apologetic be?
That strong resistance from Moons upper atnosphere aided by lunar cross winds caused the jerky movements? lol
:)
-
Here is Apollo 11 LEM speeded up to save time.
Note how it was filmed in either front or rear screen projection...
#1. Make your mind up which projection method was used to fake the footage.
#2. Provide evidence to prove that was the case.
otherwise please don't bother us (or anyone else) with this drivel ever again.
-
#1. Make your mind up which projection method was used to fake the footage.
A special effects expert would be able to tell. It looks like it could be either in this case.
Here is the Apollo 17 rendezvous at same speed, nothing sped up.
Notice the moon in the background is passing by at the same speed as Apollo 11 moon....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FH3ZRxkQ.png&hash=0d84e31e27a1397d225ad72267ac0989) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebcMAwtahmU)
-
Watch the "swinging antenna arm" in Apollo 12 clip immediately after Apollo 11.
The "swinging antenna arm" wouldnt be moving in a slow fluid motion if the video speed was tampered with.
Both clips were presented as "real time" by NASA in 1970. One only sees a short clip, not a sped up clip.
To me it looks like the Apollo 12 clip is real time - all the movement and moon going past in the background looks slower than the Apollo 11 clip - but it's hard to say, the camera angle looks slightly different. I don't see what the problem is with the movement - the thrusters were powerful and precise and the LEM was a very low-mass vehicle. The high-gain antenna in the Apollo 12 clip wasn't 'dangling' as the video suggested, it had a springy gimballed mounting, and looked like it was being stowed prior to docking.
But hey, if you want to believe it was all some global conspiracy, knock yourself out (why didn't the Russians spoil the party?)
-
To me it looks like the Apollo 12 clip is real time - all the movement and moon going past in the background looks slower than the Apollo 11 clip - but it's hard to say.
If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.
Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.
-
If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.
Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.
Why would I? - whether there's lime-lapse or not in those clips, I don't see the problem.
-
If any time lapse is present, It would be very easy to prove with a simple experiment.
Locate all 6 of the Apollo mission LEM rendezvous clips on Youtube, tile the windows and play them simultaneously in comparison.
Why would I? - whether there's lime-lapse or not in those clips, I don't see the problem.
RD sees a problem, I'm waiting to hear his explanation why a real time clip is jerky and looks like a time lapse clip.
RD's claim of edited time-lapse would also show a moon spinning as fast as a basketball.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiSRJhLM.gif&hash=b928f101860ae73e41b466e92dd2731d)
-
There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.
Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
Here's a link to stock footage of docking on Apollo 12 ...
Apollo 12 / NASA / Lunar Module / 1969 ... http://footage.framepool.com/en/play/789153847
again (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423995#msg423995) the reflection of the astronaut in the window shows the docking footage has been speeded-up , (by NASA).
Still think the Apollo 11 rendezvous YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s) is in real-time ?
-
There is a minority of people who think it may have been done with a scale model.
Apollo 11 ascent and rendezvous video from 1969 is quite bizarre if one hasn't seen it lately...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tndlUy.png&hash=095e94c0490030c1d65337da3f5fb092) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s)
Apollo 11's Strange Docking
Here's a link to stock footage of docking on Apollo 12 ...
Apollo 12 / NASA / Lunar Module / 1969 ... http://footage.framepool.com/en/play/789153847
again (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423995#msg423995) the reflection of the astronaut in the window shows the docking footage has been speeded-up , (by NASA).
Still think the Apollo 11 rendezvous YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDfQqwh4-4s) is in real-time ?
Thats the same Apollo 12 clip I posted. Has the same swinging antenna arm. I played both the Youtube version and Framepool side by side and they are identical speeds.
Framepool also has the Apollo 11 strange docking footage and playing them side by side, yes it is at different speeds, a bit slower but not by a whole lot, I wouldnt consider anything "highly speeded" up.
One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played.
Shutterstock has the same copy as Youtube http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-3936131-stock-footage--s-apollo-eagle-spacecraft-docks-with-columbia.html?src=search/bxY8at6yb2YWN1_oej-vAQ:1:1
Play it at 5% or 500% Apollo 11 docking footage is FAKE
If you want to see what a REAL Apollo docking looks like, here is Apollo-Soyuz 1975....
http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-3903479-stock-footage--s-the-apollo-soyuz-mission-of-docking-maneuver.html
-
Framepool also has the Apollo 11 strange docking footage and playing them side by side, yes it is at different speeds …
A glimmer of sanity ? : you now acknowledge the Apollo docking footage is speeded-up, and you’re now going to apologise to me for falsely accusing me of mendacity when I told you the footage was time-lapse (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423993#msg423993) ?.
One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played.
Oh dear the madness returns [:(] . If slowed-down any motion, no matter how jerky, becomes smooth and fluid , e.g. a punch to the head …
So to say “One can still see all the same goofy jerky unnatural fake movements at any speed it is played” is nonsense : if it was slowed down to the correct speed the jerkiness would disappear.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fv2Vf2HiGj-A%2Fhqdefault.jpg&hash=49ac03aa389b636597d0b35511803364)
-
you now acknowledge the Apollo docking footage is speeded-up, and you’re now going to apologise to me?
We'll call that one a draw......since you still cannot see the obvious fakery and your tendency toward ad-hominen.
Let me say I do appreciate the feedback from everyone so far on items I am presenting.
-
More media.....
Here is one of the biggest bungles of the Apollo 11 photos.
Its just not possible for light from the Sun to create a "hotspot" on Aldrins boot where he is. There is only one explanation for this "hotspot" and that is from a studio light, there were no flash bulbs or back lights on the moon.
This is a MAJOR oops by NASA and if they hadn't missed it, they would have airbrushed this studio light hotspot out.....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGb5BfMJ.jpg&hash=f5412f7dfa5d655001b430baf36d7659)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIqmoN1g.jpg&hash=cc3e6038693c0b0f5959dee0d9adc143)
-
The surface of the moon is not matt-black : it reflects light from the sun.
The reflection of sunlight from the surface of the moon is the second source of light illuminating the shadow side of the lunar lander. [ The very reflective white spacesuit of the photographer may contribute to the "fill (https://www.google.com/search?q=photography+reflector+fill)" on this occasion].
You only have to look at the lower surfaces of the suit and backpack to see this backscatter illumination. As you say, this stuff has been dealt with elsewhere; I suspect trolling.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Possible explanation : after the moon rock was given to Holland someone stole it and switched it a terrestrial one , (who could tell a switch had taken place , except a geologist ).
If you are suggesting Neil was distributing fake moon rocks, then all the specimens he gave out would be dummies, dummy.
-
Its just not possible for light from the Sun to create a "hotspot" on Aldrins boot where he is. There is only one explanation for this "hotspot" and that is from a studio light, there were no flash bulbs or back lights on the moon.
The surface of the moon is not matt-black : it reflects light from the sun.
The reflection of sunlight from the surface of the moon is the second source of light illuminating the shadow side of the lunar lander. [ The very reflective white spacesuit of the photographer may contribute to the "fill (https://www.google.com/search?q=photography+reflector+fill)" on this occasion].
The this and other alleged anomalies on moon photos have been addressed before, in this forum and elsewhere. Maybe if you have spotted some new anomaly , (rather than regurgitating the work of other paranoid conspiracy theorists), it may be worth posting here , but other than that please don't bother wasting any more of your or our time posting about moon-hoax-conspiracy here.
-
The surface of the moon is not matt-black : it reflects light from the sun.
The reflection of sunlight from the surface of the moon is the second source of light illuminating the shadow side of the lunar lander. [ The very reflective white spacesuit of the photographer may contribute to the "fill (https://www.google.com/search?q=photography+reflector+fill)" on this occasion].
You only have to look at the lower surfaces of the suit and backpack to see this backscatter illumination. As you say, this stuff has been dealt with elsewhere; I suspect trolling.
or another psychiatric case [:(]
KubricksOdyssey got his pseudonym from a film by Jay Weidner.
I've had a butchers at Mr Weidner's eponymous web-page apparently he (Mr Weidner) is a full-blown nut-case ...
"The only people who call conspiracies ' theories' are the conspirators."
- Weidner's Third Law of the Universe
jayweidner.com
"Law of the Universe " [;D]
jayweidner.com
Description:
DVDs, videos, books and articles concerned with alchemy, shamanism, the apocalypse, the transformation and transmutation of the human race and our true potential as human beings. Among the subjects discussed are Stanley Kubrick and his film 2001: A Space Oddyssey, J R R Tolkien, Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings, The Alchemy of Time, The Ka, the Ba and the Kabbalah, The God Star and much more. The books that Weidner has written include Mysteries of the Great Cross at Hendaye, A Monument to the End of Time and his DVD Secrets of Alchemy.
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/jayweidner.com
So any disciple of Mr Weidner is seriously lacking in critical faculties : if Mr Weener Weidner is a successful alchemist why does he have to sell DVDs / books when he can turn base-metal into gold ?.
-
The problem for NASA was that although Kubrick was a US citizen, (a) he was a director, not an engineer and (b) his special effects teams were based in Shepperton, Bray, and Elstree studios, in the UK, so he wouldn't have been the first choice to fake anything in secret.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but you need a more plausible culprit.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fnkv8rHx.jpg&hash=be423a85c1397894670208bd9ff4c92f)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhN03O6l.jpg&hash=383e77fff1c347dc5424eb762de88e96)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FObnlsvM.jpg&hash=f2310d1a73f56eb3f24b19207fd7ac6b)
-
The problem for NASA was that although Kubrick was a US citizen, (a) he was a director, not an engineer and (b) his special effects teams were based in Shepperton, Bray, and Elstree studios, in the UK, so he wouldn't have been the first choice to fake anything in secret.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but you need a more plausible culprit.
"Senior NASA Apollo administrator George Mueller and astronaut Deke Slayton are said to have dubbed "2001's" Borehamwood, England production facilities "NASA East""
The Special Effects of "2001: A Space Odyssey"
By George D. DeMet
Originallly published in DFX, July 1999
http://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/dfx.html
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1178.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx379%2FElvisinpersonator%2FApolo-11-lift-off-from-the-.gif&hash=becabe557fe20da9094319320f61f070)
-
Again no original observations : just regurgitating alleged-anomalies which have been dealt with before.
Normal in-camera effects explain flare-spots and fogging, you can see some on the moon-panorama I posted earlier in this thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47147.0;attach=18172;image) : [ than lens-camera combo seems prone to flare when pointed 45o from the sun ]. There is also the possibility of fogging the film when it was outside the camera , via light or radiation.
-
RD,
Here's your challenge:
Show me any video of a Lunar Rover Diver...
1. "moving" their body seated in the rover on the moon.
2. "getting in and out" of a rover while on the moon.
You cannot do either one.
-
Rover drivers are always STILL and MOTIONLESS, proving they are fake.
One would think the Apollo 16 driver in the famous "Grand Prix" video would maybe wave or turn his head, but nope, hes MOTIONLESS as a dummy....
-
^ It's truly amazing how people fell for this "dummy driving a rover" crap.
-
One would think the Apollo 16 driver in the famous "Grand Prix" video would maybe wave or turn his head ...
Yes that was careless of him not to look-out for other vehicles. [:)]
Was it even possible for the wearer to turn the helmet of an Apollo space suit ? ...
... One inconvenience with some space suits is the head being fixed facing forwards and being unable to turn to look sideways. Astronauts call this effect "alligator head."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_suit#Contributing_technologies
[ BTW you were looking for images of a lunar rover being unloaded (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423828#msg423828) , here's a YouTube of that.
... ]
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4gytL.gif&hash=087ec93123d8bd6aa3e0163cb5a1f154)
-
You would think for the billions spent they would have better fake photos.
-
RD, do you see the crafty use of miniatures work they did yet?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F098DS.gif&hash=df6d1b8435c4f5b26b4ed90ff8f5eaec)
-
Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" is leading people in the wrong direction.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKoHWX9Q.gif&hash=89343e266d75d62fc487ed3c56551832)
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPMnhzcP.jpg&hash=a4278bee7c216c6b7ee1893aade4f580)
-
So what do you think was the reason for faking so many landings, when only one or two would seem to be plenty?
And how did the 'Apollo 15' laser ranging reflectors (that are still in use around the world) get there?
-
RD, do you see the crafty use of miniatures work they did yet?
Your memory is failing : I told you about the miniature effect that occurs with stereo-photography if the camera positions are further apart than human eyes (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423947#msg423947).
One would think the Apollo 16 driver in the famous "Grand Prix" video would maybe wave or turn his head ...
Did you find out whether it is possible for the wearer of an Apollo space-suit to turn the helmet ?
Your "dwarf" astronaut is a normal-sized one kneeling ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You're now scraping the bottom of the conspiracy-theorist-barrel.
-
You're linking* to images from the aulis website , who apparently rate the opinion of telepathic tat-seller Uri Geller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Career) ...
One thing is clear – the Moon shots may have been for real, but some of the photographic evidence appears to be crudely faked.
Uri Geller
[Uri Geller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Career)] designs a range of jewellery that he sells on QVC, creates pottery, exhibits his artwork around the world and he has written 15 books (and is just finishing his fourth novel).
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/nov/08/features.jobsmoney1
[ * aulis won't be happy you're using their bandwidth without people seeing the adverts for their conspiracy-theory books and DVDs about the moon landings, and how the "face on Mars (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars)" was constructed by aliens, which they allege NASA is trying to keep secret ].
-
You're linking* to images from the aulis website
Uri Geller
* aulis won't be happy you're using their bandwidth
constructed by aliens
RD,
Are Logical Fallacies such as Guilt-by-association, Poisoning the Well and Ad-hominem all you have?
Fallacies
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I link all my images to Imgur or photo hosting servies and rarely ever hotlink.unless I am pressed for time.
You haven't adequately explained any of this stuff.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPQJ3ZxG.jpg&hash=06e5aca7e17f518a8727f8f47ee9f402)
-
So what do you think was the reason for faking so many landings, when only one or two would seem to be plenty?
And how did the 'Apollo 15' laser ranging reflectors (that are still in use around the world) get there?
It's all a mystery.
However, we do know the Russians also have moon rocks. So evidently you don't have send men to the moon to get those rocks or deposit reflectors.
-
... Guilt-by-association ...
You are reposting material from the aulis site by Jack D white, "All studies © 2005/7 Jack White".
That's the same Jack D. White, (1927-2012) , who also claimed the Zapruder film was a fake.
So your source of information on anomalous moon images is from a paranoid geriatric, (such conditions are more common amongst the elderly (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257410/)).
That's not "Guilt-by-association" : it's exposing the flakey source of your material.
BTW you've been reproducing old-Jack's "studies" here without giving him credit, (naughty naughty).
-
Your poisoning-the-well tactics are transparent RD
Photos presented are all from NASA, (not Jack White whoever he is.)
Genuine NASA photos (that anyone can verify) really have you reaching for excuses.
-
... Photos presented are all from NASA, (not Jack White whoever he is.)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Your image http://i.imgur.com/nkv8rHx.jpg is http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/redreflection.jpg
Your image http://i.imgur.com/hN03O6l.jpg is http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12dinespotlight.jpg
Your image http://i.imgur.com/ObnlsvM.jpg is http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lensflaresstudy.jpg
The Jack in "jackimages" is Jack D. White ... http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html
So like I said (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg424458#msg424458) you're posting critical "studies" of NASA photos created by Jack D. White without giving him credit, (the text and processed images are his creations).
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712) [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5.html
Jack and his "Editor" should have done a course in optics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics) , the "anomalous halo" around
the top half of the astronaut's shadow is a normal diffraction effect , see insert derived from ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arago_spot#Calculation_of_diffraction_images
-
Click to play:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdTbqJ5c.png&hash=7758d6b346fc04ff764d23c2a81897c9) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8)
-
The spacesuits are pressurized, (inflated), which makes them stiff like a dummy / blow-up doll.
The wearers have to fight against the suit to deviate from the neutral position which has the arm out in front as if reaching for a door-handle (not hanging down by their side) and knees bent , (see the unoccupied pressurised suit below right) ...
[ Invalid Attachment ] (http://youtu.be/lY_4vSmPMy0?t=31m47s)
The jiggling Hassleblad (which is speeded-up) (http://youtu.be/eK3R2en4p_8?t=45s) is not under such pressure to remain in the same position like the arms of the astronauts.
Even if this ancient poorly-rated* Russian geezer has made “200 movies” it would not necessarily make his (possibly nationalistic) opinion that the American rover footage is faked, true : no actual evidence of fakery offered by the elderly comrade.
[ * "Vsevolod Yakubovich (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg424683#msg424683)" apparently has a poor-rating ..."1 vote (0%, 4801 Place)" ... http://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/acter/m/ros/373757/bio/ (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kino-teatr.ru%2Fkino%2Facter%2Fm%2Fros%2F373757%2Fbio%2F)]
-
RD, I have a bridge for sale, wanna buy it?
Same mission, different rovers....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbwMFoSn.jpg&hash=c8c6f0bd8da7519a0934cae0ec100442)
-
Assuming the rover images are as described by you, a possible explanation is they are the same rover, not different as you allege (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg425046#msg425046), just that part of the rear left fender has been removed, e.g. to take home so the defect that made the right one fall off could be identified.
Even your favourite website "aulis" doesn't claim these are different rovers , just that part of rear fender has been removed for some unfathomable reason ... http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverfinalcomp.jpg (http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverfinalcomp.jpg)
Wasn't the footage of the departure from the moon recorded from a camera mounted on the parked rover ?, If so maybe they would need to add a camera to the rover and associated paraphernalia, causing it to appear different.
Re: "why was [the rover] parked so far from the LEM (http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverfinalcomp.jpg)". They would need to park it some distance from the lander so the equipment broadcasting the departure on the rover (e.g. antennae) wouldn't be hit by debris as the lander blasted off from the moon ...
[ BTW Including a "selfie" doesn't help make your case ].
-
From Aulis....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8KkNM7A.jpg&hash=689ac3a4b08a3b352ed856d86989efaf)
Congratulations to R.D...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHa6p2DJ.png&hash=6ed08d354d9b2de559fdd9b5e7d8a496)
-
I certainly wouldn't be too concerned with a shovel and rake being in one photo, and absent in the next. Perhaps someone actually USED THEM. In fact, it would seem more suspicious if all the tools and containers always remained the same.
The steering in the left photo appears to be in a neutral position. In the right photo, it is turned to the max. So, the steering linkages on the left side of the car look very elongated, and short on the right side of the car. It is a strange looking steering linkage, but nothing looks too miraculous. Going through a pile of photos from each trip, I would imagine a better history could be built.
When looking at the images, find some higher res images:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20542HR.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Apollo_17_rover_at_final_resting_site.jpg
So, sample bags and containers were mysteriously removed sometime during the mission... hmmm.
And, shouldn't you find it extraordinary that the astronaut in the left photo wasn't left on the rover when it was left on the moon?
There is nothing in the photos that would indicate to me that the rovers weren't in fact used. The patched fender likely fell off.
The mesh tire design may throw regolith somewhat, making the fenders a useful addition (and thus hasty repair).
-
From Aulis....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8KkNM7A.jpg&hash=689ac3a4b08a3b352ed856d86989efaf)
You're still not giving old-Jack credit I see (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg424460#msg424460) [:(], not even by posting a link ... http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverchanges.jpg (http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverchanges.jpg)
As I mentioned in my previous post if the rover was used as a platform to transmit the moon departure footage, equipment would be added to it after it was in its final parking place, making it appear different from when it was tootling about earlier.
( the apparatus between "2" and "7" on the picture on the right could be a camera pointed at the LEM ).
-
if the rover was used as a platform to transmit the moon departure footage, equipment would be added to it after it was in its final parking place
Good point.
If one was merely loading and unloading the rover, one would park it within a few feet of the lunar module. Setting it back a few hundred feet likely was to get better views of the capsule when it took off, as well as protecting cameras and antennas.
-
You're still not giving old-Jack credit I see (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg424460#msg424460) [:(], not even by posting a link ... http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverchanges.jpg (http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverchanges.jpg)
You're still not giving old-Jack credit for finding the cut & paste earth... (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.disclose.tv%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_e_surprised.gif&hash=1f5d486a463fa4660f4bfae0dd40f2e6)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FC9BjioR.jpg&hash=f78081f28ab73ebc54ed7f78754be630)
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/jack-whites-apollo-hoax-evidence.html
-
It all started back in '62....
Click to play:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4tRrp1y.png&hash=48e526d41193b0a27424401a39066bca) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knq6zXOqlaY)
-
You're still not giving old-Jack credit for finding the cut & paste earth...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
That looks like blocky artefacts (https://www.google.com/search?q=blocky+artefacts) around the lit side of Earth created by lossy compression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression) (e.g. jpeg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#JPEG_compression) format image).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471HR.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20471HR.jpg)
So we can add digital-artefacts to optics (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg424476#msg424476) as subjects old-Jack did not comprehend.
There is generation loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss) when using lossy compression formats ... , each copy adds more artefacts.
and if a story can be written in rhyme it must be true , right ? [:)]
That you're attempting to present a song as evidence to support your case shows you've lost your mind, (and your argument).
-
Here's a much less grainy image to start with.
http://agaudi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/as17-134-20471hr.jpg
You have to seriously mess with the brightness/contrast on the photo, but one does find a little halo around the Earth. Not square, but nicely rounded.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This is seriously pushing the maximum exposure of the film and film/digital conversion. Presumably if you wished to get a better image, then one should, use a brighter light for the film/digital conversion, as well as a longer exposure period for the original image.
I presume what you're seeing is the thermosphere, which is pretty extraordinary that it is even picked up in the image.
This would actually be more evidence that the photo is NOT faked. If it was faked, one would merely cut out the little earth photo and paste it in, and one would miss the thermosphere altogether.
Why is it partly visible in the shaded portion? That portion would still get sunlight, and would be hot. However, fully shaded portion would be 200 to 250 degrees cooler, and not as bright, as well as not having any reflected light.
I agree with RD that the square is probably just a compression artifact.
-
You have to seriously mess with the brightness/contrast on the photo, but one does find a little halo around the Earth. Not square, but nicely rounded.
The aura/flare/halo around the Earth is what gives the conspicuous jpeg artifacts if you have a high compression ratio jpeg ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
My money would be on the aura/flare/halo occurring in-camera-lens, rather than an atmospheric effect,
(but I've never been to the moon).
The scanning [digitizing] of the film/print would have also introduced artifacts : the parallel (horizontal) lines. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg425064#msg425064)
-
A quick Google finds: Gene Cernan fixes a rear fender on the lunar rover during Apollo 17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzHEyUkyt9Y).
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXzHQ5RY.png&hash=4bea04dc2ec44e363c024e92a8ef7058)
-
Here's two more Apollo 17 rovers where paint schemes on the trays do not match.
Notice one rover has white paint around the screws while the other does not...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9kXdHNv.jpg&hash=ce708860da0ddc3db146361a9ea7c084)
-
Only really two possible explanations for all the different rover continuity errors in Apollo 17.
Incompetence , or better answer is likely an inside whistleblower hoping someone at a later time would see all this obvious fakery.
The question posed by OP "Were the Lunar Rovers faked?" has been answered....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKDfbL42.jpg&hash=0ed8dc11b80356576457f344043248fd)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FycRvrn4.png&hash=9582b646eaf9242aeba0e222b7968682)
-
The LRV fenders had retractable (and breakable) sections. The different paint schemes belong to separate interchangeable stowage units. For additional info see Boeing's LRV information press release (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_LunarRover2.pdf).
If you actually tried verifying some of these fakery claims, you might learn something.
-
Here's two more Apollo 17 rovers where paint schemes on the trays do not match.
Notice one rover has white paint around the screws while the other does not...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9kXdHNv.jpg&hash=ce708860da0ddc3db146361a9ea7c084)
Using different types of black&White film , e.g. normal panchromatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchromatic_film) Vs infra-red (https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=642&q=infrared+photography+black+and+white&oq=infrared+photography+bl&gs_l=img.1.0.0.2843.11459.0.14195.23.15.0.8.8.0.210.2142.2j11j2.15.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..2.21.1863.6q9A-mxjzNQ) , is a possible explanation.
Is there a record of the film-types used ?
If the film used was the same in both cases then a colour filter added to the lens can explain different renditions of the same object if it is coloured ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=60
Apparently NASA had some camera lens filters ...
In addition to the Hasselblad cameras, Apollo 8 carried a black and white television camera,
a 16mm motion picture camera, exposure meters, several types of filters, and other camera accessories.
http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html
-
This is interesting.... Could you field a question Dr. Calverd?
-
Yes, if I found the subject matter the least bit interesting.
-
Oops, never mind. I found the answer.... thanks though.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzDJWog1.png&hash=d1e43705e45ad7a977a386345375d9eb)
-
This is interesting...
Its extremely interesting.
Watching 97-99% of the worlds top name scientists succumb to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind is an incredible sight to witness.
Not to mention the billions of people that were hoaxed...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgpRGkPH.jpg&hash=99871060d36b78672c701f06cdbb89f7)
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzDJWog1.png&hash=d1e43705e45ad7a977a386345375d9eb)
Have you never heard of Godwin's "law" ? ...
... whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
Have I heard of Godwins Law? Yes.
I'm not playing the "Hitler card" here or trying to equate anyone with "Nazi's" to "posion the well."
It just happens to be an amazing quote. Here is the important part of the quote.....
"Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdIuWSwS.png&hash=15d53400632fee4b8116e615ec5b582b) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIzBUMVT7o)
Click Image to Play
Its called Cognitive Dissonance. R.D.,
Cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
-
Hey KubricksOdyssey (nice to meet you)....
So I've been looking at this now for a while. There are certainly some very curious aspects to it. This has undoubtedly been discussed extensively but I have a few questions for anyone who can provide me with the currently accepted explanation. I'll start with a question about the sun. Maybe if Dr. Calverd stumbles accross this thread he could help.
While looking into it, I came across research by one Jack White, a seemingly credible professional/expert photographer. His observation that the sun is too large by eight or nine diameters is odd enough by itself....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fa98065aa9e5dc82227f703917fc599d4.gif&hash=58c3263858f7bb5071b88cd9917eef00)
…. but the computer analysis he did that accompanies it showing an easily recognizable high intensity light bulb as the actual light source....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fb94d2182f786cdb354ec8f02018af6ff.gif&hash=780fe570e894cb9c93fea20fdfab75cd)
….really got my attention.
Is there some currently accepted logical explanation that debunks his observation and analysis?
-
[ Invalid Attachment ] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oIzBUMVT7o)
Below is a gif animation of the frames at 2:14 & 2:23 of the YouTube above ( 5oIzBUMVT7o ) showing the background moving behind the "large rock", (due to parallax), contrary to what is written on the YouTube screen : "[the large rock] does not hide things behind it at all ..."
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Jack White, a seemingly credible professional/expert photographer ...
Is there some currently accepted logical explanation that debunks his observation and analysis?
Lens flare . e.g. ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1e%2FLens_Flare.jpg%2F239px-Lens_Flare.jpg&hash=89ab5fbeadb1e66bb1af7560955dada8)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare)
[ BTW it's worth mentioning old-Jack claimed the Zapruder film was also faked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMKaLTMrznw) :
paranoid conspiracy-theorists rarely confine themselves to one conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_origins) ].
-
Thanks RD.... And the computer analysis?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fc1a831d2d9342a4d2720f46dc18df6e8.gif&hash=06159acde43589676b8c12b887610bb9)
What's your opinion about that RD?
-
Thanks RD.... And the computer analysis?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fc1a831d2d9342a4d2720f46dc18df6e8.gif&hash=06159acde43589676b8c12b887610bb9)
What's your opinion about that RD?
It looks like a pineapple.
If the green bit is supposed to be the bulb (screw?) fitting, that would be behind the bulb, rather than to one side , so not visible when looking at a spot-lamp reflector head-on.
The outer ring and diagonal features are lens flare , e.g. ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
If the outer-circle was a spot-lamp-reflector, part of it would be blocked by the space-craft which is between the camera and the alleged spotlight.
It's a complete circle, so it's not the rim of a spot-lamp-reflector.
-
So, your opinion RD is that lens flare accounts for the Sun appearing almost ten times larger than it should and that the result of rhe computer analysis resembles a pineapple.... and we mustn't forget to mention the Kennedy assasination! Is this what passes for critical thinking these days?
Doesn't look like a pineapple to me....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F03225a8c47afb2a988370dbc66b43131.gif&hash=031a62684db798945cbaf0ec1465214c)
-
No amount of evidence or refutation , (six pages of it in this thread) , will alter the views of conspiracy theorists (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg429770#msg429770) : they are delusional and not susceptible to reason.
The ones that believe in multiple large-scale conspiracies are clearly suffering from a degree of paranoid psychosis : everywhere they look they believe hundreds of people are conspiring against them.
-
If the green bit is supposed to be the bulb (screw?) fitting, that would be behind the bulb, rather than to one side, so not visible when looking at a spot-lamp reflector head-on.
No, it's very common for high intensity discharge and other bulbs (both single and double ended) to be mounted that way (below), so your assertion above about all lamp fittings/sockets being invariably hidden behind the bulb when looking at the reflector head on is easily proven false and lends no credibility to your explanation....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F37e0ac4b11e8f4a4c16b5a9870aa3cb6.gif&hash=9175d5a527525b350b2fb93bd0376907)
Moving on, it's the image below that was examined....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.picasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fc0b2a76635327089d1d1efb93c15fec7.gif&hash=78efe89e929d890df124f6d3f3de104f)
….not the image below that you posted from Wikipedia. That's not the photograph that was examined and so is useless for the purpose of answering the questions I posed about the abnormally large size of the Sun as photographed from the lunar surface and the computer analysis of it....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.picasion.com%2Fpic77%2Fb17aac1006549b86b8dae8d12cbe0359.gif&hash=e6b3a0edec1de5c78dbbd7df61e57395)
The computer analysis is of the solid white circular portion of the photograph I posted that's supposed to represent the Sun itself, and nobody said anything about the outer ring of the lense flare being the outer edge of a reflector. This effectively renders your assertion about the outer ring of the lense flare (in a different photograph) showing up between the LEM and the camera being proof it couldn't be an artificial light source meaningless.
BTW it's worth mentioning old-Jack White claimed the Zapruder film was also faked....
Bringing up JFK to discredit Jack White? Go ahead.... it doesn't change the information conveyed by the photograph showing the Sun as being abnormally large or the computer analysis showing anomolous solar characteristics.... it contributes nothing to your explanation.
….paranoid conspiracy theorists rarely confine themselves to one conspiacy.
Implying that anyone who asks questions is a paranoid conspiracy theorist? Go ahead.... I'm just asking straightforward science questions.
No amount of evidence or refutation , (six pages of it in this thread) , will alter the views of conspiracy theorists : they are delusional and not susceptible to reason.
The ones that believe in multiple large-scale conspiracies are clearly suffering from a degree of paranoid psychosis : everywhere they look they believe hundreds of people are conspiring against them.
So, I don't know about the rest of the thread, but at least when it comes to this exchange between us about these two particular questions (the abnormal size of the Sun and the computer analysis), your “explanation” provably consists of nothing more than false, useless, meaningless assumptive assertions and conclusions arrived at through misinterpreted data from a photograph that's not even under consideration, all highlighted by a bunch of infantile stereotyping nonsense generally directed at anyone who asks questions.
In view of the above it can't by any definition be called an explanation because you didn't answer, prove, refute or provide evidence of anything. Maybe someone else (Are you there Dr. Calverd?) can provide me with a more coherent explanation without all the disturbing derisive nonsense, misinterpretation and inaccuracy.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
-
A flare spot can make the diameter of the sun appear to be bigger ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
diagonal flare spots can make the sun look like a light-bulb if contrast is increased ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=3cd4f4119996b42d10f5ed9eb0e8d712) [ Invalid Attachment ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
-
….increasing contrast causes sun to become to become the diameter of flare spot.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18818%3Bimage&hash=a66e697b7da9fc50ea4a3cd3281e18a7)
Remarkable RD the way you were able to create the solid white effect above, filling in the lense flare and turning it completely white. You're right, it looks just like the abnormally large Sun in the photograph I posted below. Unfortunately, it's provably of absolutely no use in explaining the abnormal size of the Sun in the photograph I posted (the one you seem unable to directly address). You see, the difference between the effect you were able to achieve above by manipulating that photograph from Wikipedia and the photograph I posted below (AS12-46-6765) is that the photograph I posted below showing the Sun almost ten times larger than it should be was not manipulated or altered to fill in the lens flare and turn it completely white, it is verifiably an authentic un-altered photograph of the Sun as seen and photographed by the Apollo astronauts from the lunar surface....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F48a79a988e9165c6ae943fc5181dcaa0.gif&hash=60069e6e8f6a51e0c51662e5cd8cb3e9)
Even this old eighth grade dropout knows that it's patently absurd to think for a moment that the ability to create an altered photograph that makes the Sun appear abnormally large could somehow explain the Sun appearing abnormally large in an un-altered photograph. It's literally worthless for the purpose of answering the question I posed about the abnormal size of the Sun in the un-altered photograph (AS12-46-6765) I posted.... by that line of reasoning this element of your explanation is logically rejected.
….flare spots look like neck of light bulb when contrast increased.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18816%3Bimage&hash=ba4a1e7f4d3bc370c0256ee14e8649af)
Very creative the way you darkened the image to isolate that part of the lens flare, it really does look like a light bulb! Again though, unfortunately, it's provably of absolutely no use in explaining the anomolous appearance of the solar disk itself in the enhancement of the photograph I posted. Upon closer examination, unlike the “light bulb/pineapple” that appears across the entirety of the solar disk, the flare spots making up the neck of your “light bulb” are clearly recognizable as just that.... flare spots. Everyone has seen computer enhanced/filtered images of the Sun. I've seen hundreds like those below on the left and I've never seen anything even remotely similar to the stunningly anomolous appearance of the solar disk as revealed by the enhanced image of it from the photograph taken by the astronauts on the lunar surface I posted. In fact, its appearance is so outrageously incongruous with what we know of the Sun the adjective “anomolous” is laughably insufficient to describe it!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F28fb8275d09186d8b64be0908288c94e.gif&hash=b0d7e2483bacc282edebbc6e49faf466) (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F6278c18a80c7a90ac7d74a7d0bc96ab6.gif&hash=429bdb507d6917afde24f97d21a5c2fa)
For a second time now RD I've clearly shown that all the assertions that make up your "explanations" lack any merit. In view of the above, what your saying can't be called an explanation of any kind because, just as before, you haven't actually answered anything, proved anything, refuted anything or provided any intelligible explanation.... of anything. That, along with the fact that you could actually commit such an enormous analytical blunder as believing that a created anomoly in an altered photograph could possibly be used to explain a genuine anomoly in an un-altered photograph has your credibility plummeting in my opinion.
Thanks again though for sharing your opinion. Why not have those cuts and bruises seen to.... I'll just sit here in my corner and have a martini while I wait for the next round!
-
... I'll just sit here in my corner and have a martini while I wait for the next round!
Don't you know alcohol causes brain-damage ?.
There is a sequence of images from AS12-46-6761 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6761) to AS12-46-6769 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-46-6769) which include the sun and lens-flare.
Either the "anomalous" phenomenon is lens-flare , or they must have changed the shape of the bulb between consecutive exposures.
Put down that martini , you don't have the IQ points to spare.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
High-contrast AS12-46-6765 + blue dot the size of the sun.
Also see the example below where the direct image of the sun appears twice the diameter it should because of flare and overexposure, (the ghost images (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Ghost+Image) of the partial-eclipse are actual size) ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F90%2FSolar_eclipse_Austria_2011_Jan_04.JPG%2F320px-Solar_eclipse_Austria_2011_Jan_04.JPG&hash=4e934fb29a0b9cb44c263af090b50e97)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare#Gallery
-
First you tried to assert that it coudn't be an artificial light source because if it were, the apparent fitting/socket for the bulb would be located at the back and would invariably be hidden by the bulb when looking at any reflector head on.... I showed why that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that it's common to mount the fitting/socket for high intensity and other bulbs (both single and double ended) that way through the side and across the reflector rather than from the back.
Next, using an un-altered photograph of the LEM you tried to assert that it couldn't be an artificial light source because if the outer ring of the lense flare was the outer edge of the reflector, the fact that it shows up between the LEM and the camera proved it wasn't a reflector since part of it would be hidden behind the LEM.... I showed how that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that in the computer enhanced portion of the photograph I posted it was the outer edge of the solar disk itself that appeared to be the outer edge of a reflector and not the outer ring of the lense flare.
Then you tried to assert that since the completely white portion of the unaltered photograph I posted could be created by altering the contrast to fill the outer ring, turning it completely white in a different photograph, that it wasn't really an anomoly.... I showed how that assertion was based on an eroneous observation by pointing out that the ability to create an altered photograph that makes the Sun appear abnormally large cannot be used to explain the Sun appearing abnormally large in an un-altered photograph.
Using contrast again to alter the photograph of the LEM, you created the appearance of a light bulb by darkening it to obscure the outer ring and parts of the area around the diagonal lense flare to create what appears to be the neck of a light bulb.... Just as before though with your third explantion, the ability to create an altered photograph that makes a light bulb appear does nothing to explain why the Sun appears abnormally large in an un-altered photograph.
Now, it's back to using more contrast again to alter the enhanced portion of the photograph I posted, highlighting one of the dimmer off center flare spots (blue) and declaring it to be the size of the Sun, even though by far the brightest area and obvious source of light in the image remains at the center of the outer ring despite your manipulation.
My impression is that you seem far more interested in trying to create convincing evidence through manipulation of the image rather than reveal it and, interestingly, you never stop once to defend an assertion you've made that I've refuted, you just move on to try and make another new assertion. In light of that, I just don't see any of these provenly failed attempts to explain either the anomolous solar chacteristics or the abnormal size of the Sun as being at all compelling or substantial when it comes to explaining anything or answering the questions I posed.
That's fine though RD, and thanks, I have your opinion now.... and you now have my assessment of your opinion.
-
Now, it's back to using more contrast again to alter the enhanced portion of the photograph I posted, highlighting one of the dimmer off center flare spots (blue) and declaring it to be the size of the Sun, even though by far the brightest area and obvious source of light in the image remains at the center of the outer ring despite your manipulation.
#1 the blue disk I've added is the size of the sun, ( the diagonal of the full frame of AS12-46-6765 is 55o, the angular diameter of the sun is 0.5o ).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18820%3Bimage&hash=180d13a594ef92ec5c22a5d3e9965c61)
#2 the flare spot which matches the size of the sun is a ghost-image, like those of the partial eclipse below , the ghost images are much fainter than other areas but are an accurate representation of the size and shape of the light-source (the sun).
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F90%2FSolar_eclipse_Austria_2011_Jan_04.JPG%2F320px-Solar_eclipse_Austria_2011_Jan_04.JPG&hash=4e934fb29a0b9cb44c263af090b50e97)
If you studied the sequence of NASA images as I suggested above, (reply#163) , you will see that the alleged anomaly changes in shape on each frame so cannot be the outline of a light-bulb, unless they used a different shaped light bulb on each frame.
-
Thanks RD, but I think I've had about enough of your brand of "explanation" for now.... talk to you later.
-
Looks like lens flare to me... the problem with 'computer analysis' is the the results will vary depending on the algorithms used, and unless you know what you're doing (and are familiar with photographic artefacts), you'll just end up enhancing the artefacts. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as we used to say.
I saw a good video recently by a guy who worked with film and video in the 60's and 70's, explaining how, given the video & film technology available at the time, it wasn't possible to fake the moving images NASA broadcast live, even if they'd had access to secret facilities 10x better than what was available to studios & research labs. It's astonishing just how primitive video was in those days, and converting that much continuous footage from 35mm film just wasn't feasible. He wryly said he didn't know for sure if man had been to the moon, but he did know they couldn't have faked the broadcasts ;) I'll see if I can find it and post it here, when I get home.
-
Hey diorde (nice to meet you)....
Looks like lens flare to me... the problem with 'computer analysis' is the results will vary depending on the algorithms used, and unless you know what you're doing (and are familiar with photographic artefacts), you'll just end up enhancing the artefacts. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as we used to say.
Well, it doesn't look like lense flare to me, but I definitely get what you're saying about computer analysis. I know this was touched on earlier but I do have another question about the crosshairs in Apollo lunar photography if someone would care to take a shot at it. First, a little foundation....
The cameras the astronauts were equipped with were fitted with a glass plate that had black crosshairs precision etched onto it. When the astronauts took a photograph, the crosshairs naturally cast their shadow on the film and the shape of those shadows literally become part of the image.
In an earlier post by RD, he used an image of the Apollo 14 LEM on the lunar surface in an attempt to try and support his (provenly eroneous) explanation of the two questions I had earlier about the sun. When I took a closer look at it though, I noticed that the reticles are not only distorted but are actually hovering just above the surface of the image and casting a shadow down onto the image below in a manner indentical in every way to what one would expect to see if a printed transparency of the reticles had been carelessly placed on top of the image that was not kept in direct contact with the image surface.
So the question is....
How could the reticles (which are literally part of the image surface) in this authentic un-altered NASA photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM taken on the Moon have managed to somehow levitate themselves above the surface of the image in such a way that they were able to cast shadows back down onto the very image surface they are part of?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18814%3Bimage&hash=0372ea34ed2aa502b2ea81ddf35c69af)
-
How could the reticles (which are literally part of the image surface) in this authentic un-altered NASA photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM taken on the Moon have managed to somehow levitate themselves above the surface of the image in such a way that they were able to cast shadows back down onto the very image surface they are part of?
The additional distorted (curved) crosses only occur on the brightly-lit flare-spot : the crosses elsewhere in the frame are not duplicated in this way.
A reflection of the brightly-lit "fiducials" by the curved rear element of the lens is a possible explanation for the additional distorted (curved) crosses ...
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Similar to pincushion distortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_%28optics%29#Radial_distortion) ].
-
Hey RD....
The additional distorted (curved) crosses only occur on the brightly-lit flare-spot : the crosses elsewhere in the frame are not duplicated in this way.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenakedscientists.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D47147.0%3Battach%3D18824%3Bimage&hash=f6a1002bc4b77375cbbfce6716dd8042)
The additional distorted reticles (or crosshairs) framed by the lense flare also just happen to be in the upper left hand corner of the full image of AS14-66-9306 too, and their misalignment is entirely consistent with the corner of a carelessly placed transparency having lifted up and away from the image surface in the photograph below....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2F6ktvs890t%2FUntitledlemn.jpg&hash=faa46e32e086003a4fa08263895612c6)
A reflection of the brightly-lit "fiducials" by the curved rear element of the lens is a possible explanation for the additional distorted (curved) crosses ...
Sorry RD, it's really not a possible explanation. In the full image of AS14-66-9305 (the preceeding photograph in the series), one can clearly see reticles in the lense flare, the brightly lit areas, the dimmer mid-range areas and even the dark areas. There's no reticular distortion or evidence of your theory of a “curved rear element of the lense” creating any kind of lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion effect in the region around the Sun in the photograph below....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs28.postimg.org%2Fcsqyv70jx%2FUntitledlem.jpg&hash=fb2ed3987fc6896151f23805dfb4d7ea)
Since the conditions under which both photographs (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306) were taken were the same, if there was anything to this notion of lense flare induced ghost reticle pin cushion effect it would have distorted the reticles in the same way and in the same region around the lense flare in both photographs, not just one.
The pin cushion effect is caused by lenses and invariably affects the image not selectively but as a whole, and lense flare from a bright light source can create ghost images of the light source and decrease image contrast.... they are two entirely different effects resulting from two entirely different causes.
There is no such thing as lense flare induced pin cushion effect in photography or optics. Nice try though.... very imaginative!
-
... The pin cushion effect is caused by lenses and invariably affects the image not selectively but as a whole
I said "Similar to pincushion distortion". I wasn't suggesting it was a lensing effect. I said "reflection" from the curved rear lens element : a lens surface can act like a curved mirror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_mirror).
I did point out in "Reply #169" that the additional crosses only occur on the bright flare spot, so not a lensing effect which would occur elsewhere on the image.
To repeatedly interpret physical phenomena you don't comprehend as evidence of fraud is evidence of paranoia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia). Attempting to reason with a paranoid person is an exercise in futility.
-
I said "Similar to pincushion distortion". I wasn't suggesting it was a lensing effect. I said "reflection" from the curved rear lens element : a lens surface can act like a curved mirror.
Have it your way then.... similar to pincushion distortion. Whatever you were suggesting, it doesn't change the fact that your credulity straining “possible explanation” involving some heretofore unknown optical effect is not an explanation at all, it's just an unsupported theory because you've provided no links, articles or precedent setting examples that could elevate it above that lowly designation.
I did point out in "Reply #169" that the additional crosses only occur on the bright flare spot, so not a lensing effect which would occur elsewhere on the image.
Whatever you pointed out, it doesn't change the fact that in two consecutive photographs of the LEM (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306), which were both taken under the same conditions, this novel lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect would have occurred in the same way and in the same region around the lense flare in both photographs, not just one.
To repeatedly interpret physical phenomena you don't comprehend as evidence of fraud is evidence of paranoia. Attempting to reason with a paranoid person is an exercise in futility.
The fact of the matter is that whether you like it or not, the photograph showing the misaligned and distorted hovering reticles and the shadows they cast (AS14-66-9306) is absolutely consistent with the corner of a carelessly placed transparency having lifted up and away from the image surface....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2F6ktvs890t%2FUntitledlemn.jpg&hash=faa46e32e086003a4fa08263895612c6)
....and I can prove it. It took about three minutes to accurately replicate the conditions that can result in the appearance of this form of defect in a graphic image....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F9c641e883bd535cafa29b68eea8cfbec.gif&hash=094dd7a43f9f1e4004efb2ada5380ff5)(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasion.com%2Fpic77%2F61e2112323902d73ef6930e1b3adedba.gif&hash=067d27656ba48c9bb79f0efedebc15fb)
In order to show my assertion to be an eroneous interpretation of the photographic evidence you'll have to come up with a more plausible alternative interpretation of it than an unsupported theory about some mysterious unknown lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect. You simply haven't done that at all, not even close, and my refusal to immediately buy in to your narrative has you again resorting to malicious insinuations.
It's all fine though RD.... I've clearly refuted every eroneous “explanation” you've come up with along with all the assertions you made to support them and not once did you try to defend any of them.
-
Here's that video I promised about the video technology of the late 1960's:
Moon Landings Faked? Film maker says not! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs)
-
... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?
It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three ,
( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , Walt Disney (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423817#msg423817) maybe ?)
Like I said (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423869#msg423869) if you ask me politely , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,
I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.
PS
the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see inverse square law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) for the reason why) ...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Front_projection_effect.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effect
So if you're trying to use Scotchlite-screen to explain things [images] which are tens of meters in front of the camera (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47147.msg423825#msg423825) it's simply not physically possible.
[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called "matte painting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_painting)" ]
As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F27xp6dt.jpg&hash=395661a846ef630016ba3b5bd55be315)
-
.. the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F27xp6dt.jpg&hash=395661a846ef630016ba3b5bd55be315)
shadows appearing to converge are normal, not evidence of fakery, see ...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frationalwiki.org%2Fw%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6c%2FMutliple_shadows.JPG%2F800px-Mutliple_shadows.JPG&hash=2127dc4b0d6635d029cdf0f3e37cb53a)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Shadows
-
I guess if one's prepared to believe more than half the planet is involved in a conspiracy (for Apollo, the Manned Space Flight Network and Deep Space Network tracking and relay stations alone involved USA, Canada, Mexico, Kiribati, Australia, Tanzania, England, Nigeria, Spain, and more, also ships in the Indian and Pacific oceans), you're likely to see hoaxes and conspiracies everywhere... I'm waiting for Concorde, the supersonic passenger airliner, that first flew the year Armstrong set foot on the moon, and was in commercial service for nearly 30 years, to be called a hoax...
-
As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this
http://i58.tinypic.com/27xp6dt.jpg
shadows appearing to converge are normal, not evidence of fakery, see ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Shadows
Yes, I know that
The whole thing started with Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clarke seeing the film "To the Moon and Beyond" on a big dome screen at the New York World’s Fair in 1964. The film was made by a company in Los Angeles called Graphic Films, who were doing films about the space program – the American space program, particularly the Apollo program.
After that in 1965, they all came together with the Senior Administrator for the Apollo project George Mueller, in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) British Studios in Borehamwood, England, to make two films, APOLLO 11 and A SPACE ODYSSEY, at the time called "Moonshot" and "Journey Beyond the Stars".
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.abovetopsecret.com%2Ffiles%2Fimg%2Feu4ea8223c.jpg&hash=ce99dd0fd3c7817f56248e340c299183)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-lEEWegkSyi4%2FUtLzl0tpwAI%2FAAAAAAAAMAU%2FCVERWLAq62g%2Fs1600%2F2001-1.jpg&hash=04d394961faa56fb0390403f901d9c70)
-
As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen ...
... make two films, APOLLO 11 and A SPACE ODYSSEY, at the time called "Moonshot" and "Journey Beyond the Stars".
I think you mean cinerama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama) films which were viewed by the audience, projected onto the inside of a dome.
Domes were not required for the creation of such films , just for their viewing.