Apollo Moon "Hoax" Film makers are corrupt!

It's also possible that those pictures are bogus. Do you maintain they aren't fakable?

 

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com
Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :-

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

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

So it's possible the Earth images are faked then? For future reference THIS argument is a real MOOT point!

 

Bump - when can we expect the serial forum spammer to type more than his ignorant one liners?

 

Never. It is so obvious that this person is not a seeker of truth. Two decades of the worst failure imaginable and still he persists in his "hobby".

This is where you read what you actually typed, let the reality sink in, because THAT, Mr "Truth-seeker" is the real truth!



Film makers who question Apollo are corrupt liars, looking to make money from fools.

 

The Moon is grey, has no atmosphere to bounce light around and illuminate. The descent stage of the LM is metallic grey and by now covered in dust. That's greyish grey on a grey background! The LROC has a much inferior resolution to Earth orbital imaging satellites. The Earth has multiple colors, illuminated in all directions by atmosphere and with an image system designed to produce hi density digital images, that also then allow enlargement.

ANSWER THE DAMN POINT! You claimed that there was some sort of issue, at least have the balls to debate honestly. Fat chance! You come out with your pathetic claim, that is actually always somebody else's that you have blundered upon, but lack the simple and normal human attribute called integrity to acknowledge the actual counter argument. What manner of human being does this so many times? Is being an online troll such an appealing thing for you?

 

I

I did, in post #126.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-6#post-1073775237

Now you're supposed to give a counter-rebuttal, not a reiteration.

 

There is something actually wrong with you if you think that is an answer to your original claim being rebutted! It's obvious that you aren't too smart in general but how can you not actually comprehend the flow of that exchange, wasn't English your main skill?

The Moon is grey, has no atmosphere to bounce light around and illuminate. The descent stage of the LM is metallic grey and by now covered in dust. That's greyish grey on a grey background! The LROC has a much inferior resolution to Earth orbital imaging satellites. The Earth has multiple colors, illuminated in all directions by atmosphere and with an image system designed to produce hi density digital images, that also then allow enlargement.

Now answer the damn point! It's nothing at all to with your idiotic spam dismissal of all pictures being fakeable!

 

Are you trying to gaslight* me?

Please stop ducking this question.

*
https://www.google.com/search?q=gas...TwAEB2gEGCAEQARgJ2gEGCAIQARgI&sclient=gws-wiz

 

Are you really this dumb? I mean seriously, can you not read the flow of the two posts and work out that the issue of LROC valid images is not being discussed!

You question WHY the images are so poor in comparison with Earth spy satellites.

 

So the question of why the LROC images are not as sharp as Earth spy satellites, answered perfectly. Greyish craft on grey soil with no atmospheric illumination. But as for this repeat lie about the LROC images being fakeable - already answered in copious detail that was orders of magnitude above the understanding of this serial spammer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Look at the lunar lander in these pictures.`
https://www.google.com/search?q=LRO...HQKlAAcQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1366&bih=657&dpr=1

All they had to do is take some real pictures of the moon and paint a hard-to-make out lunar lander on them. They could have added the rover and the tracks too. Do you maintain that this is impossible?

 

Look at this pathetic standard of evidence. His own personal view on something he has not the slightest clue about!

Bullshit. Who the hell do you think you are? I just listed all the things needed to do to get an LROC image amended and you come on here with totally idiotic and simplistically inaccurate crap! You are trolling. Every thread you are getting your ass kicked and you just fire stupid post after stupid post!

 

Please answer the question. Just say yes, or no.

 

I listed the account of a complete expert in the field who concluded it was not possible. Now who do I believe, a troll on the internet who says it's easy to fake because he knows nothing about it or somebody who details exactly the numerous technical issues in invisibly changing such an enormous TIF file of several gigabytes!

Here's one single image in an enormous data stream. Go max size on it and just look how massive it is
LROC Observation M150741485R (asu.edu)

It is about 400 full screens in size and you come out with your bullshit easy to fake!

 

Hey, I have an idea.

About | Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (asu.edu)

There is the team and their contact details. Why don't you drop them one of your moronic lines about how they are all liars invisibly doctoring vast images, OVER and OVER again each time the satellite captures an Apollo landing site for years on end! You sit there in your cowardly anonymity spreading lies on the internet, stand and up and show some balls. Better still explain to them how it's done by posting one of your spammed to crap idiotic "photoshop" videos from the now deceased "hunchbacked" user.

Meanwhile, explain to the viewers who all think you are getting your ass kicked, why you are afraid to answer posts:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1073776259

 

Experts can be paid to lie. Your answer is still slightly vague. Just say yes, or no. Do you maintain that those pictures are not fakable?

 

Pathetic. How can anyone be dumb enough to think my answer was "vague"!

I listed the account of a complete expert in the field who concluded it was not possible. Now who do I believe, a troll on the internet who says it's easy to fake because he knows nothing about it or somebody who details exactly the numerous technical issues in invisibly changing such an enormous TIF file of several gigabytes!

Here's one single image in an enormous data stream. Go max size on it and just look how massive it is
LROC Observation M150741485R (asu.edu)

It is about 400 full screens in size and you come out with your bullshit easy to fake!

I have another idea, why don't you damn well PROVE they are faked and explain how. Tell the viewers why you are so cowardly avoiding this torrent of failure you are drowning in!

 

I don't dispute the pictures of the moon being real. It's when they purport to show the Apollo equipment on the surface. My stand is that the Apollo equipment could have been added to the real pictures of the moon.

Just say yes, or no.

Do you maintain that it's impossible to paint hard-to-make out Apollo equipment on real pictures of the moon?

 

Pathetic trolling. How can anyone be dumb enough to think my answer was "vague" or that it isn't completely obvious!

I listed the account of a complete expert in the field who concluded it was not possible. Now who do I believe, a troll on the internet who says it's easy to fake because he knows nothing about it or somebody who details exactly the numerous technical issues in invisibly changing such an enormous TIF file of several gigabytes!

I posted a huge list showing it to be impossible and this comedian still wants to act the fool and think his opinion actually counts. These files are massive, it isn't just the crop, it's the whole file. And you sit there in anonymity calling people liars 50 years after the event. Well guess what, just because you may be the type to do this dishonest crap, doesn't mean that whole happy, hard working team do it!

 

About | Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (asu.edu)


According to clown logic, these people are all liars who know "the truth" about Apollo and alter all the massive transmissions with Apollo hardware in them! As I said, I genuinely wonder whether these conspiracy theorists are such naturally deceptive people that they think everyone is like them!

 

bump