Addressed but not debunked. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-28#post-1074075749 I'm mainly posting stuff for the viewers to see.
Addressed, ergo spammed. Debunked to death and you as always ran away like a coward. The viewers see you getting your ass kicked and want to know when you will have even an iota of integrity to concede your idiotic failures. For the "viewers to see" buried by your repetitious spam: Your LROC spam, posted about a dozen times "Yet again you spam identical crap and ignore where these have been already responded to and soundly thrashed! As a side note, you have admitted to already posting this crap before and as you always do, you avoid the responses. Video 1:- This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail. Video 2:- An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes. Video 3:- The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images." 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."
Why didn't you show the videos you claim to be debunking? The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped MoonFaker: LRO at 50km. PART 1 MoonFaker: LRO at 25km, Dead Ends & No Fly Zones. PART 1 The bottom line is that pictures are fakable so they're not conclusive proof of anything as they might be fake. They also don't make the mountain of other hoax proof* go away. * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-16#post-1072816044 http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-moon-landing-is-fake.553296/page-15#post-1072797829 (40:10 time mark)
Scott: That closes the whole case right there. With no wire support both he and the dust would have the same zenith. And from his own words, this comedian shoots himself in the foot! Explain to the viewers why you are afraid to give an honest response.
The viewers can look at both of our analyses and decide for themselves. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/#post-1072162665
You forgot to put the hyphens in the compound adjective again. debunked-to-death bullshit https://elblogdeidiomas.es/en/more-than-30-examples-of-compound-adjectives-in-english/ (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------- Do not forget that they can also settle for several words. That is an all-too-common mistake. Ese es un error muy común. They have a two-year-old daughter. Tienen una hija de dos años. I didn’t like his matter-of-fact tone. No me gustó su tono. -------------------------------------------------------
Try again spammer - this is a response from a member of the public expert in their field. Your pathetic claim that "pictures are fakable" holds no credence as there is no way to satisfactorily do this with thousands of massive convolved images! 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." Here they are, the ASU team you disgustingly call liars, when you are the worst liar I have ever come across!
TRY AGAIN SPAMMER - this is my rebuttal to your idiotic videos, explain why you have never answered these! Video 1:- This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Fail. Video 2:- An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes. Video 3:- The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.
I genuinely think you have a mental illness. That is about the 20th time you've posted that trio of spam videos. NOT ONCE have you addressed the 3 replies. Not once! The moronic spam statement: Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com) The following specimen forum posts describe the craziness of this individual and his blatant and ongoing dishonesty. 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. You sad, sad person with your debunked-to-death bullshit. Your 20 year campaign of failure and your cowardly evasion of almost every response. What a troll.
Here's something relevant that I just came across. How Fast is SR-71 Blackbird? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ymF6DLnTiZ4 In that clip it says that the SR-71 flew high enough to see the stars so it could use stellar navigation. I think everybody has seen this. The elbow has it. (00.52 time mark) Collins says he doesn't remember seeing any stars.
Nope. This is just an excuse to bump an old thread. And? It's night time. Yes, it's called spam. Right, so the title suggests that Armstrong gave Collins an elbow to nudge him about stars but only the blind will look at the thumbnail in @Scott 's post and not be able to see the big problem! Are you seriously saying that you have "forgotten" the half dozen times this has been pointed out to you? Even in this thread! http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-27#post-1073904584 "He was asked about seeing stars in the solar corona, Apollo 11 specifically observed and photographed this event!" Patrick Moore asked this at the Press Conference- "I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Armstrong answered first: Armstrong- " I don't recall during the time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see" Collins- " I don't remember seeing any"
Armstrong was talking about his alleged experience on the surface of the moon and Collins was allegedly orbiting the moon at that time. What is it that makes you think that Collins was talking about photographing the solar corona?
Would you like me to explain again when you quoted the actual words they spoke? Really? I even bolded the damn context! I do not believe you don't get this! This is just you bumping this foolish thread. Armstrong is NOT talking about his surface time. He is talking about the task on the Command Module where they photographed the solar corona! Collins specifically follows his statement. Armstrong- " I don't recall during the time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see" Collins- " I don't remember seeing any" https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/11day4-approach.html#0714311 Right near the top, and look no damn stars.
In the video of the press conference Armstrong sounds like he's describing his experience of being on the surface of the moon. I'd totally forgotten about this discussion from a year and a half ago. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-27#post-1073904484 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-27#post-1073905750 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-27#post-1073906699 The viewers can look at the info and come to there own conclusions. Here's something everyone should watch. The Apollo Paradox https://www.brighteon.com/35b9ff69-e373-4099-af7f-674fa25f8264
The viewers can come to their own conclusions and see what you are doing! You "just came across it" and already posted it a year ago! MEH!
This is my rebuttal to your multiple-spammed videos, explain why you have never answered these! Video 1:- This is made by the incredibly misguided hunchbacked. He uses partial crops of the massive original files as his "evidence". These partial crops are of course taken using editing software and enhanced accordingly! He does no such analysis on the multi-gigabyte full TIF images that are not edited. Video 2:- An appalling conclusion erroneously obtained. He says the pictures of the Apollo hardware should be better, because Earth bound satellite telescopes can pick out smaller objects. What stunning ignorance. The Earth has nearly 3 times the albedo of the brightest parts of the Moon, has massive color variances and the telescopes are designed specifically for ultra close up detail. Compared to the low light emitting Moon, devoid of color or contrast and using a telescope that had multiple purposes. Video 3:- The no fly zone is a request for Apollo 11 and 17 only and completely irrelevant. The trails he says disappear, do not! Once again he uses small contrast boosted crops and fails to use the large original images.
To date, you have never given ANY satisfactory response to this post: an expert gives their assessment on the possibility of forging LROC images. He concluded it was impossible. To suggest otherwise, requires salient evidence on how they achieved the impossible. 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." Here they are, the ASU team you disgustingly call liars:
The bottom line is that pictures are fakable. Fakable pictures are not proof of anything as they might have been faked. I see nothing in the above that shows it to be impossible for someone to fake those LRO pictures*. Concerning post #714: In the video Collins doesn't seem to be talking about what Armstrong was talking about. If you think Collins was talking about his looking through the instrument that Armstrong was talking about, you're really stretching your imagination. There's also this. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sely-depicted-the-surface-of-the-moon.585966/ * http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-29#post-1074075919
Why are you afraid to address the massive irrefutable evidence in the other post? I just proved that the LROC pictures are impossible to fake and you spam your "but pictures are fakable" crap! In this case, no they aren't - solid proof of NASA Apollo machinery on the Moon - exactly where it was claimed to be. For those who struggle with simple video/audio: Patrick Moore is going to ask two questions. That was his first question. This was answered in full by Armstrong. Collins wasn't on the surface. Non applicable to him. That was his second question. If you are going to get picky and say he meant the surface(!) when he is talking about the SOLAR CORONA, Collins was not on the surface so again not applicable to him! Armstrong answering the question, began by saying he couldn't see stars from the surface - too much sun glare. Then he referred specifically to the solar corona experiment which is Moore's specific question(!) about seeing stars in the solar corona. The ONLY time there WAS a solar corona was when they experienced an eclipse during lunar coast! Collins confirms what Armstrong said. He doesn't recall seeing any stars (in spite of the glare!) in the solar corona, which they could ONLY see when they were in the Command Module during lunar coast. If you do not get this utterly simple thing, if you persist in saying otherwise, then you need to stop "drinking coffee"! The "viewers" can see you suddenly discovering something you spammed a year ago, where you got answers to this hogwash. They can see my responses and they can see your "one-liners" with just your "hoax-belief" opinion. I'm sure they can make their own minds up.
Viewers... Go and watch the video in post #714. Armstrong makes it clear that he was talking about what could allegedly be seen from the lunar surface.
"Viewers" - this total crap is 20 years old. It has been spammed to death. Armstrong was CLEARLY talking about EXACTLY what he said: That is the person talking. He doesn't recall during a specific time. When somebody refers to a time or event, the words immediately following this, invariably refer to this event. This is the event/time he refers to. As previously explained in very simple terms that small children can understand, this actual event ONLY occurred on the Command Module. Collins took part in this event where they photographed the Solar Corona. During this event, where they photographed the solar corona in the Command Module(!) he didn't make any mental note of seeing stars. None of the images of this event, with the rather bright solar corona show stars.
_____________________________________________________ Scott: That closes the whole case right there. With no wire support both he and the dust would have the same zenith. And from his own words, shoots himself in the foot! Explain to the viewers why you are afraid to give an honest response.
