Sorry Turbs, basically I'm asking if you believe that this was shot half way to the moon.

Thanks Mid, sorry though bud i can't accept the light and camera angles as the reason for the darker surface beneath the kicked up layers.
Also future missions to mars etc, are going to rely on the moon as a base station, a jumping point to get further out into the cosmos (you don't need me telling you that) i have read that they are planning to convert elements on the moon into a useable energy for the rockets, couldn't this be the reason for the darker colours on the moons surface?

also:
There are ten frames in my new avatar, can anyone name all ten pictures please?

EDITED for avatar question.

Sounds like it might have looked something like this...

To stop this thread descending into little more than a willy-waving competition, I'm leaving the rest of your post alone, and will try to focus on the article itself.

Why do you say the paper doesn't jibe (jive?) with the Apollo photos? Did you thoroughly read the article itself, or skim it? The images used have undergone quite a radical process of analysis. The resultant image isn't a true colour image (notwithstanding the fact that it's black and white!), so you shouldn't expect the colouration to match up exactly to what is seen in Apollo photos.

Read the article again. Compare the other 2 (non-Apollo 15) dark spots on the image in question to figures 4 and 5. These latter two, which are normal phtographs, show lighter colouration around the craters. So, a dark spot on their analysis corresponds to a light area in an actual photo.

The conclusion of the authors is that while they can't prove that the third dark patch isn't caused by noise or an anomaly of the techniques used, "absence of similar spots in the scene and exact coincidence of the spot with the landing site made us sure that this is a real feature."

So, we have very solid evidence of a real disturbance which exactly coincides with the Apollo 15 landing site, which experts who have studied this in more depth than any of us ever could, and who have a demonstrable level of experience, say is probably caused by the exhaust plume of the LM.

We need to establish some commonality here. Do you agree that their study isn't a true black-and-white representation? Do you agree that the anomaly is exactly where the Apollo 15 landing site is? Do you agree that their study most likely shows a genuine surface feature, rather than a processing anomaly? Do you agree that this anomaly isn't a crater?

If you agree with all of that, then what exactly is it, if not the Apollo 15 landing site?

To cut to the chase, is what Peri and Postie are saying that this image is actually a negative image, heavily processed so that anomalous spot corresponding to the Apollo 15 landing site would stand out better?




and that it is dark because it corresponds to what would be a lighter spot in reality?

It seems to me that if this is the case, there is no contradiction at all in what Peri and MID have stated about the effects of LM engine blast on the lunar terrain.

And reversed...

Just back from going thru a bunch of pics at ALSJ...I see that the "dark areas" where there's been foot or rover traffic seems limited to the area around the LM. At the farther out stations, it's not apparent.
The ALSJ does mention that the LM exhaust and blowing dust appears to lighten the area around the LM lower approach and landing area.

And looking at the very many shots that show ate area around the engine bells, there is a noticable "windblown" appearance, as well as a brownish discoloration of the immediate surface. Something happened there.

I don't see "craters", but certainly vigorously moved soil.

Those are all very good questions, Postie.

Turb, I really hope you take the time to answer these. They get right to the heart of the matter.

In regard to your other questions to me, Turb, (re: crew activity, etc), let me make it clear that I haven't made any claims regarding the analysis by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov other than to note the known sources of soil disturbance at the landing site. I see no reason to doubt their conclusion that the disturbance noted in their analysis is likely due to the LM descent engine plume. If you want to know whether or not footprints and tire tracks would be visible in their analysis, I suggest you contact the authors directly. Their email addresses are readily available on the Web. My posts were made specifically to refute your claim that Apollo 15 photographs show no evidence of color change due to soil disturbance. As I said in my previous post, the Clementine analysis is completely independent of any Apollo photography.

Hi AtomicDog,

No, this isn't a negative image. It's not really a photo at all, but a 2-dimensional plot of a function parameter resulting from their data analysis. As I understand it, the authors used 52 overlapping photographs of the area taken by Clementine as it passed overhead on orbit 299. Each of the photos was taken from a slightly different position, so the phase angle between the camera, the ground, and the sun changed from shot to shot. For each frame, they calculated the brightness of each pixel and then compared all of the overlapping images to see how the brightness of each particular point changed as the camera changed position. The image we've been discussing is a 2-D plot of the results, showing lighter shades in areas where the surface brightness was more dependent on camera position. Quoting from the paper:

QUOTE

Brighter shades in these maps denote higher values of the parameters; in particular, in Fig. 3 brighter shades mean steeper phase dependence of brightness.

In other words, dark spots in this image are just areas where the surface brightness didn't change much as the camera changed position. It says nothing at all about the original brightness level, just that whatever shade it was stayed about the same as the camera moved overhead. At least, that's my understanding of the paper.

Gotcha. I'll have to go back and study the original paper again.

I just re-read the paper again myself and had the proverbial little lightbulb go off over my head. I think I understand now what they're looking at and why the authors think that the dark spot on the image is most likely due to the LM descent engine plume scouring the surface:

Their hypothesis is that the observed nominal surface brightness changes with phase angle are mostly due to shadow hiding (i.e. the fact that objects hide their own shadows when viewed down-sun). Undisturbed lunar soil has been bombarded by micrometeorites for billions of years and is now somewhat rough on a small scale. This roughness creates little shadows. As the Clementine camera viewed the surface from different angles relative to the sun, the shadows became more or less visible, making the average surface brightness decrease or increase.

Dark areas in their analysis are areas which are smoother than average because the soil has been recently disturbed and the age-old micrometeorite impact "roughness" has been erased. A smooth surface casts no shadows, so it's brightness will remain constant regardless of the viewing angle.

If the authors' hypothesis is correct (and if I understand it correctly), then the dark area at the landing site is smoother on average than the surrounding lunar soil. The LM descent engine plume would tend to smooth out the surface as it shifted dust around and erased the micrometeorite roughness. Footprints and tire tracks would tend to increase the average surface roughness (I think). Since the surface was observed to be smooth (dark), then that effect is probably due to the LM descent engine plume. Keep in mind that each pixel of a Clementine image covers many square meters of terrain, so it's likely that the areas of footprints and tire tracks are just basically lost in the averaging process.

Am I interpreting the paper correctly?

Jesus...

For someone who doesn't want to belabor an issue, you don't succeed.
I said that disruprting the lunar surface soil causes darkening. It has been made clear that it all depends upon the angle of the sunlight to the observers eyes as to how exactly it appears. This is well known about the lunar surface.

The fact is, both activites disrupted the surface, causing a change.

The issue at hand is not your attempts to get someone to admit they made a mistake. That's nonsense (you don't have a clear grasp on what we're saying).

The issue is an orbital photo that alleges to have spotted the Apollo 15 landing site.

It did so, precicely. That's exactly where Apollo 15 landed, and this is no surprize, as the LM and it's shadow were clearly seen by Al Worden aboard the AS-15 CM on REV 15, after landing, through the CM optics from 60 NM in altitude.

This photo in question shows the Apollo 15 landing site.
That's the issue here, and it's not an issue.

WHAT in God's name is THAT?

belial...are you attempting to make us go blind?

Here's a possibility:

I see:

A diagram of the Apollo flight path.
Aldrin stepping down from the LM.
Aldrin at the flag.
A recovery photo.
An Apollo 11 crew portrait.
A couple pictures of a launch.
Earth rise.
What looks to be Buzz at the MESA.
A photo of the LM approaching the CSM.


My eyes are now blurry from looking at that thing!

Could have just hit the escape key MID and paused the GIF

Through page 85 of the "catchup" here...wow.

Turbonium, have you ever dealt with grout mix or cement mix? Very dry (hardens/spoils with moisture), cohesive, and a marvelous "simulant" for lunar regolith. Used it on a LM model I built around 1970. Made little footprints all over the "set" with the little astronaut guys and everything. Dry, cohesive material isn't "unearthly". Got any flour around the house? Ditto.
In one post you used the terms "evidence", "conclusive evidence", "undeniable evidence", and "exclusive evidence"..all in one post. What are these? What proof will ever fulfill your needs, let you realize that Apollo indeed was quite possible, and that NASA isn't the evil you see in the government. (unlike many gov't entities, so much of NASAs funds go to people that don't exactly "work" for them, but they still do real work).

And if you think the Apollo orbital photos of the landing site are fake, why should you be interested in Clementine shots? Evil DoD program, just perpetuating the hoax.

And my favorite question, what would drive NASA to hoax such an enormous program, involving hundreds of thousands? What prevented them from just flying it as claimed? (got my copy of SMAD III here if you start up on radiation...)

Oh, hell...
Well Gav, when you used a slide rule in school rather than a calculator...sometimes you're pretty dumb about all them there keys on the keyboard!!

what are all them F ones at the top???? Dagnabbit, where's my manual...(the book, not the t-writer...that woulda been my mom on losing her old 100 pound Remington...)

It can't be coincidence that while I read this I was playing about on my TI-83!

Mid i just tried to lighten the load for a short while, the topics are going around and around so i thought i would make a looped gif avatar, with a favourable theme, and give people the chance to name them all, if possible.
P.S. well done mind guru that is MID.

Thanks for the clarification, Trini.

To answer your question - no, I don't believe it was.

America put man on the moon, yet the russians could only achieve this...

As impressive as it is it still looks like something from a really early B movie set. And heres me thinking that the russians had all the brains?

Thought i would change tack slightly sorry - I DIDNT WANT TO START MULTIPLE THREADS WITH INDIVIDUAL TOPICS - also does anyone have the 'feather and hammer' footage test that was done here on EARTH please?

Edited to add this...

I'm glad to hear that.



Yes, I did thoroughly read the paper, so you didn't need to remind me that it's not a true color image. Nor is that why I said the paper doesn't jibe with the Apollo photos.

I'm referring to their physical description of the dark spot, which is very different than what is seen in the Apollo 15 photos.

It doesn't matter whether the "dark spot" is actually dark or light, compared to the surrounding area - the Apollo 15 photos do not conform to either scenario.



Again, this has no bearing on the issue I'm raising - neither a "dark spot" nor a "light spot" exists in the Apollo photos.



Why would the "absence of similar spots in the scene" indicate that it's "a real feature"? They don't explain this point in their paper.

But even then, I found several spots which appear to be quite similar in the image (red arrows)...



Do you have any idea why this would indicate a real feature?

As for the "exact coincidence of the spot with the landing site"? That only indicates it's a "real feature" to people who, first - already believe the landing site actually exists, and second, further assume that something must have happened as a result of the landing / mission, in order to have created such a feature.



No, we have no evidence whatsoever. We have a dark spot in an image (which you say is actually a light spot on the moon) that is not corroborated by any of the Apollo 15 photos.



I do.



A possible anomaly, where the alleged Apollo 15 landing site is.



I'm not so sure about that. As I said, I don't know why they think it's a "real feature" if no other such dark spots are in the area. And presuming Apollo 15 actually landed there, and then conjecturing that "the lander jet" must have caused it, is really stretching out for a reason to believe it's a "real feature"!



I'm not convinced that it exists yet. But even if it does, I don't think a crater can be ruled out.



Well, as you now know, I don't agree with all that.

Form follows function. How do you think an unmanned Rover should look?

MID,you are being sarcastic now.You can´t cut and paste only one part of my phrase and tell everybody else on this forum that I am a stupid guy.You should have cut and pasted all my comments about that subject. Of course that inertia exists on the moon.You are just using a very dirty way to attack me on this forum.
If we agree that inertia exists on the moon,why did the meteor rocks remain on the impact point and all the area around it is completely clean?A meteor crashes the moon surface in an incredible high speed and stays on the impact point !!!??? Weird,isn´t it?

I don't know!
I've only ever ht F1 and F12 that I can remember, at least with any regularity...unless some specific program had assignments for those other buttons...

I'm afraid to touch them!




Probably not. That's one of them fancy graphing deals isn't it?

I remember back in the mid-70s getting one of those early Rockwell electronic portable calculators (probably a first generation thing, I suppose).
I marveled at that thing. It was big by today's standards, and had a million buttons on it.

"log" ? You gotta be kiddin' me, you mean I can push that and get a logarithm? "tan"....No! You mean...

"Yea, just punch the button and the angle...check it with your slide rule!"

Totally cool. It was about $180.00 back then. Today, you can get one that does ten times as much for about $20.00...

Ah, the old days!

I got 'em all?

Wow...

Oh you did lighten the load! As you can see, I sat there staring at this flashing thing and tried to isolate them all, and suffered well deserved ribbing for not knowing how to stop it!



And of course, I learned something about these dang "'puters" that I shall not forget!

...Of course, until my eyes become un-crossed, I probably won't be reading too much!

I think it is evident that he didn't know you were being sarcastic. Maybe you should be more clear what you mean next time. How can we be sure they are rocks from the meteor? Perhaps they are rocks native to the moon only uncovered by the meteor. Perhaps they are rocks from a different meteor strike. Perhaps they are rocks uncovered during a moon quake when dust slid down the crater walls. You made an assumption about something you don't understand when there are numerous other explanations, (I only listed a few) and are acting as if that is the only possibility. Why haven't Geologists who actually study the moon noticed what you have? Are they all in on it?

The firefighting trainer at london heathrow: kind of a 747-400 forward fuselage, DC-10 tail and one or two other bits. I wonder how it would fly?

I have read MID's read posts and can see no sign of any such name calling. If he has called you stupid then that would constitute a personal attack and would be in violation of the rules of this site, specifically this one:If that is the case you should have reported the post to draw the moderators attention to such rule braking.

As you have chosen not to report the post but to make the allegation in the thread could you please point out exactly where MID called you stupid so that it can be dealt with by the moderators.

If he has not made any such personal attack then you are making a false allegation. That would breach this rule:

So please provide a direct link or quote or withdraw the accusation.

I concur. Debris is splashed out all over the moon from impacts hundreds of kilometers away (think Tycho.)

I'm glad we agree...

Now we're getting down to it.

You are assuming that the blocks in that crater are parts of a meteor. I think your implication makes what you're interpreting seem wierd.


However, the likely hood is that all of the meteor material, and a substantial amount of the surface of the Moon in the direct impact zone was vaporized upon impact.

Nonetheless, the massive force of such impacts doesn't end with vaporization. A great deal of deep lunar material if broken into pieces and ejected outward. A blocky rim crater is typical on the Moon. They are relatively young, and the pattern of large blocks toward the rim, and subsequently smaller blocks scattered outward from the crater as you move farther out, is common and reflective of the ballistic emplacement of the ejecta. The smaller blocks go farther.

Ejecta blankets around these craters are all that way, and of course, eventually, the blanket merges with the surrounding surface and is undetectable at some distance from the crater.

The largest blocks get deposited within the crater, out toward the rim for the most part, and the smaller material moves farter away.

What you see are blocks of the Moon, broken up and ejected from deep inside.
There could be trace amounts of meteoric material in the crater as well, but those blocks are most assuredly not that stuff.


As to the surrounding area being "completely clean", you really cannot make such an assumption fropm looking at such a picture such as this one. This picture you cite, was taken from Station 6 on AS-15 EVA 2. I have previously mentioned that perception is a bit of a problem on the Moon. Things are as clear far in the diatance as they are up close. You're looking at a relatively narrow field taken with a 500 mm lens. The LM is 2.8 miles away, believe it or not, and that crater in the foreground, part of the South Cluster, is probably a portion of Dune--maybe Arrowhead (I can't be sure)--is roughly a mile in the distance.

The crater in the distance, beyond the LM, at the base of the North Complex, is around 5 miles away!

The blocks you see on it's rim are LARGE. You simply cannot see the smaller ejecta from this view.

p.s....please relax.
I think what I said was rather clear, and it included no such reference as regards you.
I have never called anyone stupid here (I think I would've been told about that if I had).

I have certainly referred to ideas in similar terms.

What about these statements called you stupid?

You...




Me...




You...



Me...




If this is calling you stupid, I think I detect a little hypersensitivity...

I've been looking at the ALSJ pan shots from A15, comparing them to the Clementine shots. It's clear that they landed pretty well midway between the North Complex, with Pluton and Schraber Hill, and the South Complex with Dune crater et al.
The landing site is pretty close to being the third corner of a near-equlateral triangle, with Luke and Index.
I'm not sure what the object in the Clementine photo is, but it's close to the landing site as documented by the astronauts and the CSM photos from low orbit. It's resolution isn't nearly as good as the Apollo shots were.
Clementine shows something there...not sure what.
Anyway, still no evidence of a hoax...
Edit to add link http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15.html

True enough, Mr. B.!

"lacking in subject are knowledge"...something all of us are guilty of in some area or another.
But when we proclaim astounding things, it would make sense that we have a pretty good foundation on the subject. I could say that heart transplants are fake, never met anyone who's had one, never sen one done. I could say we've never been atop Everest, nor to the bottom of the Marianas Trench...very limited coverage, could have been hoaxed.
I have these "rights" to deny these things, and the world won't change a whit. But when I start disputing the evidence and technical aspects of the events with one who is very familiar with the events, the techniques, the technology, then I'd best have my ducks in a row. Otherwise, my credibility as knowing what I'm talking about becomes a factor that degrades my arguments.
Take the waving flag argument...it moves. Why? There are several potential and credible reasons presented. and the only answer the hoax proponents have is "wind"...not even considering other possibilities. (incidently, read the A11 tech debrief yesterday, fascinating. Aldrin did observe that sometime after the flag planting and before their liftoff, their flag too had rotated. He made a point to plant it at a "back" angle, to keep the CG centered. Their flag "self rotated" somewhat in the ensuing time. So it's happened before, and does not require at atmosphere.
We have endlessly pointed out the basic errors of hoax proponents on innumerable fora...and continue to address the many common arguments. They are nearly always based on ignorance or misinterpretation...along with an all-encompassing ekepticism of anything Apollo or NASA. We like the education process of clarifying misconceptions, watching the "light" come on. It often does.

But still, very basic questions need answers...why the hoax...how the hoax...and why a deafening silence from the hundreds of thousands who built and flew fully functional Moonships? Just because today's society isn't interested or motivated in lunar missions, this doesn't discout a past capability and motivation. Frankly, I find it a sad development.

From ALSJ, Dave Scott says this shot is one of his favorites...it indicates that's Pluton way over yonder...

Ok Frenat..Maybe it was just a house that was destroyed by a meteor...Who knows?? - Frenat,you said -"""Perhaps they are rocks from a different meteor strike"""" ..You must be a professional joker to say that.Did you see that all the surrounding area is almost clean of rocks?? You are saying that a second meteor crashed near the first impact and left its rests just inside the crater made by the first one,leaving the surrounding area free of rocks? How can somebody be so creative?

My god...Another one!!!

Did I say it definitely was that? No. Was that the only possibility? No. Do you know for certain those rocks are from that meteor? No. Can you really say the area is completely smooth from a sinle picture with a limited field of view? No. Quit making assumptions as if you know everything. It makes you look trollish. And again, why haven't Geologists who actually study the moon noticed what you have? Are they all in on it? Or maybe they know that it doesn't look unusual because they actually know something about Geology?

Mr. B,Talking about silence,Do you know why Mr. Neil Armstrong refuses to come to public to talk about his travel to the moon?

Now you almost convinced me that those rocks are from a destroyed house on the moon...But I keep saying to you that the scenario creator tried to show us parts of a destroyed meteor,but he put them in the wrong place.

By "refuses" you imply he never speaks...completely false. He has spoken in public numerous times, was at a public roundtable discussion at the AOPA annual fly in a few years ago, I've seen him on TV a number of times, including an hour long special with NBC (I think) a year or two ago.
Nonetheless, he doesn't "get out" as nuch as some others, like Buzz Aldrin, who is frequently out and about, actively promote manned space exploration. He was on the Moon right there with Neil.
The private nature of Mr Armstrong is not evidence of a hoax, and his "refusal" to talk is a myth, and frankly, a lie. You are perpetuating an established falsehood.

Mr. B.,I watched to this interesting video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Ku1bVSaKk - abusing of your aknowledge about moon landings,could you please explain to me why did the flag move at 2:00 min ?
Thanks!

NASA should have chosen better the first man to put feet on the moon.They chose a man that doesn´t like to talk about this event.In this aspect,mr. Aldrin should have been the first man on the mooon instead of Mr Armstrong.Anyway,you know that I don´t believe that none of them went to the moon.

And I still say to you that you don't that for sure as there are many, many other possibilities. You are making an assumption based on no evidence. And I note that again you have avoided this question. Why haven't Geologists who actually study the moon noticed what you have? Are they all in on it? Or maybe they know that it doesn't look unusual because they actually know something about Geology?

Do we know the zoom value of the camera lens at the time? Is it inconceivable that he touched it? Maybe static electricity? Maybe a slight rotation of the mast? Thre are other possibilities than a puff of air. You've heard the other possibilities. Frankly, I'm not sure why it moved. There are logical possibilities...

They chose who they chose, and he got the job done-can't do better than that. After the flight, the crew travelled the world, addressed Congress. Because Mr Armstrong isn't a publicity hound now is not evidence he didn't go.

Mr.B ,thanks for your sincerity to assume that you don´t know why it moved.And thanks to assume that a puff of air is a real possibility.We don´t have the zoom value at that time(and I don´t think it is important).Static eletricity is impossible if we don´t have air to produce it against a body in movement.Slight rotation would be one of those answers to be given by a desperate propagandist...The astronaut didn´t touch the flag..If he had touched it,the movement would be much more intense,and the first movement of the flag would be to the oposite direction.I have to say to you ,Mr B , that the movement was caused by the breeze created by the astronaut movement during the scene.And if we have a breeze,we were not on the moon,do you agree? And I have a video of an experiment that shows us that the movement created by a breeze,would make exact the same first movement done by the flag,to the same direction,as the astronaut body moves by it.I can find this experiment video if you want to watch it.

Why don´t you try to answer the question that Mr. B is trying to ,Frenat.He is needing some help with that.