Oh, I had no doubt you'd come to a similar conclusion and was posting mostly for LLL's sake. I would have posted sooner myself, but I'm a bit slow and was sifting through the photo archives trying to identify the background features of 20389.


Yes, it was.

By the way, I've been remiss in not welcoming you to the forum. It's nice to have you here! I've really enjoyed your posts.

Regards,

Pericynthion

If it's obvious for you, and that keeps you happy, why should anyone disappoint you?

I just wanted to say that it's obvious to me that many things are taken out of their context, on this subject. The Apollo Mission, by those who are having difficulty interpreting it, or even a quote of some individual- which also may lack it's actual context. People are right to correct those oversights, and indulgences.

I am a little late with this reponse to yesterday's topics. I must confess, I have not familiarized myself with Apollo 16, but was intrigued with the misperception of some rather obvious details. When I first looked at the image of the rover, it was immediately apparent, as to the lay of the terrain, and the traverse of the vehicle.

By looking at it in a higher contrast image, all is revealed in its simplicity.

And, I will admit, the widefield image of them in the crater was a sort I had never seen before- and yet, just what I would expect a good and competent navigator to do.

Some better detail-

Nice work, Magnetar

I probably should have done that to the pics I did earlier just so the tracks would stand out even more



Cz

A little late now maybe, but a big thanks to MID and CZ, for all there efforts to show me my errors, also Magnetar for his high res shots.
Thanks peeps.

Edited to eat humble pie

LLL,

Where in hell did you get this nonsensical idea, and formulate this insulting, childish, comment about Gene Cernan?

(I have an idea, and if I'm right, and you have the guts to tell me, then I will tell you what Geno actually has said about the War...in its actual context, and I shall be blunt about it.

Such comments are ridiculous, innaccurate, and have no place in this thread.

Well, Peri, and Cz, and magnetar.... in looking at this work on that last couple pages, I've got to say you guys are really good with this photo stuff!

I appreciate your skills.

To me, Apollo surface photos are merely (and, for the most part, save the ones that were mistakes, over or under exposures, etc...) excellent photos, showing rather nominal photgraphic effects, taken with an excellent camera in a very other-worldly place, and they reflect that other-worldliness graphically.

It continually amazes me to see some HB come on, and , seeing the obvious other-worldliness in pictures taken on another world...interpret all sorts of stuff in them that's almost absurd, since they're actually showing nothing but ordinary effects that one should expect in a photo, and which one can see on Earth photos as well.


But you guys raise the bar in the photo-analysis department (one of these days I'm gonna have to learn all this computer stuff!).

Nice work, gang!

belial,

You're very welcome...and I'm sure I speak for the rest of the gang!


By now, I think you know that the point here is not to humble you, and show you "the error of your ways".
That's just egocentric crap, in my view...and I'm a little uncomfortable with that.

The point is to point you in the direction of knowledge regarding what happened and how.

It's about learning things. And as I've always said, learning stuff is fun!

Further, none of us know everything (hell, I don't hardly know anything!), but one of the salient aspects of being able to teach something is that the one who teaches learns and expands his or her knowledge every time he or she does it.

That is fun, too!

It's not about showing you your errors, belial. It's about helping you to learn things you didn't know (and that's not a weakness...it's just something that exists).


You have apparently come to a couple of those "eureka" moments, where you learned something you didn't previously know; where yu were compelled perhaps to consider things you hadn't considered before. That is about as cool as it gets in life. And a bunch of us have expanded our knowledge in the process!

That too, is very cool stuff.

So, the bottom line is, there's no need to eat humble pie. A much more natural and appropriate reaction is to rejoice in the expansion of the mind and what you understand. We all do!


And we thank you for the opportunity to have done so!

My next video in the Landing Apollo series:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R6koNryx9ow

Enjoy!

Hate is a strong word,I know. But I really hate those people that just come here and say that they "know" it was a fake and when asked then dont even bother to show any evidence.. .

I just hate unabashed, boastful ignorance...

I guess you imagined those tracks that you highlighted at the picture.There is nothing there.
Just another desperate propagandist.

LLL,this guy and his red drawings are a big joke.Not to be considered.

Very nice answer LLL .And considering a 1/6 g ,if the roover had passed over that rock,it would have touched the ground some feet ahead. I keep saying that apollo propagandists have a very hard task in their hands.Prove that men went to the moon.We never did it!

I don't think it was driven like in the Dukes of Hazzard.

Do you know exactly how fast the LRV was moving at this point? If not, how can you possibly make such a claim? Given that they were driving in a rocky area, on a slope, and stopped just a few feet away, it's likely they were moving slowly.



Prove that NASA faked the moon landings. They never faked it!

Just wait a few years till 2020 and then maybe they will land where the old Apollo landed. Cannot seriously think the moon landings were fake.
Too many people involved. I do think they thought they might have problems getting the video feed to earth so they made a fake video which they never used.
The moon video is too realistic. The people walk all bouncy like they should. Movies about space like armageddon could not capture that effect so how could they make such a bouncy walking thing in the sixties.

Apollo 13 showed just how much risk they took. They barely had the technology but they had the billions of dollars.

I can't make out the rover tracks either...

Now, what happened after the rover was parked there and before the photo was taken? The information is available in great detail. They worked around the rover quite a bit. They kicked dirt around as the shuffled aroud. There are many shots where the rover tracks are partially or totally obliterated by the astronauts activity. No big mystery there...
It's kind of unimaginative to think they just would lower the rover down with a crane and plant it there.

Does this help any...?





Cz

A warning to ALL posters in this thread, personal attacks such as the ones above are against the rules of this forum. By all means disagree with each other but avoid the insults.

UNDER THE HAT,
Please read the PM I am sending you.

Well done, Gav!

Damn...

That's pretty nifty stuff...

I think, heinrich, that the landing sites will be quite far away from Apollo sites, initially, anyway.



No, you really can't...seriously, that is.




Apollo 13 showed the risk potential of space flight, manifest.
It also showed just how good the folks who managed the flights were...

I would be inclined to argue with you regarding the technology statement.
We didn't 'barely have the technology'. The fact is, we actually had the technology, 100%, and it was state of the art...and a little better, as it was developed for the purpose of executing these missions. You wouldn't find such technology anywhere else at the time...

Quite.

You're absolutely correct, MrB.
As has been pointed out, a lengthy period of activity all around the LRV took place post-EVA, and often, it completely obliterated tracks along the sides, and behind the vehicle as every step tossed a layer of dust out.

In the case of this particular issue, the LRV had been parked, and alot of messy activity around it had taken place for over 45 minutes prior to these pictures being taken...

Hat,
We are looking forward to the engineering analysis that will substantiate this claim.





If there were "propagandists here", they might have a hard time.
But there are none...only those who know something.

The people who have shown they have a hard time are the HBs who declare a fake without anything to back it up.

I again ask you to not be one of those people, but rather, to ask questions about your doubts.

One of the most frustrating endeavors involved in this silly affair is people's inability to realize that the photographs taken on Apollo were taken on the surface of the Moon. Further, these photographs show completely natural photographic phenomena...just like they would (and do) on Earth in similar lighting circumstances.

The exception of course is that these photos are taken on an airless world, which is readily apparent to the discerning eye (you'll never image a mountain 3 to 5 miles distant with the clarity that Apollo photos show such things anywhere on the earth).

There are NO photographic anomalies in any Apollo photos. They all show exactly what they should, taken, as they were, with one of the finest cameras available anywhere by men trained in their proper use.

The issues we repeatedly see in these Apollo photo "anomaly" issues are merely the uneducated observer observing what he or she could certainly observe in a variety of earth photos, but never bothered to notice before (as Waspie himself has so deftly illustrated in the past via his astute examples of things like shadows appearing to be a varying angles, etc...).

There has to be more substance to your doubts than to merely jump on some other HB's wagon regarding silly anomalies in photos that aren't?

Again, I say, consider what your doubts really are, and ask about them. You may be very surprized to learn what the answers tell you (but, you will have to do your own homework in order to allow the process to fulfill itself).


That's alot better than saying things like this:





If we who know are desparate about anything...it's about getting you to learn something.



Silly, Hat. Utterly silly....


How about stepping up to the plate and knock off with the insulting behavior?

You would be correct 747...

Around 6 SMPH was about it...(around 9 FPS). Not a bad clip, on a hummocky, rock-strewn lunar surface.
It had a really great suspension, four independent drives and 4-wheel steering system, and a very cool navigation system (not GPS, but really cool, nonetheless), and would routinely roll right over nominal rocks on the surface, creating a bouncy ride alot of times...with one or more wheels off the ground for a brief second, but certainly no "Dukes of Hazzard" stuff!!!

But just imagine the hang time you could get on the Moon...


Cz

Yea, Cz, some hang time.
Often, the fellows described both wheels on one side being off the ground for what was, to them, uncomfortably long periods. Despite going maybe 6-7 miles per hour (10-11 KMH, or "klicks", as we called it), it was sometimes a rather bouncy ride. Further, as Apollo 15 discovered, if you got on too much of a grade, you might have to hang onto the LRV to keep it from sliding down the hill!

Wasn't it on Apollo 16 that, during the traverses in the LRV, John Young would go out of his way to make more left turns than rights, requiring Charlie Duke to "hang on for dear life" ...?


Cz

ok , 2 night ago i submited a photo thinking it was an one of the numerous obvious proof of fakery of these apollo missions , and it was clearly proven that i was wrong , (i should had , that i was wrong for THAT particular photo) , now let's see if our planet is mislabeled .

1) the earth appear to be way too small , the earth is supposed to be 4 times the diameter of the moon , just check this little diagram there >> example , just to give you an idea

note that if this example doesn't speak you much , and you still think this earth is the real one , just imagine the moon 4 times smaller than that , the smallest moon you ever see in your life right ? , and don't forget that the distance is the same earth/moon moon/earth ...

2) as a bonus , the craft looks like it is made of cheap materials , losely assembled in 2 hours , and certainly not like the best piece of thechnology of its time , supposed to support the life of 2 man on a totally unknown environment.




HQ - Version this link >> HQ

so , was our planet mislabeled ?

How do you think it should look from the surface of the moon? What evidence do you have that it should look different than it does?



Regardless of how it looks to you the LM was a very advanced spacecraft, in fact, the first true spacecraft ever constructed in the sense that it was never designed to be operated in an atmosphere, and it did support 2 men on the surface of the moon for durations of just under a day (Apollo 11) to just over 3 days (Apollo 17). HB's always look at the thin outer skin and the odd, non-aerodynamic design of the LM and say it looks flimsy and that it shouldn't be able to even support its own weight, but seem to forget that, or just haven't bothered to take the time to learn that under that skin was a very robust structural frame that was more than adequate for the spacecraft's design specifications.



Cz

i don't speak about aerodynamic issue there , but to obvious losely placed pieces of something , that don't look any way like a polished craft , did you see that picture in the first place ? did you see these edges ? some of the edges aren't even perfectly conected , how much do you need to see that this is losely assembled ?

I've seen the math done on the size of the Earth in the photos based on the field of view and lens size. The Earth is exactly the size it should be. You forget that things don't always appear how you might expect in a photograph. In this case though the math wins out. I don't have links to that math right now bu if I find it I will post it. Others here may have it.

What you see of the LM is only the outer covering. It is not the structural frame but serves more for insulative purposes. The environment also wasn't totally unknown. We had been in space and knew how to deal with a vacuum and we had sent probes to the Moon as well. Without the need to be aerodynamic and the extra structural strength that comes along with that, the engineers were able to do many interesting things. I personally think the LM is a beautiful craft perfectly suited for its job.

That looks like pieces of tin and aluminum from a roof, tied together with bailing wire and duct tape, get a load of those so goofy tin cones all around the 'capsule' this can't be real. if it is, anyone believing this, this, thing, or whatever you call it, has got to be very delusional at best.

Yes, I did look at the picture. I've seen many pictures of the LM.

Ok, so its not polished to a mirror finish, some of the skin sheeting has been slightly warped due to the stresses involved in the launch from Earth and the landing on the Moon. You'll even notice in that picture and others that on some panels, they've used what appears to be tape holding the sheeting together at some corners. Does that mean it couldn't do what it was designed to do?

You do realize that the outer skin is just that, the outer skin? That it does not represent the walls of the pressurized space inside? That it was not meant to provide structural support for the vehicle?


Cz

It's designed that way to provide better thermal protection for the LM interior. The less physical contact with the aluminium alloy hull, the less heat can be conducted through to the pressure vessel of the LM.

Err...do some of you folks realize what satellites actually look like? see here

In reality form follows function (only in Hollywood is stuff required to look *cool*).

This is priceless, the excuses 'they' give are very comedic, this looks like something 7 year old kids put up in there back yard for a clubhouse.

The Earth may well be 4 times the diameter of the moon, but that doesn't tell you a great deal about how large the Earth should appear, when photographed with a 70mm format Hasselblad fitted with a 60mm Biogon lens, from the surface of the moon!

Here are some photos of the moon from earth. They all look different sizes. Did they mislabel the moon, or is this a function of different cameras and lenses?

No, Ninety9, they're not excuses, they're facts, something which your posts show you having no familiarity with whatsoever.

Your opinon is that it doesn't look like it could do what it was designed to do, and that's fine. You can have any opinion you want.

But you provide no facts, no evidence, just your un-educated opinion, with nothing at all to back it up.

Opinions don't make things true.



Cz

Translation: I don't know a thing about the engineering issues that were addressed in building the LM. I just think it looks funny even though many other craft designed for use only in space look similar.

I suspect that this is what many people think a moon landing should look like?

If anyone is actually interested in learning about how the LM was constructed, rather than just laughing at what they don't understand, they could do a lot worse than this link.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.htmlApollo Archive

Click on Early Apollo. Scroll down to Lunar Module Construction. Start with LM-NOID-02, and work your way through the images.

Here are two examples that should shed some light. The first image shows the LM during construction, prior to the insulation being attached. The second image shows what the LM looks like when much of the insulation has been attached.

Never said it looks funny. You just proved what we here in the NASA HOAX department knew all along, by your own words, if many other 'craft' look like that, WELL DUH! that does'nt reinforce your fairy tale much.



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...134-20463HR.jpg


Take this photo and enlarge as much as you can, notice all the lies? This is priceless, You Tube here you go>>>>

you can note that they went out of duct-tape and have to left half a 'panel' without highly hi-tech thermal
protection material, these where the days , these guy take risk , no tapes ? no problem let's just left that
panel exposed to heat , we're in the seventie's no one will care about that ! priceless indeed.

Other craft as in spacecraft, ie. satellites, probes sent to other planets etc. They often look similar. There are no lies, just your ignorance.

Can a mod do something about the obnoxious large photo screwing up the formatting?

Your ignorance of the vehicle and the program as a whole and your un-educated, un-informed, un-provable opinions still do not change the fact that the LM did exactly what it was designed to do: land on the moon and return the crew safely to lunar orbit, 6 times.

It wouldn't be so bad if you just didn't know, but at least tried to learn something here. But your willful ignorance speaks volumes of your true agenda here.

At least LLL has the guts to ask his questions, rather than spew continuous inane rhetoric.


*snip*





Cz

I'm amazed at how Apollo supporters continually downplay the achievements of Apollo 8 (claimed by NASA), as if it were a reasonable - and indeed, unexceptional - next step, after the Apollo 7 mission!!

I've already mentioned a few of the many significant differences which exist between a manned LEO mission, and a manned lunar mission. The problems in trying to go from the former to the latter are huge, even today.

Its been reported.



Cz

I'm amazed at how much mileage you're still trying to get from this, even though you've been proven wrong every time. The whole program was exceptional, and Apollo 8, while an unexpected change, was the next logical progression, given the situation already outlined to you many times before.


Funny how you keep forgetting to include "in my unproven opinion" every time you mention those significant differences. You seem to have somehow equated "technically challenging" with "insurmountable".




Cz