A rebuttal to Jarrah's latest masterpiece

[ka9q]

When he wasn't outright lying, as he would have had to be to make his transparency claim, or when he used an  edited version of the Buzz Aldrin portrait with black added over top and part of the bottom chopped off to make his off center crosshairs claim. Worse, he passes it off as the 'true' original.

This sounds like our friend Adrian, oops, AWE130. I've talked about what I think was his most outrageous stunt: taking a picture from the ISS, clearly labeled as having been taken at night, and removing that label so he could use it to "prove" that stars should be visible from space in the daytime. That's when I began to call him a dishonest liar to his face.

And of course he's well known for complaining that any new rescans of the original Apollo Hasselblad images are not the "original" images even when the new ones are vastly superior in resolution and dynamic range. He doesn't seem to understand that adding lots of information to an existing image is vastly harder than removing it. Once again, NASA's powers (especially in photo faking) are practically godlike -- except that they can't land on the moon.

[Andromeda]

Once again, NASA's powers ... are practically godlike -- except that they can't land on the moon.

This is what the CTs come down to, every time.

[Bryanpoprobson]

This sounds like our friend Adrian, oops, AWE130. I've talked about what I think was his most outrageous stunt: taking a picture from the ISS, clearly labeled as having been taken at night, and removing that label so he could use it to "prove" that stars should be visible from space in the daytime. That's when I began to call him a dishonest liar to his face.

And of course he's well known for complaining that any new rescans of the original Apollo Hasselblad images are not the "original" images even when the new ones are vastly superior in resolution and dynamic range. He doesn't seem to understand that adding lots of information to an existing image is vastly harder than removing it. Once again, NASA's powers (especially in photo faking) are practically godlike -- except that they can't land on the moon.

And of course the fact that the original images were scans from prints, which does introduce an element of interpretation into the image. Adrian (no apology) quotes the differing positioning of images ie. AS11-40-5903 as proof of the manipulations of NASA. But fails to accept that there is a full history of that image in particular, how it was centralised for PR reasons. He fails to understand that the current image/images in the ALSJ represents a complete scan of the originals, unaltered and complete.

[Jason Thompson]

Once again, NASA's powers ... are practically godlike -- except that they can't land on the moon.

This is what the CTs come down to, every time.

This! Every one of them makes mention of the 'almost unlimited resources' that NASA had to fake it, and none of them can see that this necessarily gives them the same resource to land on the Moon.

[raven]

Ooh, and when he claimed to have done the 'necessary calculations' in his video to speed up Apollo video to make it 'back' to Earth gravity.

And got the wrong number.

I am fairly certain he just lied rather than was wrong.

[beedarko]

Every one of them makes mention of the 'almost unlimited resources' that NASA had..

Including the top-secret development of PhotoShop they created in 1968, the source for which NASA didn't hand over to Adobe until the 1980's.

I'd love to take a tour of the computer that ran it.  Hopefully they provide golf carts?

[ka9q]

I am fairly certain he just lied rather than was wrong.

So am I. I was just being oblique.

The correct ratio is 1/sqrt(1/6) = sqrt(6) = 2.45 = 245%.

[raven]

I am fairly certain he just lied rather than was wrong.

So am I. I was just being oblique.

The correct ratio is 1/sqrt(1/6) = sqrt(6) = 2.45 = 245%.

Which makes non-gravitational motions look like a Yakety Sax sequence from Benny Hill.

[ka9q]

I'd love to take a tour of the computer that ran it.  Hopefully they provide golf carts?

Golf carts? Try bullet trains. Houston had a Real Time Computing Complex (RTCC), a big room of IBM mainframes, that as far as I can tell was used just to crunch tracking data and integrate trajectories. Jobs that I can easily now do on a low-end laptop.

[nomuse]

Shades of Clifford Simak's "Limiting Factor."

[ka9q]

Which makes non-gravitational motions look like a Yakety Sax sequence from Benny Hill.

I try to make this point every time some hoaxer waves his hands and claims the Apollo TV footage was faked with slow motion. There are so many properties of that footage that can't be created or explained that way...

[onebigmonkey]

Which makes non-gravitational motions look like a Yakety Sax sequence from Benny Hill.

I try to make this point every time some hoaxer waves his hands and claims the Apollo TV footage was faked with slow motion. There are so many properties of that footage that can't be created or explained that way...

I hate that slow motion myth, I really do.

It's been re-inforced by countless low budget films an TV series replicating lunar gravty by moving slowly, whereas Apollo astronauts move carefully. Except Twinkletoes.

[dwight]

Why oh why, if the video was slowed down, do the sequential colors appear with the 3 field disk buffer delay, like they should. No HB can ever seem to answer that (let alone have an inkling of an idea of what I am talking about)?

[onebigmonkey]

Why oh why, if the video was slowed down, do the sequential colors appear with the 3 field disk buffer delay, like they should. No HB can ever seem to answer that (let alone have an inkling of an idea of what I am talking about)?

Erm...yeah...erm...I say that too...erm...

[dwight]

Well, see the sequential Tv signal was sent back to earth in its raw form, that is one field of red, one of  green, and one of blue, one after the other. These were then put through a matrixer which combined the three seperate colors, by storing the two previous fields while the third came in live. So, say red was coming in live, the disc buffer would combine it with the previous green and blue fields. This then, created a full color image using three not quite aligned seperate color fields from the sequential Tv signal. If this was then slowed down, as the HB camp like to claim, this sequence would be slowed down as well. Say the signal was slowed down by half, then you would see the color artefacting last for two fields instead if one. (like the launch "confetti" video would have the same color streaks repeated over two fields, rather than one).

No HB can ever explain why that is not the case.