ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on September 30, 2014, 02:30:12 AM
-
Over on AboveTopSecret a few of us are 'debating' the landings with a couple of blowhard diehards.
One of them (turbonium1) has siezed upon this:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-looks-at-apollo-12-surveyor-3-landing-sites/#.VCpKx_ldWSp (http://www.nasa.gov/content/lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter-looks-at-apollo-12-surveyor-3-landing-sites/#.VCpKx_ldWSp)
specifically the line about the darker surface 'roughed up' by the plume in the vicinity of the LM.
He is claiming that there are no photographs taken on the ground of such a roughed up area by the LM, and that there are no images taken on the ground of the effect of plume burn.
Naturally I've posted images showing such an effect immediately below the lander as well as ground that has been disturbed by the astronauts (I'm not sure how the reports claim to distinguish between plume disturbance and astronaut disturbance and I've said as much). I've ponted out the way that shadows work and that being close to something and far away from something produces different effects. I've even done new photographic analyses on features in the Apollo images found in LRO photographs to add to what I've done already.
I've pointed him at reports of damage to the Surveyor III camera from the exhaust plume and analyses of the dust disturbance on landing done from the 16mm DAC footage.
It is a typical "give me evidence I don't think you have" debate, and in true myopic hoax believer fashion he can't see any of the things that are pointed out, claiming only that the LRO images don't match Apollo therefore fake.
Does anyone have any more information I could use to settle this?
-
You can't settle anything with Turbonium. Check the archives.
-
You can't settle anything with Turbonium. Check the archives.
Oh I'm well versed in his methods :D
-
He tried this before here; the pictures were posted along with the descriptions from the transcripts and debriefings. He simply won't acknowledge evidence that disputes his beliefs.
-
Aaah the rinse and repeat tactic, another favourite of theirs.
So is there a definitive answer?
I have to say that while I'm more than happy with plume damage to Surveyor III, I am less convinced by the interpretation given to the LRO and Lunar Orbiter comparisons.
-
The only mission that was concerned with photographing the plume effects was Apollo 11, for engineering evaluation purposes. To demand photographs of the plume effects on every mission is tantamount to saying NASA should have been concerned with taking pictures just to address nonsensical claims that would be made 40 years hence.
The photographs taken under the Apollo 11 LM and near the footpads show clear evidence of discoloration and fluid scour.
-
The only mission that was concerned with photographing the plume effects was Apollo 11, for engineering evaluation purposes. To demand photographs of the plume effects on every mission is tantamount to saying NASA should have been concerned with taking pictures just to address nonsensical claims that would be made 40 years hence.
The photographs taken under the Apollo 11 LM and near the footpads show clear evidence of discoloration and fluid scour.
It's a no win scenario, like the demand by many CT believers to return to the moon, to prove that we went in the first place?¿?¿ :-\
1:- Hardly justification for the budget involved
2:- They would only find some other reason to call "fake"
3:- Even if they could find no minor discrepancy to grumble over, they would say NASA had 45 years to put the stuff up there.
-
It's a no-win scenario if you let the conspiracy theorists set their arbitrary expectations as the standard by which the evidence is evaluated. If the argument is that it's suspicious no photographs were taken of some suddenly-relevant subject, the claimant still has the burden to explain why it's suspicious. Not every tidbit of evidence a person imagines could have been provided establishes an obligation to provide it.
There was no general interest at NASA in the effects of the DPS plume. Initially Grumman engineers and mission planners wanted photographs of the landed lunar module for engineering evaluation. Apollo 11 -- very much a test flight -- was the ideal mission for that as it had relatively few science objectives. For science purposes, geologists weren't interested in the regolith around the lander because it was assumed contaminated by the DPS exhaust.
Each mission had a photo plan. The crews weren't simply given cameras and told to take whatever pictures they wanted. Certain subjects were identified as photogenic. The crews had limited discretion to photograph other things. This was made more acute on Apollo 12 by the failure of one crew member's camera mount.
It really does come down in most cases to the very desperate tactic of naming random evidence that "should" exist and then challenging people to provide it upon demand, for no purpose other than to demonstrate that it can't be found.
-
Does anyone have any more information I could use to settle this?
Yes, Turbonium is a troll. He does the same thing there that he did here and is doing at unexplained mysteries. He'll bring up nonsense, never adequately defend it, ignore all responses then weeks or months, sometimes even years later bring the same thing up as if it was never talked about.
-
Does anyone have any more information I could use to settle this?
Yes, Turbonium is a troll. He does the same thing there that he did here and is doing at unexplained mysteries. He'll bring up nonsense, never adequately defend it, ignore all responses then weeks or months, sometimes even years later bring the same thing up as if it was never talked about.
Oh definitely - he's shown this time and again in various 'discussions' about radiation, or gravity. He never responds to any direct proof that he is wrong.
He's disappeared again, which is a shame because I have got a couple of nice photos of the plume burn from Apollo 12 extending from under the LM back in the direction of travel (as evidenced by the contact probes) and visible craters next to the LM that can be seen in the LRO views.
Not to worry...I'll be there when he re-appears.
-
Well, on the plus side if, nay, when he repeats himself somewhere you frequent down the road, you can head him off at the pass right away.