ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: BertieSlack on February 24, 2016, 09:55:45 AM
-
Just saw this hilariously incompetent new 'photo analysis' at Aulis.
http://www.aulis.com/photostudy.htm
The arguments are the same old already-debunked nonsense that has been coming out of Aulis for years. What really grabbed my attention was the last sentence of the article:
"Mr. Caldwell has no specific qualifications in photographic or space program analysis, which reinforces the points made in this article."
Maybe Aulis see expertise as an unnecessary encumbrance to factual accuracy. Sadly for Caldwell, common sense and a willingness to undertake two minutes research would also have shown him where he went wrong, regardless of any lack of technical expertise.
Anybody fancy ripping Mr Caldwell's arguments to pieces, just for lulz? I started with two photos that Dave took on the other side of the rover (which he reversed to its parked location) just before he took the photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11603HR.jpg) which Caldwell has such trouble with.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11600HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11599HR.jpg
-
Gods, where to start? My starter for 10;
The 'fill light' is a combination of the lunar surface, the white packs on the back of the rover, other reflective bits, and (crucially) the white suit of the astronaut taking the picture, surely?
-
Besides, if they're faking pictures of a place with one, count 'em, one primary light source, why even add @#&%-ing fill lights?!
-
Well you have one of the images that debunks the "missing shadow" from the equipment laying on the ground, another image taken out of context as your image taken from a different angle shows a shadow.
The image of Dave and the LRV, his boot image "rises" of course it rises the ground rises in that direction so the shadow must also.
You already nailed the lack of tracks, since he backed it to the final spot.
The other terrain "anomalies" are strictly in the eye of the beholder, as I see nothing amiss with any terrain feature. Perhaps he is talking about the different hue to the regolith? Why should the regolith conform to his concepts.
Wasn't this the area the JAXA imaged and matched or was it a different location.
AND finally the worse aspect I find is another graduate of the Univ. of Texas, joining our trad. alma mater. I must re-consider the quality of education the students are getting there.
-
I do not understand the overwhelming majority of the science that put Dave Scott and Al Worden at the Hadley Rille. But my lack of understanding does not mean that the landings were faked. Clearly K. Chris Caldwell does not understand the science either.
Even to me, the spurious claims made by the author are easy to refute. Just use common sense when you are thinking about the lack of wheel tracks in some of the pictures. A reasonable person would have to conclude that the astronauts themselves obliterated many of the tracks when they got on and off the rover or as they were working at the rear of the rover near the tool carrier. Additionally, the Astronauts occasionally picked up one end of the rover to re-position it.
However, what I think is the most amazing thing that proves Scott and Worden were actually there are the pictures of the Rille that were verified by the LRO. These images even pick out specific rocks in the Rille and identify them and they correspond precisely to the images taken by Scott and Worden. See the images from the link. I was on another website that had better pictures but I cannot find that site now.
http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2010/04/lroc-retracing-steps-of-apollo-15.html
Additionally, when one watches the landing video of the LM as it made its descent to the Plain at Hadley, you can pick out specific and easily identifiable craters in the flight path of the LM. Then look at the pictures from the LROC or the Japanese images and you can see the same craters in the same places (as one would expect). The accuracy of these is just to high to assume that they did not land there. I believe that it would have been much more difficult to fake the landing then to actually achieve it. Too many assumptions would have had to have been made. It is clear that it was not faked.
-
I do not understand the overwhelming majority of the science that put Dave Scott and Al Worden at the Hadley Rille. But my lack of understanding does not mean that the landings were faked. Clearly K. Chris Caldwell does not understand the science either.
Even to me, the spurious claims made by the author are easy to refute. Just use common sense when you are thinking about the lack of wheel tracks in some of the pictures. A reasonable person would have to conclude that the astronauts themselves obliterated many of the tracks when they got on and off the rover or as they were working at the rear of the rover near the tool carrier. Additionally, the Astronauts occasionally picked up one end of the rover to re-position it.
Another thing to note is that the mesh tires would send a spray of dust back over the tracks, especially upon braking, as seen in this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5cKpzp358F4) stabilized version of the famous 'grand prix' footage from Apollo 16.
-
Thanks for posting that video Raven. It is an amazing video.
But the first thing that came to my mind was the amount of Lunar Dust that was being shot into the air by the wheels of the rover. I noticed that the dust does not hang in the air and form semi persistant clouds like it would on earth. I believe that this would only happen in a vacuum. Imagine how big this vacuum chamber would have had to be if this video was faked on the earth. Distances on the moon deceptive due to the almost total lack of atmosphere, but I would say he drove at least 50 meters.
Again, just to hard to fake.
Also, who here would not love to have been in Dave Scott's place as commander of Apollo 15 and getting to do this and the other things they got to do.
-
I do not understand the overwhelming majority of the science that put Dave Scott and Al Worden at the Hadley Rille.
I understand it as far as "stunningly beautiful landscapes make for really interesting geology", and the Hadley Rille site certainly qualified.
-
SpaceFrog: I agree, that's damn good evidence itself, but, on the subject of rover tracks, the dust kicked and sprayed back from those mesh wheels adds to the occlusion of the tracks, particularly between the two sets of wheels.
-
It is pretty much a re-hash of the Jack White trash, stuff that was proven to be critically flawed years ago.
-
It is pretty much a re-hash of the Jack White trash, stuff that was proven to be critically flawed years ago.
Indeed Jack White TRASH, perhaps a bit worse, but none the less same behavior.
-
This is the same guy -
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/442528-moon-hoax-discussion-photo.html
I read the thread and laughed at the stupid. He's getting his ass handed to him on a plate but not acknowledging it. Must be a Jack White relative :P
-
He has posted this bit of clap-trap also
-
I see our old friend rocky/DavidC/cosmored/FatFreddy88 is spamming his same ol', same ol' there (posting as "Scott").
-
I do not understand the overwhelming majority of the science that put Dave Scott and Al Worden at the Hadley Rille. But my lack of understanding does not mean that the landings were faked.
I'm going to use that line more often. A truism at so many levels.
-
China, India and Japan have all got images online of Hadley, and none of them contain anything that shows anything amiss with the area - quite the reverse, they confirm that the details in Apollo images are genuine.
If you want some fun on a dull day, try having a play with this :)
http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/3dmoon_e/index_e.html
-
Besides, if they're faking pictures of a place with one, count 'em, one primary light source, why even add @#&%-ing fill lights?!
Whistle-blower. That's their thing. All anomalies which are stupid are just put in there by whistle-blowers. Of course, if these anomalies are some sort of artificial da vinci code, then they could have been put in for any reason and to real moonlanding photos.
Yes Aulis are quite illucid
I'm surprised they're still carrying on in 2016. Apollohoax is so noughties. It's just a big joke now to even those who would have entertained the idea a decade ago.
-
Whistle-blower. That's their thing. All anomalies which are stupid are just put in there by whistle-blowers. Of course, if these anomalies are some sort of artificial da vinci code, then they could have been put in for any reason and to real moonlanding photos.
Yes Aulis are quite illucid
I'm surprised they're still carrying on in 2016. Apollohoax is so noughties. It's just a big joke now to even those who would have entertained the idea a decade ago.
It is still in their financial benefit to continue the nonsense as they sell DVD's, books etc. That may never go away, same with Marcus Allen and Bart Sibrel
-
Most conspiracy theories tend to recycle on a roughly ten-year schedule. It's about time for a resurgence.
And yes, "I'm not an expert in any way, but that qualifies me even more to criticize something," is the mantra of the terminally stupid.
-
Most conspiracy theories tend to recycle on a roughly ten-year schedule. It's about time for a resurgence.
And yes, "I'm not an expert in any way, but that qualifies me even more to criticize something," is the mantra of the terminally stupid.
I can see a twisted kind of logic to it. If they assume, or at least claim to, that anyone with any kind of expertise must be on the take (they must be, or they would have revealed it) then someone with no expertise must be the only one you can trust.
Of course, the Orwellian irony of the whole thing just flies over their heads.
-
I can see a twisted kind of logic to it.
You are entirely correct. Conspiracism is a social, political, and pscyhological construct that reinforces the ego of proponents and adherents. Where a conspiracy theory involves specialized knowledge, the proponent claims to have it ("I'm a specialist in X"), that it's not necessary ("Common sense says X is false"), or that it's overshadowed by political concerns ("The powers that be are hiding the truth about X"). The polemical structure then attempts to divide critics into two categories: those who don't have the knowledge to refute the claim and those who are politically dishonest. The proponent then occupies the singular position of sufficient expertise coupled with political purity. This has the psychological effect of reinforcing the ego of the proponent, and also the rhetorical effect of shaping the discussion into a no-win situation from the critic's perspective.
Very often we find that discussion which start out on a technical footing quickly devolve into political accusations when the proponent can't hold up his end of the technical debate.
-
Which is why I am so insistent on not being insulting to even the worst conspiracy theorist and hoax mongers. Not that I am always successful at keeping to my own creed,but why take the game down to their own level? Anyone can insult, but only the truth has facts.
Besides, there is something deliciously devious about calmly presenting your case to a foaming mouthed demagogue. It probably won't convince them, but damn it's fun!
-
Which is why I am so insistent on not being insulting to even the worst conspiracy theorist and hoax mongers. Not that I am always successful at keeping to my own creed,but why take the game down to their own level? Anyone can insult, but only the truth has facts.
Besides, there is something deliciously devious about calmly presenting your case to a foaming mouthed demagogue. It probably won't convince them, but damn it's fun!
It is difficult indeed to keep calm and refrain from blurting out a bunch of unprofessional behavior to them. I am always chastising the YT crowd concerning foul language, it just isn't necessary. I have been called many things but refuse to drop into the gutter with them. Truth and logic don't seem to make any headway with some. Stupid burns brightly with those individuals.
-
It is difficult indeed to keep calm and refrain from blurting out a bunch of unprofessional behavior to them. I am always chastising the YT crowd concerning foul language, it just isn't necessary. I have been called many things but refuse to drop into the gutter with them. Truth and logic don't seem to make any headway with some. Stupid burns brightly with those individuals.
I'm glad to work in text. I can write out my rants and insults, get it all out of my system, and then . . . delete it all and start again with a rational minded response. 8)