Recent Posts1
The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...
« Last post by onebigmonkey on Today at 02:29:51 AM »THanks for that link - another interesting read. To be fair, they may well give the source in one of their other videos, the one I'm commenting on is rebutting Dave McKeegan's.
I have this one full of panoramas:
https://moonpans.com/book/
which is a lovely book. Straydog02 tried using one of the panoramas from the moonpans site as proof that Apollo 17's Earth is in the wrong place (I posted about it above).
I have numerous technical reports and documents from the Apollo era that show the panoramas, and in those they all consist of the images being stuck on on top of the other in sequence. It's only as image editing software has become more sophisticated, and computers more powerful, that they can blend the images more seamlessly. Their "megapixels/meteres per pixel" confusion shows just how embedded modern computer terminology has become. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but that mistake adds to their misinterpretation of the research. At no point do they go: hang on, have I got that right, let me check. Nobody is adjusting pixels to make things that aren't already there, nobody is fiddling results for their benefit.
It takes to the end of that paper for the authors to reveal its point. Getting the exact locaiton of the photographs correct means that they have the exact location of samples correct. That means they can make more reliable interpretations of the distribution of data from those samples. It means when we return, we have techniques available that allow future sampling regimes to be determined accurately. The paper looking at Clementine data is doing the same thing - looking at results and seeing how potential sources of error can be removed. Not one single author in that paper is in any doubt that the Apollo missions happened.
I have this one full of panoramas:
https://moonpans.com/book/
which is a lovely book. Straydog02 tried using one of the panoramas from the moonpans site as proof that Apollo 17's Earth is in the wrong place (I posted about it above).
I have numerous technical reports and documents from the Apollo era that show the panoramas, and in those they all consist of the images being stuck on on top of the other in sequence. It's only as image editing software has become more sophisticated, and computers more powerful, that they can blend the images more seamlessly. Their "megapixels/meteres per pixel" confusion shows just how embedded modern computer terminology has become. It's an easy enough mistake to make, but that mistake adds to their misinterpretation of the research. At no point do they go: hang on, have I got that right, let me check. Nobody is adjusting pixels to make things that aren't already there, nobody is fiddling results for their benefit.
It takes to the end of that paper for the authors to reveal its point. Getting the exact locaiton of the photographs correct means that they have the exact location of samples correct. That means they can make more reliable interpretations of the distribution of data from those samples. It means when we return, we have techniques available that allow future sampling regimes to be determined accurately. The paper looking at Clementine data is doing the same thing - looking at results and seeing how potential sources of error can be removed. Not one single author in that paper is in any doubt that the Apollo missions happened.
