As far as the "hole" is concerned, they're backtracking a little now - claiming that it was AI what made them say it, mainly because Jarrah has weighed in with an equally incorrect claim that it is a hole in the actual positive film. A hole that has changed size and shape over time.
Yeah right.
Anyhow, their latest effort has latched on to a different claim:L the tarnsition from 12 fps top 6ps in Apollo 11's magazine H of th e16mm film: the ascent from the surface. For some reason they're picking on interpoloated footage, rather than an unprocessed version. amnd because they find all kinds of extra things in there (you know, the kind of things entirely consistent with AI interpolation), then there must be some sort of faking going on.
The best bit is their insistence that the frame rate change represents an edit, and is really the transition from them filming over a model to filming lunar orbit images or some such garbage.
Here's your challenge "Detectievcs": find the lunar orbiter images that show the detail of the area that is contained in the Apollo 16mm footage. I'll even tell you which ones you need to look at: Lunar Orbiter 4, images 84 and 85.
You can get them here:
https://planetarydata.jpl.nasa.gov/img/data/lo/LO_1001/DATA/LO4/Here's just a tiny example, taken at the point they get all excited about. I've rotated the AJF version of the 16mm footage
to match the LRO view.
Now let's zoom in to the area in the red box:
This is the best Lunar Orbiter view of the same wide scale area:
Where's the detail "detectives"? Where are all the craters and rocks that the 16mm footage picked out?
Lunar Orbiter images did not contain the detail required of the Apollo landing sites to produce a model of any kind that would show the detail in the 16mm footage and photos. You can claimn it was a model all you like, but how did they make it with information they didn't have?
Recent Posts
