Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[JayUtah]

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot...

You're more likely to be regarded a crackpot while you keep playing games.  If you want to avoid that impression, state your conclusions clearly and unambiguously, and describe in detail the line of reasoning that led you there.  Then respond conscientiously to questions from those whose input you have come here to obtain.

It looks very vivid and the colors look off.

And what do you think this means?  Describe the process you used to determine what the proper colors should be, and to investigate the ways in which the photos you're using might have rendered them differently.

Again don't destroy me.

Quit playing games, and you will be treated fairly and respectfully.

I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

So far your approach to the evidence has simply been to measure it against your vague or incorrect assumptions and ignore contrary facts.  You can "point out" whatever you like, but you can't seem to make a case that your conclusions are anything other than poorly-informed opinions and assumptions.

...pretty good.
...fairly static.

You seem to be parlaying mere similarity as if it were identicality.  Please describe the process you used to determine that things you argue to be identical are just so, and not simply similar.

I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on.

Then you have no business soliciting others' opinions.  You clearly have a line of reasoning and a conclusion in mind, and you clearly want others to somehow guess what it is.  Refusing to state it is one of the games that brand you a crackpot.

As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

A fine time to be trying to stick to the topic.  You're waffling on about the Apollo 17 landing site when the thread is supposedly about the plume deflectors.  So now that we've raised the issue of relevance, do you concede that you were wrong about the plume deflectors?  Do you concede that you were wrong about the SM RCS jets?  This is a test of your honesty.

[BertieSlack]

The images are from completely different locations. The location of the first photograph you posted can be seen in the panorama that contains the second - here it is with the same rock identified amongst the tracks leading to Poppie crater:

You beat me too it. Gene's tracks south to Poppie - and the rock next the tracks - are clearly visible in both panoramas conclusively showing that JR Knewing actually shot himself.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender. The location and timing is problematic. The fender was lost supposedly during EVA SEP location. The fender you see is at the LM site. And the fender is on the ground prior to the rover being driven. There are photos prior to the rover taking the test drive showing the fender on the ground.(no tire tracks anywhere)  And there are photos of the fender on the ground during test drive in which the rover still had all its fenders after the test drive.

[BertieSlack]

Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender.

It's not a fender.

[onebigmonkey]

Hi OneBigMonkey,

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot,

That's not really working out for you.

but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

You have done nothing to demonstrate the that LM is a matte painting. The live TV footage and other images all back up the historical fact that Apollo 17 happened as recorded in the history books. Your apparent version of events has no supporting evidence other than "It looks funny to me".

I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison.  They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

The two images were shot from two completely different locations. That is obvious from the gif comparison I did which shows that not one thing in the foreground, middle ground or background match up in them other than the line I arbitrarily chose to align them on. The reason for this is because they were taken at different places. They were not taken at different heights at all, save a few inches in astronaut dimensions. If you can't see that the two images are showing different things it's not because they aren't different, it's because you desperately don't want to.

[bknight]

Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender. The location and timing is problematic. The fender was lost supposedly during EVA SEP location. The fender you see is at the LM site. And the fender is on the ground prior to the rover being driven. There are photos prior to the rover taking the test drive showing the fender on the ground.(no tire tracks anywhere)  And there are photos of the fender on the ground during test drive in which the rover still had all its fenders after the test drive.

Nope
117:47:34 Cernan: Okay. Here we go. Okay. (Getting tongue-tied) The runt...the fright...the front wheels turn. I can't see the rear ones.
117:47:43 Schmitt: (Finishing the pan) I'll verify them in a minute.

You have decided it is out of sequence but reading the record the drive is taking place during the pan, the fender "fell" sometime during that interval look at https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22515HR.jpg  There appear to be rover tracks that lead up to the fender (perhaps backing up) then do not exist further.  And as for the image you say all then fenders are //history.nasa.gov/alsj/AS17-147-22527.jpg in place.  When if fact no one can see all of the fenders of the left hand wheels as they are hidden by the rover  You are stretching for conclusions without a full set of accompanying evidence. The fender issue is not an issue at all, unless you are preconceived that the mission images are fraud.  You are not just asking questions, you are telling us that there is evidence(which you really can't provide) that the missins were fake/frauds.  Come on now jus admit your are a HB and quit the games as Jay indicates.

[onebigmonkey]

Hi Bknight,

I am glad you see the fender.

It's not a fender.

I completely agree. All the images of the rover on its first test drive taken shortly after the 4 o'clock pan show the fenders to be completely intact, and the first record of damage is after TV coverage starts. There is no mention of damage to the fenders when Gene and Jack are assembling the rover.

So, either some foolish movie tech left a spare piece of fender lying around and absolutely no-one on the set noticed at all or (bear with me here) it's not a fender. In the first photos by the OP it has an apparent curve in what would be the direction across the wheel but not in the direction around the wheel. It is too long to not be curved in that direction. Photographs from the other side of the LM show it to be much less fender-like and much more "some piece of trash kicked around during MESA and LRV deployment"-like.

So, either it's a piece of trash or NASA are really stupid. I know what my call is.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Everyone,

Jay et al, I am just trying to respect other people's beliefs. Clearly, as you can see, I am not part of "the band". I know I don't have a monopoly on truth. But neither does anyone else. Beliefs and truths are funny things. If beliefs were truths there would be at least 100 gods who created man. Trust me, there are many things that give me pause, such as the LRO pics, which makes me think I must be stupid to have these doubts. But there are things that keep nagging at me. If you want to brand me a hoaxer, fine. But I am here because you guys, if anybody, will give a reason(able) rebuttal.

BKnight, with regards to the fender. Either you attached the wrong pic, or you are proving my point. The pic you attached are not tire tracks beside the fender, they are foot prints. The fender is no where near any tire tracks. In fact, the documentation states this pic is prior to rover rollout.

Has anybody done an comparison analysis of the small crater directly in front of the large crater in the two site pics? (I have attached the pics once more. It is labelled no 1). Use high res pics (AS17-134-20437 and AS17-147-22514) and you will see the shape and patterns within the crater are very, very similar. There are a few other pics of the same small crater in the magazine sequences. I have attached another view of that small crater.

[JayUtah]

Jay et al, I am just trying to respect other people's beliefs.

No, you aren't.  You're trying to draw your opponents into taking an affirmative position and defend the conventional narrative against some nebulous doubt you refuse to give substance.  I guarantee no one here will fall for it.  We've seen this act before, from nearly every hoax claimant.

Clearly, as you can see, I am not part of "the band".

No, your performance here has nothing to do with others' supposed groupthink.  You are simply playing the same games every hoax claimant does when avoiding intellectual responsibility.

I know I don't have a monopoly on truth. But neither does anyone else.

No, not everyone is equally hobbled.  As we demonstrated in the discussion of the plume deflectors and the RCS, your critics here know the relevant facts far better than you.  Your arguments are little more than ignorant assumptions and unfounded suppositions to which you cling despite having the truth explained patiently to you.

I must be stupid to have these doubts. But there are things that keep nagging at me.

No, you're not a sincere seeker after truth.  You've been told the truth, and you've demonstrated that you prefer your assumptions and "concerns."

If you want to brand me a hoaxer, fine.

No, it's not about "branding."  It's about you being honest regarding what you believe, why, and why you're here telling us about it.

But I am here because you guys, if anybody, will give a reason(able) rebuttal.

You were given reasonable rebuttals, which you ignored.  You were asked to acknowledge those rebuttals, and you pretended not to notice.  The willingness of others to engage you depends entirely on you being honest in your approach and methods.  So far you haven't been.

Has anybody done an comparison analysis of the small crater directly in front of the large crater in the two site pics?

Do not shift the burden of proof.  If you have a claim to make, make it and submit to questioning.  Do not bait others into having to state and defend some proposition.

[onebigmonkey]

Notwithstanding Jay's comment, if you're going to suggest people do a crater comparison it'd help if you'd done one yourself:



Completely different.

[nomuse]

Hi OneBigMonkey,

I hesitate to say anything at the risk of being seen as crackpot, but if there is something to what I am saying then why would that far off picture of the LM "exist"in which you point out the rock? If, even if it is a million to one, the EVA and LM site are one in the same then could that not be some Matte painting? Look at how the LM looks. It looks very vivid and the colors look off. Again don't destroy me. I am just pointing out how evidence might not always be fully trust worthy.

I am not quite sure about what you are trying to show with the pair comparison.  They were shot from significantly different angles and height. Even then, despite what you are saying, they actually line up pretty good. I think you are being confused by the dark band of land just below the hills. If you follow the footprints/tracks out to where they disappear in background you will see it is darker band of ground/hill that changes. You see this transition from flat ground to hills/horizon in many pics particularly the later missions. That band changes everything else remains fairly static. I will leave it to another day to explain what I think is going on. I rather concentrate on the comparisons between the two sites for now. As some posters have pointed out, we need to stick to one topic at a time.

"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

[jr Knowing]

Hi OneBigMonkey,

You are comparing the wrong two things. The pics on the right are correct. That is the small crater in front of the larger crater. The pics on the left look like the rock formation I numbered NO 3. I numbered the small crater no.1 in the comparison photos.

[nomuse]

Of little importance. Given the detail density of the setting, is is completely plausible for two entirely different features to present identically in a select pair of images. What isn't plausible is that the pair of images you chose can be anything other than two views of fully a three dimensional terrain.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay,

I think you are being a bit unfair with me regarding demonstrating a high burden of proof.

I not critical of you when you state certain things without support. For instances, regarding the RCS nozzles you stated the nozzles were "within the zone of boundary layer separation, thus protecting them from the supersonic slipstream.  The discontinuity where the conical command module becomes the cylindrical service module causes the boundary layer of air there to separate from the side of the service module.  You can see this illustrated by condensation around the stack during transonic flight.  The air in the immediate vicinity of the RCS quads is turbulent, not in laminar flow at high velocity." You don't back that statement up with anything. I am fine with that. But it is helpful to me as it gives me some direction to an answer. (of course, I haven't found documentation yet of the Saturn that shows this but no biggie). To me, this all about fruitful discourse. I am not demanding concrete proof on things, just ideas and thoughts. And Given some of your answers, I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things. But I can hold my own on other things. Thanks.

[JayUtah]

I think you are being a bit unfair with me...

No.  If you're going to play aerospace engineer and think that by doing so you can prove Apollo was fake, I will not hold back.  And I warned you earlier that I would not.  You can either come up to my standards or you can quit pretending to be something you're not.

You don't back that statement up with anything.

You mean other than my thirty years' experience in the field you're pretending to know about?  I told you what the phenomenon was.  I told you what caused it.  I told you how you could verify it for yourself.  Now you're telling me that you haven't, but somehow I'm at fault.

I am fine with that.

Then you should have no problem conceding that your concerns were unfounded.

To me, this all about fruitful discourse.

A discussion bears fruit when it arrives at a more reasoned conclusion than it started with.  You were unaware of the aerodynamics of the vehicle and of the mechanical strength of the thruster assembly.  You were similarly unaware of how stability is reckoned in spacecraft, and specifically how the plume deflectors were handled in that regard.  You were also unaware of launch-pad procedures.  Now you're aware of all that.  Reap the fruit by conceding you were mistaken.

I don't profess to have your level of knowledge on some things.

You might just as well, because all you offered in response earlier was a reassertion of your original assumptions, and all you're offering now is insubstantial denial.  And more than a little ham-fisted social engineering.

But I can hold my own on other things.

Such as?