Watching the detectives...

[TimberWolfAu]

I'm shocked that a pretend physicists doesn't understand how radiated heat works. Shocked I tell you.

That one's had me equally scratching my head and banging it on the desk.

[onebigmonkey]

Another day, another stream of consciousness vomitus from the ADs.

They're still twittering on about Corona satellites and obviously haven't found the site where you can source much more than the ones available the NRO site.

There's probably much to unpick in the nonsense they're yapping about the PLSS (though there is the obvious one where they suggest that moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop inside the suit), but the main gem is where it is claimed that you have to launch from Vandenburg to get into polar orbit, and from Florida to get into an equatorial one.

The only reason you don't launch into equatorial orbit from Vandenburg is because (as SpaceX demonstrates on a regular basis) rockets explode, and it's not nice for people to have rocket parts land on them.

Many polar orbiting satellites have launched from Florida, you idiots.

[Peter B]

...Many polar orbiting satellites have launched from Florida, you idiots.

And the (crewed) Fram2 mission back in April this year...

[TimberWolfAu]

moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop

Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway).

and it's not nice for people to have rocket parts land on them.

Pffft, doesn't seem to worry CNSA.

[onebigmonkey]

Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway

Unless it's the CSM, obviously, which can't ever cool down ever 

[onebigmonkey]

The latest half hour stream of consciousness appeal to incredulity is out, and there are several things to note.

They have found a document dump, and within it is a marvellous collection of apollo memos and logs that go all the way through construction and testing. They are amazed that the apollo simulations and testings were able to produce precise timelines, and marvel that small adjustments are made as a result of this process. It's almost as if they wanted to get it right. They note with a conspiratorial wink that the documents are allmostly from 2009, roughly when they started their "deteective work". They even spot that there are documents uploaded recently, and this can only be because NASA are uplaoding new documents edited to remove the things they have "discovered".

This is their treasure trove:

https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents

but if they went up a folder, it would lead them to the actual site: the Virtual AGC project, which is nothing to do with NASA.  There's even a change log on the site telling you when new documents have been added, and where they came from. They even poke fun at the moon hoax crowd on one of their links. Documents get revised chaps, deal with it. No-one has been altering those pdfs after the missions to cover themselves after your garbage has aired.

(Just to note I've had no issue accessing that site on my phone, but my computer keeps giving a 503 error - it is there!).

Later on they delve into the amount of fuel on the LM. Scott Henderson opines that the fuel is lighter than water, and so they can't possibly have more in the tank than the volume of it:

talking about the lander sitting there with those very small fuel tanks, if you add it up, a US gallon of water is 10lb. And of course, any fuel floats on top of water. Anything made from oil product is lighter than water. So, it has to weigh less. And if it's a gas made from that type of material as well, even if you compress it to a liquid, it's still going to be lighter than water. And if you take and fill those tanks up with water and they're about 1 cubic meter each, that means you only have 8,000 lb of fuel sitting there if it weighed as much as water, but it's lighter than water. And of course, the documents say that they had 19.1 something like that. Sometimes it's 19, 12,000 lb. Other documents said 18,500 or whatever. Well, you can't put that into 4 cubic meters. Even if you filled those fuel tanks, even if you took the entire quadrant, which is 1.12 cubic meters with concrete, you're only at 14,000 lb. Concrete's 22 lb per US gallon. All of these materials that they have there that they're putting in are much less weight even when they're compressed to a liquid. And there are documents out there saying that they were getting 15 and 16 pounds for the oxidizer. That's impossible.

That's right, a less dense material can't possibly weigh more, even when it's compressed INTO A MORE DENSE ONE.

And finally, they dispute the existence of a vacuum glove box at the lunar receiving laboratory, saying it couldn't have worked. They demand NASA show them the vacuum box, if it existed. All the while showing footage from NASA with the actual boxes in place. They use Ralph Rene's "demonstration" as proof of this, as his rubber glove in a vacuum explanded. It expanded because it was full of air, instead of a hand. If they had simply searched for "vacuum glove box" on the internet, they'd have found several companies selling this impossible product.

[TimberWolfAu]

They really are the gift that keeps on giving..... now where's that bloody receipt?

They even spot that there are documents uploaded recently, and this can only be because NASA are uplaoding new documents edited to remove the things they have "discovered".

Wow, it's almost as if private citizens don't have government funding at their disposal and have to take their time in loading things, replacing with better copies, updating sites, living actual lives that might get in the way. Nope, it must be because the 'defectives' were asking questions so they had to create new items and upload them.

Thanks for the link. I'd seen that one before but apparently didn't save it, rectified that now.

The amount of detail they went into faking it, you'd think it would have been easier to just do it for real. 

[jfb]

moving into the shade will be an instant temperature drop

Forget just the suit, it seems where ever you look there are HB's going on about the temperature of objects changing from 250°F to -250°F and how could the equipment work. I never took any physics in school beyond the mandatory, basic science classes we had to have, but even I understood that it takes time for objects to gain/lose heat, it's not instantaneous (well, outside extreme situations anyway).

Yeah, thermodynamics doesn't work like that. 

Next time they make that kind of claim, ask them how long it takes for a pot of water to go from room temperature to boiling (a difference of, what, 140º-ish F) when on top of a gas flame at full roar (around 2000º F).  Then ask them how long it takes that pot of boiling water to turn to ice after sticking it in a freezer at 0º F. 

"B..b..but that's different," they'll wail, missing the point completely. 

[onebigmonkey]

This document, for those interested (which obviously isn't the ADs)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19760023161/downloads/19760023161.pdf

describes in detail the development, operation and design of the vacuum glove assembly.

It's been pointed out to them in comments, but they seem more interested in finding out "who sent" the person who provided the information.

[TimberWolfAu]

I love the levels of details that can still be found, if you're willing to put in some effort to locate them, which, to be fair, sometimes doesn't require much effort at all.

Just scanning the arm and glove assembly (pg 19), it's amazing that people took the "garden glove" demonstration seriously. The work that went into making a 15psi resistant assembly, it looks like a beefed up version of the EVA pressure suits (seriously, "Lunar Outfitters", by Bill Ayrey, is a good read).

[onebigmonkey]

If anyone wants to see other detectives in action, but doesn't mind having their blood pressure raised, straydog2's "channel" is a goldmine. Straydog2 is their gatekeeper, and channel is in inverted commas because it's one video (one of Jarrah's), which he uses as a vehicle for posting all his fine top level detective work.

Most of that of late is him demonstrating the fine art of asking AI leading questions to get the answer you want, but amongst all that there are some gems.

A particular favourite is him claiming China's Chang'e-5 landing near apollo 15 but has very different findings. I mean, sure, it looks near on the photo he linked, maybe 2 inches, but in reality it's a good 1000km.

He also claims, in quick succession, that China only published one image of Apollo sites (Apollo 16) but really they didn't and it's just a blurred LRO image and actually they haven't published any. He manages to ask AI leading questions to prove both those things.

Anyone who's looked at my site knows that you can download their images and with patient work can tease out details of Apollo 12 upwards.

More to come from that when my statins are working properly.

[onebigmonkey]

The latest video (not the livestream) is just embarrassing. They look at a picture of the moon and compare it with amateur astronomer images. They're taken under different lighting conditions and are of different resolution, but that doesn't stop them claiming that NASA is adding and/or taking away (delete as applicable) details for, well, who knows. Theu show remnant craters filled with maria material and claim that they're full of dust, so therefore all the Apollo equioment should be covered in dust and invisble.

How Jarrah fails to join in and go "fellas, you're making dicks of yourself and by extension me" I do not know.

Anyway, the main purpose of this post is to completely discredit the absolute falsehoods claimed by straydog2 about China's imaging of Apollo.

In a series of responses he makes several ciaims, mostly after interrogating AI with leading questions and then paraphrasing its results to make it sound like it's the AI answer when in fact it's his.

Here's a few direct quotes:

"[China] did not release any images that clearly show Apollo hardware."

This at least is correct - the Chang'e-2 resolution is not capable of doing htat, no-one ever claimed it did.

"The Chang'e 2 image is an EXACT MATCH for the NASA LRO image because it is a very blurry COPY of that image...the Chinese have the technology to image the entire Moon in high definition and have already done so, with the exception of the Apollo sites.. So instead of publishing high resolution images showing no Apollo debris at the Apollo sites, they have sent a different kind of message, by not publishing any images at all, with the exception of that one blurry image that they obviously did not take"

"What they did was to take the Apollo 16 LRO image, copy it exactly, make it very blurry and then publish it as a way of exposing the Apollo fraud without actually saying it was a fraud."

"The Chinese not only didn't take that photo but didn't publish it either.. Instead, NASA mislabeled their own blurry A16 LRO image in an silly attempt to make it look like the Chang'e 2 had confirmed one of their alleged landing sites!"

So, to be clear, the dog is claiming China have never published any images of Apollo sites, NASA doctored one of their own images and pretended it was from China.

It's prefectly possible to go to the CNSA's webGIS application and download the large scale tiles, on which you can find the evdience of human activity at Apollo sites. Note I'm saying evidence of human activity., not hardware. That evidence is darkened ground around the lunar modules, with occasional hints of trails to sites around them.

Those tiles are compiled from the probe's CCD instrument, and I decided to set about finding those original tiles. Each Chang'e-2 oribt moved on about 1 degree from the previous one, and produced a pair of images from the forward and rear facing camera. The resulting images are roughly 50km wide and 200km long. Each forward and rear facing image has a 'SCI' and 'GEO' files. The GEO file contains detailed meta data, while the SCI file is the image itself. You can open the SCI file in photoshop by first opening it in notepad (or anyother software capable of reading the file header) to get the image dimensions. Those dimensions are always 6151 pixels wide and around 55000-60000 pixels high. Each SCI file is around 350Mb

You can download them here:

https://moon.bao.ac.cn/ce5web/searchOrder_dataSearchData.search

It's a bit of a faff, finding the relevant orbits is a pain, but eventually I tracked down the files for each Apollo site.

Apollo 11:

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B07_SCI_N_20101120165451_20101120185249_0532_A

The time of the image is the long sequence of numbers, and the last 4 numbers identifies the orbit.

Tranquility base covers the smallest area, but had the least amount of activity, so other than identifying where the site is it's very difficult to say with certainty that there's anything to see there. I'm still downloading one of the image pairs while writing this, but I don't expect it to show anything.

Apollo 12:

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101124092425_20101124112222_0577_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101124092425_20101124112222_0577_A

This is the better of the two



where you can see activity around the LM and Surveyor 3.

Apollo 14:

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101123213629_20101123233428_0571_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101123213629_20101123233428_0571_A

Here's the better of the two:



Cone crater is top right, and there's a nice dark blob around the site of the LM towards the bottom left.

Apollo 15

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101122022037_20101122041835_0549_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_GEO_N_20101122022037_20101122041835_0549_A

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101122041836_20101122061634_0550_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_SCI_N_20101122041836_20101122061634_0550_A

Here's the Apollo site from each of them:





Again, clear activity around the LM and suggestions of trails leading elsewhere.

Apollo 16

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B08_SCI_N_20101121083844_20101121103642_0540_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F08_SCI_N_20101121083844_20101121103642_0540_A



Activity around the LM and LRV VIP spot!

Apollo 17

CE2_BMYK_CCD-B06_SCI_N_20101120030855_20101120050653_0525_A
CE2_BMYK_CCD-F06_SCI_N_20101120030855_20101120050653_0525_A

The rear facing camera looks to have had some sort of issue right at Taurus Littrow, but the forward one does show this:



That little blob in the middle is where Challenger sits to this day.

So there you are Straydog2. As usual, someone's done all the work for you. China has published images of the Apollo landing sites, you can download them from their website and see for yourself. I've done some quite severe processing on those images to bring out the detail, but even without that the darkened ground around the LM on the multi-EVA sites can be made out once you know where to look.

The issue here is his expectation of how China should be doing it. It's a form of the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. He thinks China should be making a big song and dance about it, and because they haven't that's somehow proof of his delusions. As with India's Chandrayaan series, they didn't go to the moon to prove Apollo happened. It's an irrelevance. Apollo sites are routinely referenced by Chinese academics in their research, and the location and properties of Apollo hardware were used to "ground truth" their observations: they know where and what they are, so they can check what their instruments are showing.

Asking leading questions of AI software is not going to give you the evidence you need, it's just lazy. It is no substitute for doing the hard work yourself. And sure, you can whine about not being able to see any actual hardware, but here's the thing doggy, you don't get to set the standard of acceptable proof. The fact is there's evidence of human activity right where it was always claimed to be. Prove me wrong.