Watching the detectives...

[Obviousman]

I did heaps of debunking work regarding Jack White's absurd claims about 20 years ago. If you ever want work regarding specific claims (e.g. When at Surveyor the image of the Apollo 12 crew does not show the LM in the distance, etc), let me know which claim and I'll dig up my old images / posts.

CHeers

What I would be intersted in is if Jack White's 'research' exists outside the largely meme based format on aulis, ie where he lays out his processes, sources, that kind of thing. What's exhibited at aulis are effectively his conclusions, not how he arrived at them.

Let me give you an insight into the "rigour" of Jack's 'investigations': I once accused him of dismissing my rebuttals out of hand, not reviewing what I have provided. His reply was words to the effect of:

I am always open to new evidence supporting the claim the Moon landings were real however since we know the landings were faked, any evidence in support of the landings must also be faked and therefore a waste of my time to examine.

[onebigmonkey]

Meanwhile Rasa is assembling a whole new collection of smoking guns. Ooh goody!

He has declared that shadows are under studio lights (with converging light beams no less) because the shadows are blurry at the edges.



His evidence that studio lights would produce this effect is as follows:








Pretty convincing, no?

It has not occurred to him that the shadow he points out as sharp is between two blurry shadows. How would that work Rasa?

How are you defining sharp Rasa? What arbitrary standard are you applying? IS it, do you think, that the nature of the powdery surface, with a hint of astronaut movement, might be causing that blur? Have you considered that the nature of the ground is reflecting light all over the place, and that the shadow is exactly what you'd expect? Like this:



Dean Talboys has also declared that the shadow doesn't match the undulating ground surface, and it ws probably added after the fact. Guess it doesn't appear in the 16mm footage and live TV then, right?

[TimberWolfAu]

Meanwhile Rasa is assembling a whole new collection of smoking guns. Ooh goody!

In the end, isn't this just that camera is closer to the astronauts own shadow, so will see the umbra portion of their shadow more clearly than the umbra of the further astronaut? That as a shadow gets further away from the object that is casting the shadow, the umbra expands and becomes easier to see from a distance.

From my own \/, the green arrows show where the shadow is furthest from the casting object, causing them to soften/blur, whilst the red arrows show that when the object is near, the shadow is a lot sharper. Added bonus, this is in sunlight too. Took a whole bunch of examples for their current shadows claim, I might even get to use them when my suspension expires, if I don't just get banned outright first.

[TimberWolfAu]

Whoops, put umbra instead of penumbra in my last post on the second use. Should read; That as a shadow gets further away from the object that is casting the shadow, the penumbra expands and becomes easier to see from a distance.

[onebigmonkey]

I mean there'll be photos taken by unmanned probes that confirm his 'proof' right? Right?

[jfb]

Meanwhile Rasa is assembling a whole new collection of smoking guns. Ooh goody!

He has declared that shadows are under studio lights (with converging light beams no less) because the shadows are blurry at the edges.

...

This has to be performative; he has to be pretending to be that ignorant for his audience (who also have to be pretending to be part of the tribe).  I noticed this effect when I was a small child walking to elementary school early in the morning; I noticed it when playing with a flashlight.  I happened to look at an entry for solar eclipses in an encyclopedia one day and figured out what was happening. 

I was literally eight years old when I understood what was going on; I refuse to believe that people who graduated high school and have jobs and are allowed to drive on public roads have trouble with it.

[onebigmonkey]

My straydog's been busy, so busy I've had to reorganise his little section of my site before it becomes unmanageable..

I really can't tell if he's just trying to entrap his nemesis Jenny, but he genuinely seems to be claiming that a really poor Apollo 17 image from the LPI site shows Earth, mostly on the grounds that lots of different AI packages tell him it is. He's using that poor quality version to try and prove that Earth was pasted in to the image. It isn't Earth, but it does show an interesting aberration on a few photos that might be lens flare relating to a bright Earth shining off camera.

https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/barking/ghof2/ghof2.html

In between that, and regurgitating other long debunked nonsense from Jack White, he's turned his attention to the mysterious stone circle in Surveyor crater visible in orbital images. His conclusion: if Apollo astronauts visited the crater, they would definitely have made note of it and gone to see it but by golly they just don't. The reality: it doesn't look like a circle from the ground:

https://onebigmonkey.com/itburns/barking/ring/ringpiece.html

Elsewhere in stupidland, Rasa has found JPL's VICAR software, developed in the 60s in order to store and manage images sent from far off worlds by, eg, Viking.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19770021885/downloads/19770021885.pdf

He's implying that its existence shows 'they' had the ability to edit and manipulate Apollo images. Ironically, he may have stumbled on teh reaosn why the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were re-used. VICAR used punch cards to process the data, and stored the output on magnetic tape. One tape could hold up to 99 images, depending on image size. I have no idea if the same tape was used, maybe someone else can clarify.

Even if he was correct he forgets, of course, that in order to process those images they had to exist in the first place.

He's also urging his followers to use the wayback machine to download vintage scans of Apollo images, so that they can be compared with modern scans and prove that the are fake. He can't wrap his head around the idea that images were re-scanned to improve the standard of electronic copy available, what with both scanning and image processing software improving a lot over the years. Guess it hasn't occurred to him to spend less on weed and more on buying actual vintage copies.

[bknight]

It seems to me that a lot of individuals with their hindsight have used the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy to dictate what the astronauts should have done.  They didn't check the mission was choreographed by NASA way before the missions launched.

[JayUtah]

Ironically, he may have stumbled on teh reaosn why the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were re-used. VICAR used punch cards to process the data, and stored the output on magnetic tape. One tape could hold up to 99 images, depending on image size. I have no idea if the same tape was used, maybe someone else can clarify.

Telemetry tapes are not the same as computer tapes. Computer tapes are commodity items that you could buy by the case. There would be little need beyond convenience or nominal cost-savings to reuse those tapes. In contrast, telemetry tapes were made to operate at much higher tape speeds, higher tensions, and higher channel densities, so they were considerably more rare and expensive.

[MartinC]

Just a head up, given the title of this thread, that Marcus Allen has passed away as reported by the ADs on their yt channel.

As if to demonstrate the futility of posting on their channel, StrayDog took exception to a post which he claimed was speaking ill of Allen, overlooking of course the vitriol and damn right disgraceful comments posted when someone from the Apollo programme passes away.

[TimberWolfAu]

Just a head up, given the title of this thread, that Marcus Allen has passed away as reported by the ADs on their yt channel.

Our time has to end eventually, some of us get good long runs, others are sadly too short.

Condolences to the family and friends.

[onebigmonkey]

I'm sure his family will be upset, but his final words on the AD channel don't flatter his legacy.

In thier latest video he merely acts as a nodding dog to Scott Henderson's latest example of utter, utter stupidity.

Henderson is flabbergasted that teh Apollo 16 jump salute photos show it next to the LM< but a mission document idenfies 'flag' a whole 1.5 km away.

Flag crater, not the flag, you cretin.

They go on to query how an earth they could possibly know about these small craters when lunar orbiter couldn't have seen them? They show a lunar orbiter photo but don't identify its origin, and are mystified as to how it could image craters 1 foot across when it didn't have that resolution.

Good question chaps, how did they know those small craters were there prior to the mission?

The map they use is this, only with the station names superimposed, which implies a post-mission map.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19730013002/downloads/19730013002.pdf

The mapping there as done not by Lunar Orbiter, but by stereoscopic photographs taken by Apollo 14. It says so quite clearly on the map, page 85. None of the craters on that map are 1 foot in diameter. Other more detailed maps of the later landing sites used Panoramic and Metric Mapping camera images to fill in the details. Lunar Orbiter didn't have the resolving power for the finer details in Apollo photos, and yet there they are. So close fellas, so close.

They also show cuff checklists which they seem to think identify specific 18" wide rocks and their mineral compositions, when they do not - they show general purpose tips on how to get samples from rocks.

If he's fortunate enough to have gone on to a better place, he will meet several of the astronauts he's lied about and profited from. He'll have some explaining to do.

[bknight]

Marcus was nothing but a grifter.  I for one will not miss him but wish him to RIP in a place where he cannot tell lies abot Apollo.

[onebigmonkey]

The detectives are trying to backtrack from their claim, maybe they've seen my comment above, stating that they're just quoting a document produced in 2002, and that document doesn't identify where the flag is, and doesn't mention flag crater. They're just 'pointing out inconsistencies'

That's a lie, and I'm just pointing it out.

The document they fail to identify is this one:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1048/report.pdf

Page 28. It is absolutely the one they quote. The annotated map I identified as being from the PSR in my previous post also appears in there (page 23). Both of them are clearly labelled as to what they show. Labels they chose not to show in their video.

It may have been scanned in 2002, but it was published in1981. I have an original hard copy. Far from not being mentioned at all, the specific term 'flag crater' is mentioned 22 times.

It's also worth mentioning that 'flag crater' is mentioned in the pre-mission press kit.

Try harder.

(amended for typos and additional info).