Watching the detectives...

[onebigmonkey]

Jarrrah has tried to clear up the confusion over flag crater, and he claims it wasn't named as such until a year after the mission.

This is despite it being specifically mentioned in the mission transcripts and being labeled as such in the cuff check lists.

Oops.

[rocketman]

Who is Marcus Allen?

A quick Google turned up a number of candidates, but I don't think any of them are the person being referenced here.

[onebigmonkey]

Allen had been 'just asking questions' about the Apollo missions for decades, and despite having received perfectly correct and easy to discover answers to those questions, would continue to ask them to whichever paying audience turned up.

He famously recanted his views in front of an educated and informed audience, only to revert to rype when they were out of earshot.

[onebigmonkey]

And to return to their confusion over flag crater, they want to know why the location of the flag itself isn't given in the document.

It is, page 22.

[onebigmonkey]

Jarrah is unhappy with my comment above.

I'm gutted.

His point was that the name 'Flag crater' wasn't formally adopted as such by the people who formally adopt things until 1973. It says so in wikipedia.

I don't care.

The point the ADs made was that flag crater wasn't referenced in a document, when it was, many times. It was informally known as flag before and during the mission.

And Jarrah, if you have accusations to make about members of this site, bring them here. Don't hide in your echo chamber.

[Obviousman]

And Jarrah, if you have accusations to make about members of this site, bring them here. Don't hide in your echo chamber.

Yeah nah - I wouldn't be expecting that anytime soon.

[bknight]

Who is Marcus Allen?

A quick Google turned up a number of candidates, but I don't think any of them are the person being referenced here.

Editor of Nexus magazine, for alternate descriptions of happenings.  One of the maybe "original" HBs.

[bknight]

Jarrah is unhappy with my comment above.

I'm gutted.

His point was that the name 'Flag crater' wasn't formally adopted as such by the people who formally adopt things until 1973. It says so in wikipedia.

I don't care.


The point the ADs made was that flag crater wasn't referenced in a document, when it was, many times. It was informally known as flag before and during the mission.

And Jarrah, if you have accusations to make about members of this site, bring them here. Don't hide in your echo chamber.

Isn't he banned, and no I didn't look, JAQ. 

[bknight]

Referring to the Blunder and other misinformed HBs, what will they say concerning radiation received during 10 days in space during Artemus II, or 2, and whether the crew was fried in the VARBs.  Silly me obviously to them the crew never left LEO, akin to Apollo.

[TimberWolfAu]

Mr R. (Rasa) is making the claim that the astronauts will come back riddled with "cancers", but it's ok because NASA have super secret techniques and such for removing all the tumors they will have. You'd think someone who claims to have studied medicine would at least know how cancers/tumors form, and the time frames involved.

[jfb]

I would expect it all to be dismissed as AI-generated video.  Some eagle-eyed HB will see a "sixth finger" on someone's hand and use that as proof (when it's really a bit of cable or something). 

And then use AI-generated video to support their claims. 

[onebigmonkey]

In one of their recent videos, the ADs attempt to prove somethign or otehr by trying to criticise this paper

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JE001614

But in so doing reveal that they completely haven't understood what the paper is showing - Dave McKeegan has done an excellent (as usual) analysis of that here:

and there's no point in repeating the that, it's well worth a watch as somehting who is not well versed in a topic decides to become well versed in it in order to explain to someone who couldn't be bothered to do that why they're wrong.

In a nutshell, the paper looks at 1994 Clementine data and sees who topography can have an influence on values recorded by orbital probes. They claim the document demonstrates that evil NASA (boo, hiss, etc) are manipulating Hasselblad imagery taken on the surface, when in fact no such surface imagery is used. What they do use is an Apollo 17 Panoramic Camera image (which Dave unfortunately mixes up with Metric Mapping Camera imagery) to 'drape' over a DEM generated from a USGS 1972 digitised map.

They then produce a 'rebuttal' video,

which attempts to criticise Dave, but in so doing only demonstrates that they haven't understood a word of that either.

One simple demonstration of that is where the repeatedly refer to the unit 'm/pixel', as in 10 m/pixel, or 10 metres per pixel as "10 megapixel". While most viewers have howled in derision at Henderson's use of "cylinder" instead of "syllable", they've missed that one. The do not undestand how a low resolution DEM can be translated into an image with craters, so therefore they must be doing some sort of witchcraft, instead of what they are actually doing - making one image source match another image source so that they can be compared and used to analyse other data.

They claim in the comments that they are also discussing this document

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018EA000408

(which they may do in their full video, I haven't actually seen it, but certainly don't in this one), but that document compares LRO imagery with Hasselblad photos to produce precise locations of surface photographs. They include in the rebutall video a figure shown in scientific paper that is neither of the documents linked to above, but don't appear to provide sources for.

All they're managing to do is demonstrate how little they are prepared to put in to learning something new, and rely instead on their favourite fall back "I don't understand...". They are, at least, letting their audience know about scientific papers, whose authors do not work for NASA, that demonstrate that Apollo happened.

[TimberWolfAu]

Seeing the "New comment" tag pop up on this thread is both equal parts excitement and dread.

Got to the "10 megapixel" part, had a chuckle (and a face palm).

But the big take away you need from this one is simple;

Films don't have pixels!!!!!! C'mon maaann, didn't you know that?! They're "manipulating" the pixels, maann! I mean, sure, so what if Clementine didn't use film but gathered digital data (IIRC, happy to be corrected), it's the vibe man!

Also, at 4:18, are they really crying about panorama scenes being assembled from multiple photographs? Really? And "why" would we want to do that? Well, for starters, it looks pretty cool, plus you get to see a lot of the scene's and items in context to one another. But seriously, people have been assembling the photos into panoramas, some better than others, since about, ooooo I dunno, JULY 1969!!!! On this subject, the "Apollo Remastered" (Andy Saunders) has some lovely photos from the Apollo missions and I think it has every panorama set included, most, if not all, on fold outs to really set the scene.

Oh, and from what I could see, I believe this is the third document being referenced. If I'm reading it right, it's a study on making a new traverse map for Apollo 17, using surface photos (and assembled panoramas, OMG!!!) and images from the LRO.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JE003908

[onebigmonkey]

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.