FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[tarkus]

Even though the official version insists that we believe in the scientific spirit of those who planned the monumental scam of Apolo, the truth is that this "exploring spirit" failed miserably when it was time to overfly the moon. What better example than the indiference towards that sector 100% unknown to mankind, the hidden face that (from Earth) we aren't able to see? One would expect that at least one of the six landings should've taken place in that unknown and unexplored sector, but all six landing took place in the side we all know. The excuse for this is that the dark side was "too accidented" and any descend manouver would take a high risk. But Apollo didn't even show enthusiasm about cartographing the surface in detail. In fact, the lack of detailed images of the dark side is pathetic, with just this picture, that was allegedly taken by the Apollo 16 in 1972:



But there are two serious problems with this image: The first and most evident, is that this sector is brightened up by the Sun, when Apollo 16 supposedly landed on the opposite side of the Moon during daytime, so, as it's IMPOSSIBLE for both hemispheres to be simultaneosuly brightened, we can conclude that the image is FAKE, by the same reason that would make impossible for both New York and Tokyo to have daytime at the same time.
The second big problem with the image from Apollo, is that when it's compared with the image obtained by the probe LRO in 2009, we can see that NOT A SINGLE CRATER MATCHES THE OTHER.



By the way, Apollo 16 landed on the moon with the sun high in the sky, as revealed the same images of the mission ...





NASA lied and keeps doing so. Let's see another image, in this case an animated gif presented recently by the space agency, where we can see Moon's transit "photographed" (badly photoshopped) from beyond the Moon's orbit. Again, we see the hidden face of the Moon in the foreground, a Moon with a dark grey tone that should be explained. It doesn't take much, just a peek at the sky on a fullmoon's night, to know how our satelite looks like. That grey tone is 100% FAKE.



But the worst is the relative sizes of both bodies: If we're supposed to believe that the Earth, watched from the moon, is as small as Apollo's images make it out to be, then as we move farther away from Earth, it should become smaller and smaller. THEN WHAT THE HELL IS DOING SUCH A GIGANTIC EARTH BEHIND THE MOON? Surely the guy that was asked to come up with such a clumsy animation was told that the Moon has a diameter 4 times smaller than Earth, and the genius represented this scale as if both bodies were displayed side by side.

But there's more. Not only the Moon's transit is fake, but the very same image of the Earth spinning behind is obviously fake, as we can see the clouds remaining static, motionless for several hours, without shifting place or losing form. Who was the half-wit who made this joke of an animation?

[Ishkabibble]

A more important question is, who is the half-wit behind that monumentally gigantic pile of steaming post?

An even more important question is, what is your documentation and proof for these ridiculously outlandish claims?

Until you present something that can be considered evidentiary, that entire post is no more than wild opinion.

Facts?

[JayUtah]

Jack Schmitt proposed missions to the far side.  The objection was not that it was "too accidented," as you claim in quotes (but provide no reference for), but that the entire Apollo infrastructure depended on telemetry and other radio communications that would be impossible for a landing on the far side.

You present two photographs without references, purporting them to both be of "the far side" of the Moon, but you don't give any way for somebody to check the geodetic coordinates of the photos to verify that they are indeed of the same regions of the lunar surface.  The photo you purport to be taken by Apollo 16, of the "far side" of the Moon, includes obvious maria which are a feature of the near side only.  This immediately leads one to suspect that your two photos are not necessarily expected to show identical features.

To support your claim that Apollo 16 landed where the sun was "high in the sky," you provide two photographs.  You simply beg the question that they depict a sun at its zenith, and offer no quantitative treatment to extract that information from the photos.

Finally, you present an animation attributed to NASA (but again provide no reference so that your critics can verify its provenance).  You offer two observations, first that the relative brightness is not what you expect to see, and second that the relative sizes are not what you expect.  Both are answered by factors in photography of which you are evidently ignorant.  First, the Moon as seen in the night sky is not seen relative to the sunlit Earth.  You are seeing the Moon against a black background, at night, with dark-adapted eyes.  In contrast, a photograph taken of both the sunlit side of the Earth and the sunlit side of the sky must employ an exposure setting amenable to both.  In such an exposure, which is replicated many times in photography from the ISS, the Earth's albedo in the range of 30% shows it much brighter than the Moon's average albedo in the 15% ballpark.  Despite what you see at night, that is a true representation of the relative brightness of Earth and Moon.

Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager.  This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience.  Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.

[bknight]

Jay beat me to this, but give a reference number of the two images of the backside of the moon.
I look at the size of the moon/earth and the size appears to be about right considering that the moon is roughly 1/4 of the Earth.
Just what color do you believe that the moon should have?  Link some study to back up your allegation.

[onebigmonkey]

The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE

Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.

As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.

You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html

Where I have used the image in question.

As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.

Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.

Duh!

As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:



The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.

Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software

Try again.

[gillianren]

Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.

[bknight]

The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE

Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.

As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.

You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html

Where I have used the image in question.

As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.

Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.

Duh!

As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:



The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.

Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software

Try again.

I could see cloud patterns changing slightly.  One wouldn't expect to much of a move during the transit.

[bknight]

Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.

lol
even though much is already wrong.

[JayUtah]

As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.

He can also attempt to explain why, if that image is the "far side" of the Moon, we can see Mare Crisium creeping into view.  In fairness, he just copied two of the images Wikipedia reports as "far side" images.  I doubt he's expended much original effort to determine whether they really are of the same region of the lunar surface.

[onebigmonkey]

Oh, an as for no crater on the LRO view being visible on the Apollo 16 view, I'd suggest look for the location of Ibn Finas, King and Ostwald.

It will help if you rotate the Apollo image to the correct angle and use Google Moon.

When you're done, you can apologise for wasting my Friday evening wiping up this regurgitated claptrap.

[onebigmonkey]

I could see cloud patterns changing slightly.  One wouldn't expect to much of a move during the transit.

I know. His claim was they didn't move at all. He was wrong

[tarkus]

The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE

Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.

As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.

You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html

Where I have used the image in question.

As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.

Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.

Duh!

As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:



The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.

Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software

Try again.

Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!



Link animation graphic:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi

[onebigmonkey]

Apollo didn't even show enthusiasm about cartographing the surface in detail. In fact, the lack of detailed images of the dark side is pathetic

And this bit is just plain wrong.

There are as many, if not more, Apollo images of the lunar far side as there are of the near side, and complete coverage had already been done by Lunar Orbiter (Soviet efforts aside). The Metric and Panoramic cameras have very high resolution. Some of the Hasselblad images from orbit have more detail than Lunar Orbiter ones, and those details are vindicated by modern probes.

Face it, the more you dissect your post, the more wrong it contains.

[bknight]

Oh, an as for no crater on the LRO view being visible on the Apollo 16 view, I'd suggest look for the location of Ibn Finas, King and Ostwald.

It will help if you rotate the Apollo image to the correct angle and use Google Moon.

When you're done, you can apologise for wasting my Friday evening wiping up this regurgitated claptrap.

Thanks for the afternoon's cleanup.

[onebigmonkey]

Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:

Typo my part, it is an Apollo 16 metric mapping camera - as you can see from the link in my post.

And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!

You do not understand the importance of perspective.

That photograph of from Apollo 17, by the way, shows a time and date specific view of Earth matched by weather satellites: