Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[David Guyatt]

Study showing pasted in earth photo.

Jack

Jack, is the technique you used, one that forensic professionals apply to photo's in order to validate they are genuine or not? In other words is it a recognized method to root out fakes.

With zero knowledge of photographic fakery and the techniques of analysis, I rather thought your picture was quite telling.

Yes...it is a well known technique to bring out subtleties in exposure
variances to a far greater tolerance than ordinary darkroom techniques.
Every image on a computer is made up of three colors...simply called
red-green-blue, or RGB. Even b/w images are made up of RGB pixels.
Selective manipulation of the RGB tonal values is virtually limitless in
combinations, and can be viewed on the screen in real time, so dozens
or hundreds of combinations can be viewed in just a few minutes. Thus
when something suspicious shows up, it can be examined in detail by
further refinement. I should emphasize that THE COMPUTER DOES ALL
THE WORK AUTOMATICALLY. The operator only handles what the computer
is looking for. This technique has been in use for at least 20 years to my
knowledge.

Jack

Thanks Jack. I thought that probably was the case but it is just as well to check. It seems quite a damning piece of evidence based upon that.

[David Guyatt]

As with so much deep political thinking (awakening) it really isn't about the evidence. Most people are too blinded by scorn to even look.

You need to have that red pill moment before you can consider the possibility that NASA - that great symbol of noble and disinterested scientific endeavour - could have perpetrated a hoax.

But once you take the gullibility goggles off, however, it really does start to look a bit threadbare.

Not just the technical aspects like the photography but the very idea that JFK could announce in 1961 they would go to the moon by the end of the decade and lo and behold, they did. In 8 years? We can't even build an Olympic stadium in that amount of time.

As the years pass, and CGI special effects get ever more sophisticated, the more the space hardware starts to look a bit craptastic. Especially that paper US flag taped messily onto the side of the Lunar landing craft. They couldn't afford a nice plaque out of all the billions of dollars?

And does anyone really believe Apollo 13 went tits up on April 13 after a malfunction of fuel cells 1 and 3?

When I look back at my former self marvelling at how they managed to do all that on less computing power than that found in a pocket calculator I feel like a fool.

But at least I woke up.

One useful litmus test is to ask "if they could do it and get away with it, would they do it?" The answer is a no brainer. Of course they would.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Sometimes they seem to be openly taking the piss. Take a look at this and the so-called 'football sized rock' which is clearly a fuel can for the Lunar Rover.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgd4j0c66ng

[Jack White]

...and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Ap4-IsIFI&NR=1

[Peter Dawson]

Sometimes they seem to be openly taking the piss. Take a look at this and the so-called 'football sized rock' which is clearly a fuel can for the Lunar Rover.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgd4j0c66ng

Someone is openly taking the piss, but it isn't NASA.

How could this footage ever see the light of day if it is clear cut evidence that the moon missions were faked?

One of the bad men from the other forum provides the background detail of this clip:

The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP.

The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment.

[Peter Dawson]

...and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Ap4-IsIFI&NR=1

Early in the 21st century, a great debate was had on the internets about the authenticity of the American Apollo moon landings. Using a series of well produced youtube clips, the debate was eventually won by the hoax proponents, to the great consternation of the scientific orthodoxy of teh day.

[Jack White]

Sometimes they seem to be openly taking the piss. Take a look at this and the so-called 'football sized rock' which is clearly a fuel can for the Lunar Rover.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgd4j0c66ng

Someone is openly taking the piss, but it isn't NASA.

How could this footage ever see the light of day if it is clear cut evidence that the moon missions were faked?

One of the bad men from the other forum provides the background detail of this clip:

The "fuel" referred to is for the RTG, NOT the rover. That's the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Generated electricity for the ALSEP.

The object that the author of the video (ArcAngel4Myke) is trying to fool you into believing is a "fuel can" is the TGE - Traverse Gravimeter Experiment.

At the end of the clip, the astronaut THROWS the object as
far away as he can. Please explain.

Jack

[Peter Dawson]

At the end of the clip, the astronaut THROWS the object as
far away as he can. Please explain.

Jack

I don't know for sure. Maybe it was the fuel cask that the plutonium was stored in. That sounds like something they'd make the effort to throw away from their general vicinity.

But according to one of the bad men at the other forum it was the gravimeter, and the numbers one of the astronauts was reading out tends to support that idea. So maybe that was the last spot they were going to take a reading from, the whole experiment was over, and the device had now become a sophisticated and expensive piece of space junk, and they guy threw it for some reason.

Maybe they got a perverse thrill out of hurling equipment worth hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, into the distance, knowing that it was now completely usless, and no one would be back the the place they were at for a very, very long time.

Maybe they took every opportunity to throw stuff in the low g environment, because it was fun. Though it is a pity they didn't get better footage of that sort of thing.


What about trying to answer my question: How could this footage ever see the light of day if it is clear cut evidence that the moon missions were faked?

[David Guyatt]

Nice photo:



I notice the crosshairs show nicely, which is well and good, as they were etched into a piece of glass positioned between the camera lens and the film.

But they do not always show, which is curious:



But I am aware that there are those who argue that this is simply due to washout from sunlight. And it seems to be a valid argument up to a point. The black etchings also disappear in darkness, as well as washing-out in sunlight. But they don't entirely disappear in sunlight, I think.

In the first of the above pictures showing the washout, a larger picture clearly seems to show that the crosshair line is eclipsed behind the collapsible rover. This larger picture also shows examples of how washing out in light does happen, albeit not entirely.

http://www.kuruvinda.com/img/apollo16/AS...7446HR.jpg

I have downloaded the last picture and, as a personal experiment, have magnified it until it loses focus. The left crosshair is definitely eclipsed by the Rover and not washed-out by the sun. Try it yourselves. Bullshit very often beats brains (as one of my former City colleagues used to say) but seeing is believing.

Lastly, I want to address what I regard as the unwise comment made by Peter Dawson about "one of the bad men at the other forum". I would strongly recommend that he refrain from making these sorts of sly remarks in the future. He is not at all familiar with how this forum was founded and why we went to to trouble of doing so, and should not, therefore, make judgments he does not fully understand.

Also is you point by point rebuttal of Jim Fetzer's arguments in any danger of being posted in the near future? :date:

Thought not...

[Peter Dawson]

Seems I was on the right track:

169:51:05 Cernan: 337, 417, 101; 337, 417, 101.

169:51:16 Parker: Okay. Copy that.
169:51:20 Cernan: Are you through with this (gravimeter)?
169:51:25 Parker: Roger.

[Bob laughs, realizing that Gene wants to see how far he can throw the TGE.]

169:51:27 Cernan: (Repeating his question) Bob?

169:51:29 Parker: (Laughing) Roger. We're through with it.
169:51:30 Schmitt: (To Gene) Be kind. Be kind.
169:51:32 Cernan: Well, I love it, and I'm sure it did a good job...
169:51:35 Parker: Well, we're not through with you, Gene, so don't throw yourself too far!
169:51:40 Cernan: No, sir. I just don't want to hit old Challenger there. (Pause)

[Gene throws the gravimeter toward the southwest with a half hammer-throw motion. It lands out of sight, behind the Rover. Jim Scotti notes that the bright-blue TGE and its impact marks can be seen in AS17-145-22197, which Gene took out his window once he and Jack were back in the cabin.]

169:51:52 Schmitt: That was unkind.

169:51:56 Cernan: You did the javelin!
169:51:59 Schmitt: That was unkind.
169:52:01 Parker: Roger, Gene. And we...
169:52:02 Cernan: I didn't throw it as far as I could have. I just... 169:52:03 Parker: ...we timed the parabola for that, and we have one excellent measurement of "g" on the Moon now.

link
Edited to remove acknowledgement of source.