Moon hoaxers are just garden variety America haters, anti Govs, anti business pov lefties who have confused education with intelligence. Go starve in the street, we are going to the stars.
I'm no statist, and the so-called educated have confused education with intelligence....that's right, but that's knowingly, because what can they do when they don't got the intelligence ?
That the Moon landing hoax can be exposed from Earth is not far away, The double telescope in Arizona can probably not see anything, but the Giant telescope in Chile which they are building is 4 times more powerful. I wonder what can they see, anyway the next generation can probably see a foot by a foot, that's enough to end this stupid discussion.
@kennjohnsen ..the crazies will never stop, they will say a machine made the footprints and it will not matter when we go back, they will say the scene was set up by the new astronauts.
@hunchbacked Yes, we know you say there are no footprints at all. And as more and better pictures of them keep coming in, you just shout "photoshop!" over and over based on nothing but your fervent wish that they be so.
I know you've devoted your recent life to this thing, but it's time to admit your mistake, cut your losses and return to your life. You're certainly not fooling anyone into thinking you're at all objective and scientific.
I don't worry, about a footprinting machine, when there is a scope powerful enough, it's just about pointing it at these so-called Apollo landing sites, and there will be nothing, and then it's time for the Moon landers to have an explanation.
@kennjohnsen .....can't you idiots come up with something better than "You are" ! Really this is primary school grade arguing, but then putting yourself above the first men on the moon Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong is the very height of lunacy and only for the most naive and gullible among us.
You are a liar, and promoting a lie, not only that but a obviously stupidity. Only you with the very hight of lunacy and the most dumb and gullible among us, will claim this Moon landing impossibility to be real.
The Moon hoaxsters are learning to memorizing the NASA Bible like a kid in a Sunday School, or like the kid you seen on TV, in a Koranic School. No body are using their head, those there got a head, to use.
Noah....Were the images stunning because the stars are still fracking missing? LMAO still! Are they stunning before, or after you photoshop shit in, and stars out? And, what is like to sell out humanity for an organization rooted in NAZI FASCISM?
@hunchbacked BTW, the heater was removed from the OPS in later units, it was unnecessary. It was only to heat the O2 as it expanded from the tank. You probably forgot thermodynamics.
@hunchbacked And speaking of not listening to explanations, YOU ignored my perfectly correct explanation of the fact that the LRRRs were adjusted BEFORE LAUNCH.
@hunchbacked I can't believe how thickheaded you are on the docking cross. When it was aligned with the center of the circle, that's how you knew you were properly aligned!!
@hunchbacked I guess you haven't heard of a hose that can roll up and be put in a bag? The bag went behind a seat. See those tabs on his visors? Those are for use with pressurized gloves.
@hunchbacked But then your next errors come fast. The buddy hose does NOT share oxygen. It is only for sharing the cooling water loop that flows through the liquid cooling garments when a PLSS fails. Each PLSS has enough cooling feedwater for hours, especially if the two astronauts are driving back on the rover and not exerting themselves. The astronaut with the failed PLSS is using his OPS and it will only last for an hour or so, so that's still the limit on the return time.
@GoneToPlaid A bladder in the feedwater tank is pressurized by suit O2, pressurizing the sublimator feed and making up the coolant loop through a check valve. So if the coolant loop leaks momentarily through the buddy hose, water automatically fills the hose and the other guy's cooling garment. Any gas in the loop is automatically vented through a gas separator valve. Much like the hot water heating system in a house I used to rent.
@hunchbacked No, the buddy hose is ONLY for sharing cooling water. It allows OPS to be used with the purge valve on low flow, doubling OPS lifetime to allow emergency return to the LM. The coolant loop is made up by feedwater under pressure, so the hose will be automatically filled by water from the working PLSS.
@hunchbacked I always love it when you make a definitive statement of the form "there won't be enough XXX to do YYY" when you have no idea of the amount of XXX available or the dimensions of the devices that do YYY. And you *certainly* show no calculations by which you arrive at your conclusion.
@hunchbacked Congratulations, I almost got to 4:00 in your crew equip video before I found your first major blunder. The OPS is ONLY for emergency use; the O2 pressure is checked before an EVA and then turned off and NOT used unless the PLSS fails. Even if the OPS regulator were to fail, turning it off would NOT be an option because you would have nothing left to breathe. Your suit overpressure valve would protect your suit while you swapped your OPS for your partner's.
Don't you just love the way hunchbacked screams "Photoshop!" at every Apollo image; while at the same time using images, where he has deliberately reduced the resolution, in order to conceal what he claims to be revealing?
Shadows play out to different angles from different objects. Go outside where there are lightpoles and posts near each other and look. The flag waved because it was being twisted into the ground.
...you CAN hear the rocket motors when Eagle takes off from the moon but its muted from the 30 plus layers of spacesuit material and the helmet shielding the microphone at the astronauts mouth.
@BTsmoke I don't know about hearing the rocket motors, but there's a very distinctive "Klack!" sound right at descent stage separation and ignition. I've always wondered what that is, since so much happens very quickly. It could be the actual sound of the guillotines firing to cut the bolts, cables and pipes between the stages.
@hunchbacked Compare the size of the astronaut and rover tracks to the size of the top of the LM's descent stage. The latter is called the LM deck. The LM deck is approximately 14 feet across. You can also see two LM footpads, one above and one below the LM deck, at 0:56 in this video. The separation between those two footpads is approximately 28 feet. The maximum resolution of the low altitude LRO photo of the Apollo 17 site at 0:56 is approximately one and a half feet.
@hunchbacked First, the LRO was slewed 25 degrees westward in order to view the Apollo 17 landing site from low altitude. Thus the LRO was not looking straight down at the landing site, but rather was looking at the landing site from the right at an angle of 25 degrees from vertical. There is no color in the LRO NAC images since the LRO Narrow Angle Cameras have black and white CCD sensors. Anything else which you can't bother to research for yourself, you idiot?
@hunchbacked Look at any deep space astronomical photograph, even Hubble telescope photographs. The stars are so distant that in reality they are nothing but pinpoints of light, yet brighter stars in all astronomical photographs appear to have disks. Since you never do any research, let me help you out: Google "Airy disk" and read several of the search results in order to understand the optical phenomenon behind the creation of Airy disks.
@hunchbacked And distant city lights are not anywhere near as bright as stars. All that matters is the intensity of the pinpoint light source versus the exposure time. The footpads are covered with Kapton film which reflects over 80% of the light striking it. And the light striking the Kapton film is light from a star which we call the Sun.
What a bunch of bullshit. Satelites around earth can vocus in on, and read a newspaper. Thats the best photo of the moon landing site? Hubble can see "trillions of light years" away, but we can't get one clear shot of the moon landing site. Its no wunder all other species think humans are retarded and can't be trusted. Your Government has lied to the world for years to cover up the fact that they can't stop us from coming to your planet.
@HooligansHelper There isn't any earth orbiting satellite which can read even a large bold print headline of a newspaper on the earth's surface. The best resolution obtainable by military spy satellites probably is around two feet for fairly high contrast targets.
I cant wait until clearer images are taken OR until somebody takes a hike to see one on foot without disturbing it of course. Im very surprised Nasa hasnt send a little RC rover up there with HD cameras. im wondering how the flags and decals on the vehicles are holding up.
@SR71U2ube There are plenty of clearer images of the site. They were returned nearly 40 years ago when Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt visited the site. If those pictures weren't enough for the Apollo deniers, then why should any new pictures change their minds? They won't. They'll just keep shouting "fake!" and "photoshop!" long after they've secretely realized that Apollo really was real, if they haven't already done so.
@hunchbacked Are you cock eating conspiracy theorists still out here! Between believing a bunch of internet trolls and believing a few HUNDRED Scientists, Astronomers, and Astrophysicists! I think I'll choose the latter! By the way, where's your proof Dingus?
Oh yes that's a very good source for your proof, your mere statement that they were photoshopped! LOL You are pathetic, I want proof from a credible source you Dope!
Copy a LRO photo onto your disk, and give the Jpeg file to a computer professional and ask him to check the signature of the file, and you'll have your reliable proof.
@hunchbacked You are a JOKE! I need information from a Credible source you dope, I'm not just going to accept a process of copy and paste as a credible source!
You can take a photo from the site of Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy; I think you can trust this site; copy a photo they show onto your disk and then give the image file to a computer professional to check if the image bears the signature of photoshop.
@hunchbacked Oh please, you want me to take a photo to a computer expert for what again? You are pathetic, if this "Hoax" had any credibility at all, I wouldn't need to do anything of what you ask! I wouldn't need to because there would be several sources from credible sites out there discussing it, analyzing it, and bringing different conclusions to the subject! But you failed to provide any Empirical Data! You are a JOKE, and I can't take you seriously at all!!
It is not about understanding how they work, it's just about seeing that all the pictures showing so-called remnants of Apollo give the evidence they have been photoshopped.
@hunchbacked The LRO at the its nominal orbital altitude of 50 km have a resolution of 1/2 meter. This LRO photo of the Apollo 17 site was taken when the LRO was at an altitude of 22.4 km. The LRO was slewed westward to look at the landing site. Thus the line of sight distance from the LRO to the landing site was 25 km, producing a horizontal resolution of 0.28 meters per pixel. Vertical resolution is 0.56 meters.
I have not asked you to make a copy_paste; a copy-paste would make lose the signature of the image; you must record the picture on your disk, not copy-paste it.
@deeppurple28 Watch some of hunchbacked's moon hoax videos, and you will quickly realize that hunchbacked is both delusional and an idiot. Especially interesting are his videos about shadows and perspective. You will see that he has no concept of the principles of perspective. His LM videos are interesting since they show that hunchbacked has no understanding whatsoever of orbital mechanics.
@hunchbacked Hah! You believe that the only safe way to land on the moon, starting from the 80 mile high circular orbit, is to continuously fire the descent engine and follow a parabolic descent trajectory until the LM lands on the moon. This is the least safe way to land on any celestial body. Do you know what an elliptical orbit is? To land, the first thing is a short engine burn to transition to an elliptical orbit with a low point of 50000 feet (9 and 1/2 miles).
@GoneToPlaid Not only is it "least safe", I am pretty sure you'd run out of fuel before landing -- so you'd crash. The descent orbit insertion maneuver is a Hohmann transfer to an elliptical orbit with a pericynthion of 50,000', as low as it can safely be to clear terrain (mountains). The powered descent is then started from that point 1/2 orbit later.
@hunchbacked Once the LM gets down to 50000 feet in its elliptical orbit, then the descent engine is fired again for 15 minutes in order to slow down and land. If for any reason the LM engine fails to ignite at 50000 feet, then the LM simply coasts along in its elliptical orbit to eventually rendezvous with the CSM which is orbiting in the 80 mile high circular orbit. Your "safe" method requires the descent engine to operate for far longer in comparison to the actual safe method.
The moment you fire your engine in retrograde then you decrease the opposing lowest point of the orbit. At the lowest point you fire up the engine again.
@hunchbacked If which LM engine fails to ignite? And where - in lunar orbit preparing to descend, or on the lunar surface preparing to return to orbit?
@hunchbacked Okay, I read his statement above. And he's exactly right! The Apollo procedure was to first perform a short descent orbit insertion burn on the far side of the moon, wait 1/2 orbit, then begin powered descent. If for any reason powered descent did not occur, the LM would simply coast back up to its original altitude, where it could do another burn (possibly with the ascent engine, if the descent stage had failed) and rendezvous with the CSM.
@hunchbacked If you actually argued that the LM should begin its powered descent from an 80 mile altitude, this only further confirms you know little about orbital mechanics. This would simply exhaust the LM's propellant supply before landing.
And you were the one who claimed to be so concerned about every little waste of LM descent stage propellant.
If the LM starts lowering it horizontal speed when it is relatively close to the lunar surface, it will consume still more fuel than if it starts earlier.
It will consume fuel on a smaller vertical distance, but a greater horizontal one and for a longer time.
@hunchbacked Rather than fruitlessly try to educate you about the basics of orbital mechanics, why don't you get a copy of Orbiter and try to land the LM yourself the way you think it ought to work. Use a standard LM with standad engines and a standard propellant load. Let us know what happens.
@hunchbacked "My way" of landing is no different from NASA's way, and we know that works. You're the one who wants to do it differently, so show us that it works. Good luck!
@hunchbacked I know everything NASA says is a joke to you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. Computer simulations are the closest you can get to empirical tests of spacecraft, so go ahead, fire up Orbiter, and try your direct descent from 80 miles. YOU made the claim, YOU get the evidence. If you don't then you're just lying about being a scientist. You're just a phony - but we knew that, didn't we?
@GoneToPlaid ...shadows play out in different directions, just go outside on a sunny day and you will see it...I don't know why but they certainly do, anyone can see it.
@hunchbacked Please show me the "Adobe Photoshop" string in the PDS format images released by the LRO team.
Suppose the LRO project released its images in JPG (which it doesnt). Suppose the comment field in those images did say "Adobe Photoshop". Why would they be so stupid as to leave it in? Just so you could find it before everyone else in the world since you're so much smarter and clever than everyone else? Do you really believe that?
@hunchbacked You don't need a video. Just tell us where you got the photo, and where and how to find the signature in the photo file. That would also be more convincing.
@hunchbacked Do you actually have those original LRO images to which the Apollo artifacts were later added? What was their source? Who gave them to you?
Unless you're just making all this up, or are simply saying it while fervently wishing it to be true (always a possibility with you) you've probably seen the Lunar Orbiter pictures of the same sites taken before the landings.
They are not stupid, they leave the signature on purpose so that smart people can see they are photoshopped, like they have put plenty of intentional incoherences into the photos of the mission so that shrewd people could see them.
@hunchbacked Furthermore, the LRO images are in PDS format, not Photoshop PSD format. And any annotated LRO images are published in PNG or TIFF format rather than JPEG or GIF format in order to avoid royalty issues regarding the last two formats. Show me one LRO image, on the LRO web site, which is in JPEG format.
@hunchbacked GoneToPlaid knows what he's talking about. When he tells you that all of the LRO pictures are officially released in PDS format, the standard for deep space pictures, then the fact that the LRO pictures *YOU* see are in JPEG really ought to tell you something...
...but apparently you can't figure out what that is.
....that the JPEG pictures you see are NOT the official originals!!
@hunchbacked The PDS image format absolutely is an image format. In fact, it is the format for all deep space mission images. Photoshop's default image format is PSD. PSD stands for PhotoShop Document. PSD has been Photoshop's default image format ever since the first version of Photoshop was released by Adobe. I beg you, please do keep posting comments which highlight your utter stupidity.
@hunchbacked Obviously you haven't visited Arizona State University's LRO web site, where all LRO images are displayed as PTIF, TIFF, or PNG images. PNG format does not perform lossy compression unless the image bit depth is reduced. JPEG format always results in lossy compression. The term "lossy" means that some of the original image data is lost during the compression process. LRO JPEG images on other web sites have been converted to JPEG by third parties.
@GoneToPlaid Are there any meaningful non-lossy compression schemes for these formats? Since so much of many deep space images are black, and many have large sections with little contrast, one would think that non-lossy compression would be worth it.
I know about the logarithmic companding of the LRO images, but that's not lossless.
@hunchbacked It is factually incorrect that any JPEG picture bears a signature of the software used to create the picture. You are thinking of EXIF photo data which is commonly attached to photos taken with consumer digital cameras. The LRO does not create EXIF data for its photos. The LRO's equivalent is an image header in Planetary Data System format. In fact, every image in PDS format is an ASCII plain text file.
@hunchbacked Proven how? Do you have a signed confession from the person who did it, along with an interview and demonstration? What's his or her name? Who paid? Where was the work done? Can you demonstrate it yourself?
Or are you just reflexively shouting "Photoshop!" just as we all expected you would prior to the LRO launch? After 200+ videos, you're way beyond the point of no return. You'd lose far too much face by admitting that the landings really happened.
@hunchbacked Signature by whom? The kind of signatures I'm talking about give the names of human beings identified by their employers and job titles and protected by chains of evidence so we know how you came by them.
I suppose that if you found a piece of paper in the street that read "I hereby state that I faked the Apollo program, signed Joe J. Blow", you'd accept that as conclusive evidence for your entire case, eh?
@hunchbacked You're just amazing. When it comes to what you *want* to believe, simply finding the word "photoshop" in an anonymous copy of a LRO photo you found on the web "proves" that the originals were entirely synthetic.
But when you *don't* want to believe, you reject even the evidence of your own eyes when they see a piece of Apollo-related hardware or software actually working.
I am really beginning to wonder if you still seriously believe the nonsense you put out.
@hunchbacked No, the original LRO images are in Planetary Data System format. The images shown on the LRO web site have had their dynamic range adjusted for visual impact, and have been converted from PDS format to lossy PTIF format with JPEG compression. Additionally, the PDS images were not decompanded from 8-bit (256 grayscale) to the original 12-bit (4096 greyscale) of the LRO camera CCD sensors.
@shananagans5 yes it is amazing to see. I've for many years wondered how we could "prove" we were there! As photography gets better over the next few years it will be interesting to see what detail we can get of the leftover human artifacts on the moon.
You could proved years ago if Apollo ever landed on the Moon, just send up a camera there could take the images. That you don't, proves that the Apollo story is a fairy tale, and the photoshoped jokes, you claim to be real, just nail the hoax with seven inch nails.
@kennjohnsen Plenty of cameras have been up there, and they have returned plenty of pictures. Besides the thousands of Hasselblad images, hours of 16mm film, many hours of TV footage, there were the panoramic cameras on Apollo 15 (and others, I think), plus the more recent pictures from LRO. Since you've rejected them all for some reason, why should you make an exception for any other cameras to be sent to the moon?
@FLOYDNOBALLS118 You do know there are craters of all sizes from very small caused by a something the size of a grain of sand up to giant craters. They also chose to land in areas with no large craters. The conspiracy nuts wanted pictures? Here they are. Hard to dispute without looking like an idiot.
@hunchbacked The top of the LM descent stage is covered with layers of highly reflective Kapton film. There are plenty of photos on the Internet of lunar module descent stages being built. But of course, hunchbacked the "expert" never does any research which might disprove his delusional moon hoax theories.
@GoneToPlaid In the LRO pictures I've seen, especially at high sun angle, the brightest object on the tops of the descent stages appears to be the "porch" at the top of the ladder. Both are mounted to the descent stage. The illuminated footpads are also quite visible, as is the MESA on the northwest side of the stage if it's also illuminated.
The big caveat is how many of the Kapton blankets are dislodged by the ascent engine.
@hunchbacked Guess you haven't heard of "redundancy" either, huh? That might be one good reason for extra connector terminals. I'm glad you don't work in aerospace.
Moon hoaxers are just garden variety America haters, anti Govs, anti business pov lefties who have confused education with intelligence. Go starve in the street, we are going to the stars.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@BTsmoke
I'm no statist, and the so-called educated have confused education with intelligence....that's right, but that's knowingly, because what can they do when they don't got the intelligence ?
kennjohnsen 6 days ago
@kennjohnsen ..join a Green political party.
BTsmoke 5 days ago
@BTsmoke
No, I don't like this chemical world, but statism is not the solution, it's the problem.
kennjohnsen 5 days ago
That the Moon landing hoax can be exposed from Earth is not far away, The double telescope in Arizona can probably not see anything, but the Giant telescope in Chile which they are building is 4 times more powerful. I wonder what can they see, anyway the next generation can probably see a foot by a foot, that's enough to end this stupid discussion.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@kennjohnsen ..the crazies will never stop, they will say a machine made the footprints and it will not matter when we go back, they will say the scene was set up by the new astronauts.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@BTsmoke
No, we don't say a machine made the footprints; we say there are no footprints at all.
hunchbacked 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked Yes, we know you say there are no footprints at all. And as more and better pictures of them keep coming in, you just shout "photoshop!" over and over based on nothing but your fervent wish that they be so.
I know you've devoted your recent life to this thing, but it's time to admit your mistake, cut your losses and return to your life. You're certainly not fooling anyone into thinking you're at all objective and scientific.
ApolloWasReal 5 days ago
@BTsmoke
I don't worry, about a footprinting machine, when there is a scope powerful enough, it's just about pointing it at these so-called Apollo landing sites, and there will be nothing, and then it's time for the Moon landers to have an explanation.
kennjohnsen 6 days ago
@kennjohnsen hahahahahahaha you are disconnected from reality.
BTsmoke 5 days ago
@BTsmoke
No, I'm very much connected with reality.
kennjohnsen 5 days ago
@kennjohnsen wow, you really are bad at this huh.
BTsmoke 2 days ago
@BTsmoke
Not as bad as you are.
kennjohnsen 2 days ago
@kennjohnsen .....can't you idiots come up with something better than "You are" ! Really this is primary school grade arguing, but then putting yourself above the first men on the moon Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong is the very height of lunacy and only for the most naive and gullible among us.
BTsmoke 1 day ago
@BTsmoke
You are a liar, and promoting a lie, not only that but a obviously stupidity. Only you with the very hight of lunacy and the most dumb and gullible among us, will claim this Moon landing impossibility to be real.
kennjohnsen 15 hours ago
@kennjohnsen .......imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
BTsmoke 5 hours ago
@BTsmoke
I agree, I'm not dishonest or hypocritical about the Moon landing, but I have no own interest in the Moon hoax, so I don't flatter.
kennjohnsen 56 minutes ago
@kennjohnsen ...you are on the wrong side of history chump.
BTsmoke 2 days ago
@BTsmoke
No, I'm on the right side, history will show it, punk.
kennjohnsen 2 days ago
@kennjohnsen ......now everyone can see you are losing the argument /;] Looks like I hit the nail on the head with the history remark.
BTsmoke 1 day ago
@BTsmoke
Everyone can see your arguments are dumb, only gullible types like you refuse it.
kennjohnsen 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kennjohnsen ......imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
BTsmoke 5 hours ago
The Moon hoaxsters are learning to memorizing the NASA Bible like a kid in a Sunday School, or like the kid you seen on TV, in a Koranic School. No body are using their head, those there got a head, to use.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@kennjohnsen I'd say that's a pretty good admission that at least one hoaxer considers ignorance to be a good thing.
Can't say I'm surprised.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
Noah....Were the images stunning because the stars are still fracking missing? LMAO still! Are they stunning before, or after you photoshop shit in, and stars out? And, what is like to sell out humanity for an organization rooted in NAZI FASCISM?
un4g1v3n1 1 week ago
@hunchbacked BTW, the heater was removed from the OPS in later units, it was unnecessary. It was only to heat the O2 as it expanded from the tank. You probably forgot thermodynamics.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked And speaking of not listening to explanations, YOU ignored my perfectly correct explanation of the fact that the LRRRs were adjusted BEFORE LAUNCH.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I can't believe how thickheaded you are on the docking cross. When it was aligned with the center of the circle, that's how you knew you were properly aligned!!
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I guess you haven't heard of a hose that can roll up and be put in a bag? The bag went behind a seat. See those tabs on his visors? Those are for use with pressurized gloves.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked But then your next errors come fast. The buddy hose does NOT share oxygen. It is only for sharing the cooling water loop that flows through the liquid cooling garments when a PLSS fails. Each PLSS has enough cooling feedwater for hours, especially if the two astronauts are driving back on the rover and not exerting themselves. The astronaut with the failed PLSS is using his OPS and it will only last for an hour or so, so that's still the limit on the return time.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
According to the documentation, the buddy system can also be used for sharing oxygen.
But, even if it was only used to share water, explain me how the astronauts do to connect the buddy system?
the astronauts will first have to disconnect their water connectors to connect the buddy system; how can this operation be done in the void?
And the water has to flow through the whole nine meters cable!
There won't be enough water to flow through this length!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Uh, have you ever heard of something called a check valve? And the water tube within the cable has a very small diameter.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid A bladder in the feedwater tank is pressurized by suit O2, pressurizing the sublimator feed and making up the coolant loop through a check valve. So if the coolant loop leaks momentarily through the buddy hose, water automatically fills the hose and the other guy's cooling garment. Any gas in the loop is automatically vented through a gas separator valve. Much like the hot water heating system in a house I used to rent.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked No, the buddy hose is ONLY for sharing cooling water. It allows OPS to be used with the purge valve on low flow, doubling OPS lifetime to allow emergency return to the LM. The coolant loop is made up by feedwater under pressure, so the hose will be automatically filled by water from the working PLSS.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I always love it when you make a definitive statement of the form "there won't be enough XXX to do YYY" when you have no idea of the amount of XXX available or the dimensions of the devices that do YYY. And you *certainly* show no calculations by which you arrive at your conclusion.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Congratulations, I almost got to 4:00 in your crew equip video before I found your first major blunder. The OPS is ONLY for emergency use; the O2 pressure is checked before an EVA and then turned off and NOT used unless the PLSS fails. Even if the OPS regulator were to fail, turning it off would NOT be an option because you would have nothing left to breathe. Your suit overpressure valve would protect your suit while you swapped your OPS for your partner's.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
These pics are the next best thing right after time travelling to the sites!Awesome!
stevehislop 1 week ago
Comment removed
HooligansHelper 1 week ago
Don't you just love the way hunchbacked screams "Photoshop!" at every Apollo image; while at the same time using images, where he has deliberately reduced the resolution, in order to conceal what he claims to be revealing?
Wotta hypocrite =(
GlowWorm1962 1 week ago 2
Shadows play out to different angles from different objects. Go outside where there are lightpoles and posts near each other and look. The flag waved because it was being twisted into the ground.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
...you CAN hear the rocket motors when Eagle takes off from the moon but its muted from the 30 plus layers of spacesuit material and the helmet shielding the microphone at the astronauts mouth.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@BTsmoke I don't know about hearing the rocket motors, but there's a very distinctive "Klack!" sound right at descent stage separation and ignition. I've always wondered what that is, since so much happens very quickly. It could be the actual sound of the guillotines firing to cut the bolts, cables and pipes between the stages.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If these are rover tracks we see on the photos, then I am the pope!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked so.... how long have you believed you are the pope and, how does that make you feel ?
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Compare the size of the astronaut and rover tracks to the size of the top of the LM's descent stage. The latter is called the LM deck. The LM deck is approximately 14 feet across. You can also see two LM footpads, one above and one below the LM deck, at 0:56 in this video. The separation between those two footpads is approximately 28 feet. The maximum resolution of the low altitude LRO photo of the Apollo 17 site at 0:56 is approximately one and a half feet.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
The problem with the LM footpads is that they are irregularly disposed around the main body of the lander.
And I don't see why the rover tracks would have a color different from the lunar ground.
The color of the lunar ground is uniform.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked First, the LRO was slewed 25 degrees westward in order to view the Apollo 17 landing site from low altitude. Thus the LRO was not looking straight down at the landing site, but rather was looking at the landing site from the right at an angle of 25 degrees from vertical. There is no color in the LRO NAC images since the LRO Narrow Angle Cameras have black and white CCD sensors. Anything else which you can't bother to research for yourself, you idiot?
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
And if the white spots we see are the footpads, then they are oversized relatively to the distance which separates them.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Look at any deep space astronomical photograph, even Hubble telescope photographs. The stars are so distant that in reality they are nothing but pinpoints of light, yet brighter stars in all astronomical photographs appear to have disks. Since you never do any research, let me help you out: Google "Airy disk" and read several of the search results in order to understand the optical phenomenon behind the creation of Airy disks.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
Except that the footpads are not stars.
They are not as luminous as stars.
They don't produce light from their own, they just reflect the sunlight.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked And distant city lights are not anywhere near as bright as stars. All that matters is the intensity of the pinpoint light source versus the exposure time. The footpads are covered with Kapton film which reflects over 80% of the light striking it. And the light striking the Kapton film is light from a star which we call the Sun.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
What a bunch of bullshit. Satelites around earth can vocus in on, and read a newspaper. Thats the best photo of the moon landing site? Hubble can see "trillions of light years" away, but we can't get one clear shot of the moon landing site. Its no wunder all other species think humans are retarded and can't be trusted. Your Government has lied to the world for years to cover up the fact that they can't stop us from coming to your planet.
HooligansHelper 1 week ago
@HooligansHelper There isn't any earth orbiting satellite which can read even a large bold print headline of a newspaper on the earth's surface. The best resolution obtainable by military spy satellites probably is around two feet for fairly high contrast targets.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
LAZY BASTARDS...WHY DID THEY NOT CLEAN UP AFTER THEMSELVES?
Sniffmyelbowdude 1 month ago
I cant wait until clearer images are taken OR until somebody takes a hike to see one on foot without disturbing it of course. Im very surprised Nasa hasnt send a little RC rover up there with HD cameras. im wondering how the flags and decals on the vehicles are holding up.
SR71U2ube 1 month ago
@SR71U2ube There are plenty of clearer images of the site. They were returned nearly 40 years ago when Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt visited the site. If those pictures weren't enough for the Apollo deniers, then why should any new pictures change their minds? They won't. They'll just keep shouting "fake!" and "photoshop!" long after they've secretely realized that Apollo really was real, if they haven't already done so.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
NASA 1, Conspiracy Theory Cock Munchers 0 !
deeppurple28 1 month ago
@deeppurple28
No, the score is inverted for the LRO photos are proven photoshopped.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Are you cock eating conspiracy theorists still out here! Between believing a bunch of internet trolls and believing a few HUNDRED Scientists, Astronomers, and Astrophysicists! I think I'll choose the latter! By the way, where's your proof Dingus?
deeppurple28 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
How many aerospace engineers among them?
None!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked "I'm a computer engineer."
Yeah, right..
rawmonkno1 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
Any Jpeg picture bears a signature; the Jpeg LRO pictures all bear the signature of Adobe Photoshop which proves they have been photoshopped.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
Oh yes that's a very good source for your proof, your mere statement that they were photoshopped! LOL You are pathetic, I want proof from a credible source you Dope!
deeppurple28 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
You want a proof from a credible source?
Copy a LRO photo onto your disk, and give the Jpeg file to a computer professional and ask him to check the signature of the file, and you'll have your reliable proof.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You are a JOKE! I need information from a Credible source you dope, I'm not just going to accept a process of copy and paste as a credible source!
deeppurple28 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
It is you who make the copy on the disk from the photo you choose, not me, so you can check by yourself.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
You can take a photo from the site of Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy; I think you can trust this site; copy a photo they show onto your disk and then give the image file to a computer professional to check if the image bears the signature of photoshop.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Admit it, you are just a conspiracy theorist with a double digit IQ.
deeppurple28 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
Admit that you don't want to make the effort to know the truth.
If you don't want to make this effort, then stay in your mediocrity.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Oh please, you want me to take a photo to a computer expert for what again? You are pathetic, if this "Hoax" had any credibility at all, I wouldn't need to do anything of what you ask! I wouldn't need to because there would be several sources from credible sites out there discussing it, analyzing it, and bringing different conclusions to the subject! But you failed to provide any Empirical Data! You are a JOKE, and I can't take you seriously at all!!
deeppurple28 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
Oh yes, I have plenty of empirical data, but I can also give you very precise facts that you can check yourself.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You do not even understand how the LRO's imaging systems actually work.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GoneToPlaid
It is not about understanding how they work, it's just about seeing that all the pictures showing so-called remnants of Apollo give the evidence they have been photoshopped.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
For instance the way they the lunar module appears on the LRO photos does not make the least sense.
The descender would never appear that way.
And the tracks of the rover would not appear that way either; at that distance, they would be invisible.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked The LRO at the its nominal orbital altitude of 50 km have a resolution of 1/2 meter. This LRO photo of the Apollo 17 site was taken when the LRO was at an altitude of 22.4 km. The LRO was slewed westward to look at the landing site. Thus the line of sight distance from the LRO to the landing site was 25 km, producing a horizontal resolution of 0.28 meters per pixel. Vertical resolution is 0.56 meters.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
You can see the Rover paths, but you can't see the Rover, obviously dumb.
Stick to your own channel.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@kennjohnsen
0:51 there is your rover.
obaeyens 1 week ago
@obaeyens
Man, so that's the Rover, I'm not that gullible.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
And you can see the footprints, but you can't see the lander ? how dumb can you play, before you feel ashame of yourself.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@kennjohnsen .....you cant see the footprints, just trails.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@BTsmoke
He says in the video, footprints.
kennjohnsen 6 days ago
@kennjohnsen .....yes I know that
BTsmoke 5 days ago
@deeppurple28
I have not asked you to make a copy_paste; a copy-paste would make lose the signature of the image; you must record the picture on your disk, not copy-paste it.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@deeppurple28 Watch some of hunchbacked's moon hoax videos, and you will quickly realize that hunchbacked is both delusional and an idiot. Especially interesting are his videos about shadows and perspective. You will see that he has no concept of the principles of perspective. His LM videos are interesting since they show that hunchbacked has no understanding whatsoever of orbital mechanics.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GoneToPlaid
Come on, give me a break, it's you who have no idea of perspective and how shadows work.
Your habit of drawing lines between two juxtaposed photos tells!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GoneToPlaid
The "idiot" has debunked you more than once.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked No, you have not.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GoneToPlaid
Oh yes, I have, but you are too blind to see it.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@GoneToPlaid
All you seem to know about orbital mechanics is the stupidities which are in the documentation of Apollo, that is nothing.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Hah! You believe that the only safe way to land on the moon, starting from the 80 mile high circular orbit, is to continuously fire the descent engine and follow a parabolic descent trajectory until the LM lands on the moon. This is the least safe way to land on any celestial body. Do you know what an elliptical orbit is? To land, the first thing is a short engine burn to transition to an elliptical orbit with a low point of 50000 feet (9 and 1/2 miles).
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid Not only is it "least safe", I am pretty sure you'd run out of fuel before landing -- so you'd crash. The descent orbit insertion maneuver is a Hohmann transfer to an elliptical orbit with a pericynthion of 50,000', as low as it can safely be to clear terrain (mountains). The powered descent is then started from that point 1/2 orbit later.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Once the LM gets down to 50000 feet in its elliptical orbit, then the descent engine is fired again for 15 minutes in order to slow down and land. If for any reason the LM engine fails to ignite at 50000 feet, then the LM simply coasts along in its elliptical orbit to eventually rendezvous with the CSM which is orbiting in the 80 mile high circular orbit. Your "safe" method requires the descent engine to operate for far longer in comparison to the actual safe method.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
An excellent scenario for crashing the LM on the moon.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
The moment you fire your engine in retrograde then you decrease the opposing lowest point of the orbit. At the lowest point you fire up the engine again.
obaeyens 1 week ago
@obaeyens
Gonetoplaid was talking about the case that the engine of the LM was failing to ignite.
Make up your mind.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
How do you want the LM to go back to the orbit of the CM if its engine fails to ignite?
Have you ever heard about logic?
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
Please learn orbital mechanics 101, or download an play with Orbiter 2010 to at least have a grasp of orbital mechanics.
obaeyens 1 week ago
@obaeyens
Orbiter 2010 does not land on the moon.
It does not have to consistently reduce its horizontal speed like the LM has to do to land on the moon; that makes a whole difference.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked If which LM engine fails to ignite? And where - in lunar orbit preparing to descend, or on the lunar surface preparing to return to orbit?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
It's not me who has said it could fail to ignite; it's gonetoplaid who has proposed this eventuality.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Okay, I read his statement above. And he's exactly right! The Apollo procedure was to first perform a short descent orbit insertion burn on the far side of the moon, wait 1/2 orbit, then begin powered descent. If for any reason powered descent did not occur, the LM would simply coast back up to its original altitude, where it could do another burn (possibly with the ascent engine, if the descent stage had failed) and rendezvous with the CSM.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked If you actually argued that the LM should begin its powered descent from an 80 mile altitude, this only further confirms you know little about orbital mechanics. This would simply exhaust the LM's propellant supply before landing.
And you were the one who claimed to be so concerned about every little waste of LM descent stage propellant.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
If the LM starts lowering it horizontal speed when it is relatively close to the lunar surface, it will consume still more fuel than if it starts earlier.
It will consume fuel on a smaller vertical distance, but a greater horizontal one and for a longer time.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Rather than fruitlessly try to educate you about the basics of orbital mechanics, why don't you get a copy of Orbiter and try to land the LM yourself the way you think it ought to work. Use a standard LM with standad engines and a standard propellant load. Let us know what happens.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Ad, if you know so well orbital mechanics, why don't you try to land the LM your way; let us also know what happens.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked "My way" of landing is no different from NASA's way, and we know that works. You're the one who wants to do it differently, so show us that it works. Good luck!
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
I know your way of landing is not different from NASA's way; but the engineers who described "NASA's way" intended it as a joke.
hunchbacked 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked I know everything NASA says is a joke to you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. Computer simulations are the closest you can get to empirical tests of spacecraft, so go ahead, fire up Orbiter, and try your direct descent from 80 miles. YOU made the claim, YOU get the evidence. If you don't then you're just lying about being a scientist. You're just a phony - but we knew that, didn't we?
ApolloWasReal 6 days ago
@GoneToPlaid ...shadows play out in different directions, just go outside on a sunny day and you will see it...I don't know why but they certainly do, anyone can see it.
BTsmoke 1 week ago
@deeppurple28 Hehe. Forrest Gump is smarter than hunchbacked.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid Not to mention a lot luckier.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@deeppurple28
So what's your IQ ?
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@hunchbacked As usual, you are making up happy horse shit.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
The "happy horse shit", it's you who are making it up.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Please show me the "Adobe Photoshop" string in the PDS format images released by the LRO team.
Suppose the LRO project released its images in JPG (which it doesnt). Suppose the comment field in those images did say "Adobe Photoshop". Why would they be so stupid as to leave it in? Just so you could find it before everyone else in the world since you're so much smarter and clever than everyone else? Do you really believe that?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
I'll show it in a video
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You don't need a video. Just tell us where you got the photo, and where and how to find the signature in the photo file. That would also be more convincing.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Of course, they have started from pictures without the signature of Photoshop, but the pseudo remnants of Apollo were not on them.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked Do you actually have those original LRO images to which the Apollo artifacts were later added? What was their source? Who gave them to you?
Unless you're just making all this up, or are simply saying it while fervently wishing it to be true (always a possibility with you) you've probably seen the Lunar Orbiter pictures of the same sites taken before the landings.
ApolloWasReal 5 days ago
@ApolloWasReal
They are not stupid, they leave the signature on purpose so that smart people can see they are photoshopped, like they have put plenty of intentional incoherences into the photos of the mission so that shrewd people could see them.
/
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked And let me guess, you're the very first "smart people" who have noticed the signature?
Can you show me the file in question and the signature? I'd like to memorialize this historic event!
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Oh no , I'm not the first one; I have seen someone who has noticed it before me.
When I saw his web page, it pushed me to investigate further.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
And all the LRO pictures I have checked were bearing the signature of Adobe Photoshop.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Furthermore, the LRO images are in PDS format, not Photoshop PSD format. And any annotated LRO images are published in PNG or TIFF format rather than JPEG or GIF format in order to avoid royalty issues regarding the last two formats. Show me one LRO image, on the LRO web site, which is in JPEG format.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
All the LRO pictures I have seen on the net were in Jpeg format and were bearing the signature of photoshop.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked GoneToPlaid knows what he's talking about. When he tells you that all of the LRO pictures are officially released in PDS format, the standard for deep space pictures, then the fact that the LRO pictures *YOU* see are in JPEG really ought to tell you something...
...but apparently you can't figure out what that is.
....that the JPEG pictures you see are NOT the official originals!!
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
PDS is not an image format, it is a bank of data.
And photoshop isn't either an image format.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked The PDS image format absolutely is an image format. In fact, it is the format for all deep space mission images. Photoshop's default image format is PSD. PSD stands for PhotoShop Document. PSD has been Photoshop's default image format ever since the first version of Photoshop was released by Adobe. I beg you, please do keep posting comments which highlight your utter stupidity.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid
All the LRO pictures I have checked were in Jpeg format.
I have found none in PNG or Tiff.
PNG is not as compressive as Jpeg.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Obviously you haven't visited Arizona State University's LRO web site, where all LRO images are displayed as PTIF, TIFF, or PNG images. PNG format does not perform lossy compression unless the image bit depth is reduced. JPEG format always results in lossy compression. The term "lossy" means that some of the original image data is lost during the compression process. LRO JPEG images on other web sites have been converted to JPEG by third parties.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid Are there any meaningful non-lossy compression schemes for these formats? Since so much of many deep space images are black, and many have large sections with little contrast, one would think that non-lossy compression would be worth it.
I know about the logarithmic companding of the LRO images, but that's not lossless.
Is that inherent in the instrument?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I am a computer professional. My professional opinion is that the LRO pictures released by the project investigators are genuine.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
A computer professional who has never worked on real time systems.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You have no idea what kind of computer systems I've worked on. Nor any understanding of them, I would say.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked jpg uses a lossy compression algorithm, not the best format to use to prove anything. I thought you knew as much.
rawmonkno1 1 week ago
@hunchbacked It is factually incorrect that any JPEG picture bears a signature of the software used to create the picture. You are thinking of EXIF photo data which is commonly attached to photos taken with consumer digital cameras. The LRO does not create EXIF data for its photos. The LRO's equivalent is an image header in Planetary Data System format. In fact, every image in PDS format is an ASCII plain text file.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Proven how? Do you have a signed confession from the person who did it, along with an interview and demonstration? What's his or her name? Who paid? Where was the work done? Can you demonstrate it yourself?
Or are you just reflexively shouting "Photoshop!" just as we all expected you would prior to the LRO launch? After 200+ videos, you're way beyond the point of no return. You'd lose far too much face by admitting that the landings really happened.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
I don't need a signed confession.
The signature is in the image files themselves.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Signature by whom? The kind of signatures I'm talking about give the names of human beings identified by their employers and job titles and protected by chains of evidence so we know how you came by them.
I suppose that if you found a piece of paper in the street that read "I hereby state that I faked the Apollo program, signed Joe J. Blow", you'd accept that as conclusive evidence for your entire case, eh?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hunchbacked You're just amazing. When it comes to what you *want* to believe, simply finding the word "photoshop" in an anonymous copy of a LRO photo you found on the web "proves" that the originals were entirely synthetic.
But when you *don't* want to believe, you reject even the evidence of your own eyes when they see a piece of Apollo-related hardware or software actually working.
I am really beginning to wonder if you still seriously believe the nonsense you put out.
ApolloWasReal 5 days ago
men,,,, ha ha ha,!!! show us the pics i do not believe. and it will take me more then this to believe.. if your are amaze , i'm not!!!!
LesBrocheafoins 2 months ago
...there's nothing lower than a conspiracy dick
BTsmoke 3 months ago
@BTsmoke
Yes, there is: An Apollo nut!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked ...what's an Apollo nut ?
BTsmoke 1 week ago
its not enough we litter on earth now the moon to
(this is a joke)
grubbie44 5 months ago
Are you sure that these images are from the moon? or from area 51?
adamkamali 5 months ago
@adamkamali
They are from Adobe Photoshop!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked No, the original LRO images are in Planetary Data System format. The images shown on the LRO web site have had their dynamic range adjusted for visual impact, and have been converted from PDS format to lossy PTIF format with JPEG compression. Additionally, the PDS images were not decompanded from 8-bit (256 grayscale) to the original 12-bit (4096 greyscale) of the LRO camera CCD sensors.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
Thx for posting this. Great photos. It is pretty cool to see 40+ yr old tracks up there.
shananagans5 5 months ago
@shananagans5 yes it is amazing to see. I've for many years wondered how we could "prove" we were there! As photography gets better over the next few years it will be interesting to see what detail we can get of the leftover human artifacts on the moon.
kq4ym 5 months ago
@kq4ym IT'S ALL CG FAKE! LMAO! ;-)
DarwinsFriend 5 months ago
@kq4ym
You could proved years ago if Apollo ever landed on the Moon, just send up a camera there could take the images. That you don't, proves that the Apollo story is a fairy tale, and the photoshoped jokes, you claim to be real, just nail the hoax with seven inch nails.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@kennjohnsen Plenty of cameras have been up there, and they have returned plenty of pictures. Besides the thousands of Hasselblad images, hours of 16mm film, many hours of TV footage, there were the panoramic cameras on Apollo 15 (and others, I think), plus the more recent pictures from LRO. Since you've rejected them all for some reason, why should you make an exception for any other cameras to be sent to the moon?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@shananagans5
Correction: Great photoshopped photos.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@41 seconds when they zoomed the Apollo 14 Lunar Module, it's far different from the small picture!
Damn, NASA are genius!
bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa BUSTED
FLOYDNOBALLS118 5 months ago
hey, look at the pictures, i didn't know that Lunar Modules are LARGER than the moon craters? hmmmnnnnn?
FLOYDNOBALLS118 5 months ago
@FLOYDNOBALLS118 You do know there are craters of all sizes from very small caused by a something the size of a grain of sand up to giant craters. They also chose to land in areas with no large craters. The conspiracy nuts wanted pictures? Here they are. Hard to dispute without looking like an idiot.
shananagans5 5 months ago 2
@FLOYDNOBALLS118
It's the color which is totally abnormal; the top of the lander is not especially brilliant, it has no reason to appear white.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked The top of the LM descent stage is covered with layers of highly reflective Kapton film. There are plenty of photos on the Internet of lunar module descent stages being built. But of course, hunchbacked the "expert" never does any research which might disprove his delusional moon hoax theories.
GoneToPlaid 1 week ago
@GoneToPlaid In the LRO pictures I've seen, especially at high sun angle, the brightest object on the tops of the descent stages appears to be the "porch" at the top of the ladder. Both are mounted to the descent stage. The illuminated footpads are also quite visible, as is the MESA on the northwest side of the stage if it's also illuminated.
The big caveat is how many of the Kapton blankets are dislodged by the ascent engine.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
that's one small step for a man, one billion dollars each in our pocket...
neil armstrong, buzz aldrin, michael collins...
FLOYDNOBALLS118 5 months ago
thats one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind........
....uh...houston...roger.
rw5791 5 months ago
@rw5791
No, one giant leap for Adobe Photoshop.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Guess you haven't heard of "redundancy" either, huh? That might be one good reason for extra connector terminals. I'm glad you don't work in aerospace.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
I am not currently working in aerospace, but I have worked in aerospace.
Redundancy is useful when it has a meaning, not when it is done in such a way that it loses its meaning.
hunchbacked 1 week ago