Do Kaysing or Rogan Discredit the First LRO Photo of the Apollo 15 Landing Site?

[marshalllucky]

if these moon landing reall did happen then why is their not the proofe after all these year?

[philwebb59]

@marshalllucky "why is their not the proofe?" I don't know. What would you consider proofe?

[marshalllucky]

@philwebb59 my aunt, she is very sick ;-(

[Rob260259]

@marshalllucky

The proof has been in the public domain for decades, and is still studied today. Apollo was massive; videos and pictures taken, tracking telemetry from Earth, the astronauts that went there, 60 (sixty!) scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and all the data received from them, 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, satellites launched from SIM bays into lunar orbit, reflectors left at the landing sites, etc. etc.

[AlienShadow5000]

Phil: I can't tell you how hard I laughed at the idea that Kaysing insisted that the astronauts should have planted charges in the dust to create a dust cloud so we can see it from earth. Too funny! I don't mean to distract from the rest of the content of this video, but seeing that made me laugh pretty heartily. Also, if you go out to where dirt bike riders go and ride, you don't see much of a difference in the area where a dirt bike passed through, other than the tire tracks. CTs are dumb.

[philwebb59]

@AlienShadow5000 Kaysing had several ideas on how the astronauts could have let us know they were there. Most everything would be argued away by modern moon hoaxers as being done by robots.

[AlienShadow5000]

@philwebb59 That is hilarious. And, you're absolutely right they would try and pull that. That would be hilarious if they tried that though, since robotics back then were not as sophisticated as they are today. And, one would have to challenge them on that and ask: if they can send robots to the moon, why couldn't they send humans to the moon? :)

[philwebb59]

@AlienShadow5000 I used robots in the 80's. It was a challenge even then with the "sophisticated" hardware and microprocessors available at the time. We learned how to use them, and not use them, by making mistakes. That was rough enough to attempt from across the room. I can't imagine trying it from 385,000 km away.

[AlienShadow5000]

@philwebb59 Yeah, no kidding and, with the tech available in the 60's and early 70's would have been a nightmare! These kooks really don't have a grasp on any kind of reality.

[unatics]

funnily enough, how much will nASA pay for E-ELT not to be turned towards Apolo 11 landing site?Did they already decide to take part in that project and `share technology`?

[oxymoron616]

show the typical small blisters that you get when using too much water. NASA admittedly did NOT use Newtonian or Einsteinian "wisdom" to calculate trajectories for obvious reasons: they have a theory of gravity they keep to themselves. Pari Spolter is either right or pretty close. The moon's atmosphere (never denied by NASA) shows in REAL pics. With 70 % Earth's gravity, small wonder. If NASA went to the moon, they used anti-grav, they've had it for decades, why not use it? Rockets are a joke.

[philwebb59]

@oxymoron616 You make me laugh.

[oxymoron616]

it is obvious that the programmers had a weak spot for comic strips (Scooby Doo on Mars and other nonsense). The need to obfuscate all the pics came together with the "sudden" appearance of large quantities of Hasselblad fotos. Had they been taken by the astronauts, they would not have had time for anything else. Remember? In the 90, NASA had a shill ask why there were so few pics. Because they had prepared them by then, they put them out. Have you ever done a plaster of Paris model? The pics ..

[oxymoron616]

If NASA went to the moon, the sure as hell didn't go with this Walt Disney equipment. The suits don't hold enough water to cool them. The access hatch is too small. Pictures could only be filmed second-hand from a cheap tv screen. The Hasselblad pics show additional light sources. The so-called aerial photographs are airbrushed, dirtied, dusted over, fingerprinted, it's ridiculous. The automated software I'm talking about is what they now use on Mars and Google Earth pics. Due to its errors, ...

[oxymoron616]

This is getting childish, you know. As you have the defending role, please do tell me how NASA explains the following: at the NASA website, the interested reader is informed that the astronauts threw out their suits before takeoff. The LEM has NO pressure lock. Are they lying about the suits or about the atmosphere on the moon? If they opened the door to throw out the suits - with which they couldn't access the LEM in the first place - death of explosive decompression would be it.

[oxymoron616]

Phil Plait and his notorious inability to identify the color of the Mars Rover Lander balloons, which - as per NASA pics - were snow white. After NASA had adjusted the color of Mars to fit their lies, the white had turned to red. Plait wants to forget that, I know. No obfuscation software in 1969? The need for phony pictures - and for shills like you, defending them, is new. The software is also relatively new. I used to write computer programs so cut the crap, mate. Money isn't everything.

[philwebb59]

@oxymoron616 "The software is also relatively new." So, you're saying they didn't have the CG software back in 1969 to fake all this? We're done, right?

[oxymoron616]

There is no lander in any of these pics. NASA did what they have been doing with their plaster of Paris models for the last 40 years. They picture pathetically inadequate models and run the pics through an automated obfuscation software. They're just too stupid to know where the shadows should be, as is to be expected from bought-and-paid-for color-blind Phil who can't tell the difference between red and white. Compare this garbage to Clementine pics, no more blabbering needed.

[philwebb59]

@oxymoron616 No lander? What pics are you looking at? "Automated obfuscation software?" In 1969? Like, they had digital cameras in 1969? Misplaced shadows? Red & white? Red & white what? The middle five letters of your handle say it all.

[johnsmdm]

keep your nose out of NASA's business got it hunh!

[philwebb59]

Hmmm?

[moontrue]

as15-9798 on ALSJ claim to see the disturbed soil. in photo as15pan-comp

[LukeQuixoteofSanJose]

@moontrue

What do you mean 'claim' to see the disturbed soil. Have you got shit in your eyes or something?

[philwebb59]

In Pan Camera Frame AS15-9798 the regolith around the LM looks darker than what you see in Pan Camera Frame AS15-9377. You even see the darkened footpath (top left) out to the ALSEP.

[TremorHellborn]

Hmmm. It doesn't look like any CT's want to comment on this video.

[Rob260259]

Another 5 stars Phil. Heard something of Jarrah lately...?

[philwebb59]

Not one word from JW. I posted all five videos as a response to lLYiiwyH4IA and he hasn't put any of them up yet. His channel says he's away on family business, so I can only hope he'll link them in when he gets back.

[Rob260259]

Well, yesterday Jarrah wrote me that he is going to 'demolish' your video Phil....

[philwebb59]

I know JW at least looked at the videos. It will be interesting to see just what he misinterprets. The only thing he can really slam is the parody at the end of the 5th video. He will probably point at that and dismiss everything else as lies. Also, I do think the scale he put on the LRO photo was not completely accurate. He can't fault me for that.

[GoneToPlaid]

I think the missing comments over the past couple of days are due to YouTube's servers. I had a couple of comments which I made to my own videos randomly disappear too. Heck, for all I know my comments got posted with regards to another video since YouTube's servers seem to get their wires crossed from time to time.

[philwebb59]

astro? Sorry. Your reply to bigkitten got deleted too. What happened? I swear all I did was post a second reply to bigkitten.

[philwebb59]

bigkitten? I'm sorry. I was posting a reply to your comment and it disappeared and I can't find your channel to apologize. I didn't remove it maliciously. Honest! Please feel free to post again. I'll be more careful. You brought up the flag waving, no stars, no crater, etc.

Does anybody know how to recover deleted comments? There should be an undo on this thing.

[hauserkaspar]

Hi philwebb59. It's me again. Can you ask your new friend, that Atrobrant2 guy, ( what happened to the first?) to take his wheelchair and ask NASA for some close ups. I really would like to see the Lunar Module. Then I can give them to Jarrah and prove he's wrong.

I cannot give you any stars for this vid because they would not show up. But I will watch Mythbusters more often.

[Astrobrant2]

Hi, Hauserkaspar, you can communicate with me. I haven't blocked you and don't even remember having any previous conversations with you.

Maybe you're thinking of someone else where the wheelchair is concerned. I don't use one.

Astrobrant1 was established through a Google mail account and that is not what I wanted. I didn't like having to do two logins every time I used YouTube.

I, too, am getting impatient for new pictures of the landing sites from LRO.

(I'll PM this to you.)

[AdamGuy17]

Nice video.

And thanks for recommending him to me, Brant.

[Astrobrant2]

Great sequence of "sweep" photos. I got lazy and only included the one Jarrah had in his own video. I'm glad you have provided such an abundance of them. BTW, I haven't seen several of these myself.

Let me guess about your next video: you're going to go through his footprint "analysis" point by point. Looking forward to it. I did not want to get that involved, but it seems to be right down your alley. My approach was more general and once again, I think our videos will be nicely complementary.

[philwebb59]

I'm still working on this Jarrah video. I've been trying all day to export Part 4, but my mac keeps crashing. Maybe it's a Jarrah fan?

[Astrobrant2]

Hey, Phil, nice video. I find that you and I are following the same track. The more the merrier.

Maybe we should collaborate and divvy up videos to debunk.

[philwebb59]

Jarrah is so prolific; you would need a team to keep up with him. I don't think two old propagan'ists could do it. Hopefully he will have to start repeating himself sometime.

[bigkitten]

No blast crater, flapping flags...no effing stars!!!!!(to name but a very FEW pointers) Lazy lazy lazy work!!!! No bloody atmosphere!....how bright would you think the stars would be!!! I watched this when I was 10...and THEN, I thought 'that doesn't look right!' But hey: keep chanting that 'they did' mantra! Albedo!....from 40 year old snaps...shit! Condescending, specious poo! Oh: apropos Rogan....what about the thousands of hours of Telemetry, that just 'disappeared'.

[Astrobrant2]

You haven't done much research on this, have you? As an amateur astronomer for 45 years, I know exactly how bright the stars should be. There are no stars because they are a couple thousand times too faint to show up in ANY photo which has sunlit objects in it. Show me an orbital photo or video which shows stars.

How can anyone still be so ignorant to use the waving flag argument? The flags flap when they are handled. DUH! Don't you even watch Mythbusters?

[philwebb59]

I don't know how much you know about photography, but here goes... On the moon, the astronauts carried Hasselblad EL cameras with Planar f2.8/80mm lenses. Typically, they shot pictures at 1/125 or 1/250 sec with f-stops from f5.6 to f11 using Kodak Ektachrome (that's color) SO-68 (~ISO68) transparency film. With that lens, you can shoot a decent full moon at f11 and 1/125 sec on ISO100. But, to get stars, you'd have to open up all the way, f2.8, and do a time exposure, probably 5 to 10 seconds.

[philwebb59]

My 4th video, lZIY2wY93hI, tackles the crater issue. The rest of your list was not in Jarrah's video, so it wasn't addressed in mine. But, since you ask: You never see a flag flapping unless an astronaut is holding the pole trying to drive it into the ground. I'm not sure what your comment about albedo means. If you can make it into a question, I might look into it. I'm sorry you felt offended. My video was not intended to be condescending, but I wanted to make sure the message was very clear.

[philwebb59]

ytmoog has a great video showing why you don't see stars in the moon surface photos. See watch?v=WmPFv7S7My4.

[thirdclass2006]

What disappearing telemetry?

The only thing close to that are the tapes from Apollo 11. And that telemetry was later found.

All that really is missing is the original recorded footage of their EVA. But even that hardly matters, since not only do we have copies, but that also was remastered to a quality equal to the original footage.

[ApolloWasReal]

What's lost are the BACKUP tapes of the Apollo 11 downlink during the EVA. They were made in case the TV scan converter feeding the TV networks failed. The tapes could be played back through the converter after being repaired and we could still see the EVA after the fact.

But the scan converter didn't fail. Having the tapes now would be nice because we could do a better job of scan conversion today, but that's only with 40 years of hindsight.

[thirdclass2006]

Many thanks on that info! :)

Seeing the remastered footage of Apollo 11, I can't imagine anything better than that.

[ApolloWasReal]

Apollo 11 sent custom slow scan low resolution B&W TV. The scan converter was a broadcast TV camera pointed at a slow scan CRT: quick, effective, but suboptimum. The slow scan also went to wideband instrumentation recorders (15 min/reel!) in case the converters failed. Those are the missing tapes.

Today our computers could play that slow scan directly, but at the time they were useless without the scan converters, which didn't fail. Who knew what we could have done with them 40 years later?

[ApolloWasReal]

The later landings used fast scan sequential color cameras that were converted electronically for broadcast. The idiots who claim the Apollo 11 tapes were "lost" to hide the poor quality of the "hoax" conveniently forget that we also have TV from Apollos 14-17 (12's camera failed) that beats anything we could do with A11 even if the tapes were found.

It's just that A11 has a special place in history, so it would have been nice to have a better record of it.