Moon Dehoax: Independent evidence of Apollo 15's landing site.

[Thinkcity]

Mythbusters did a good programe on the Moon hoax theories, and Busted them all.

[LindaStevensBZ]

What does this clip prove?

Well...if you're a HoaxTard, it just means that ALL of the Japanese Space Science Community is in on the big Coverup too...after 37+ years.

LOL!

If you have a >100 IQ, it is just another fascinating aspect of the Moon and Apollo.

[virgo396]

what exactly does this prove?

[Blahblobify]

@virgo396

"what does this prove?"

listen from 1:20 on and try to pay attention

[IndividualParties]

Plus, toiletface, we now have images of the hardware as well as tracks from the rover, thanks to the 25cm by 25cm per pixel resolution of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera:

"Probe pictures Moon landing sites" By Jonathan Amos

Science correspondent, BBC News

Uh! Oh! hoaxtards, time to start screaming "FAKE," save your cult of denial from utter defeat and humiliation.

[MrToiletface]

lol yeah... they sent a probe up to look at the landing sites. unfortunetly they didnt build it well enough to see the apollo landing gear. they decided to spend a fortune sending up a camera that cant see mankinds greatest acheivement. youd have to be the biggest moron in the world to swallow this shit. individual parties, ur a fucking idiot and u dont know wtf ur talking about. swallow my hot shit you virgin loser faggit hahahahahaha go wipe ur ass with ol glorey u homo hahahaha

[IndividualParties]

@MrToiletface

Either you're a troll, or you are really fucking stupid. The maps came from the Japanese orbiter Kaguya. The Japanese didn't send it up to see the hardware or to prove the Apollo landings, you fucking idiot. They had no goals that required a greater than 10 m/pixel resolution in the design limits of this particular camera; the orbiter just provided us with 3D-topological maps that fit with the Apollo photos of the terrain.

[theprops]

i think they did land on the moon but when they got there their camera's aren't working bcoz of the vacuum, and they say "millions of people are watching we need to fake the photos and videos".

[MrToiletface]

so the evidence they have is a hill that looks identical in everyway to the one in the apollo. the horizon lines up perfectly. in order to acheive this they would have to be taken from the exact same spot. the photos are literally identical, so how could they have been taken 100 ft apart vertically? its the same stupid picture with the lunar rover, its clearly been photoshopped, its way too blurry. wheres the detail in the surface? this proves people will swallow anything. simple photography.

[IndividualParties]

@MrToiletface

Obviously you weren't paying attention. The image was generated by rotating 3D images of the moons surface. All they did was use the data collected from the orbiter to generate an image of the apollo landing site.

" its way too blurry. wheres the detail in the surface?"

It's called resolution. Face it, the laughably preposterous conspiracy delusions about the apollo missions are disproven.

[TechnoManiac2]

This was 100% taken from google moon.

[wiiagent]

The moon landing was fake and so is all this shit!

[receiver69]

@NASAvsPETE

You're wrong. Get your facts and don't lie.

[Planetar17]

Jarrah White argued that the Lunar Orbiter missions in '66 and '67 could have produced adequate photographs upon which to base a faked Apollo 15 backdrop. Could that have even been done in the 1960s? This CGI world we live in today didn't exist back then, so we tend to accord greater F/X skills to these alleged NASA fakers than they likely would've possessed.

[Zoomer30]

Wow, if people who insist that the Apollo missions were faked would stop wasting time and do something useful they'd be downright dangerous. MythBusters debunked all the "proof" that the conspiricy nuts had, nuff said, we did it for real.

[spasemonkey05]

CONSPAIRASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?



[rich2rock]

I just think that for a lot of people, the only proof that is acceptable is seeing what they put up there. The Van Allen Radiation belt is a hard thing to just explain away without explicit proof of what we left there. It's not like having to prove that god exists. If there IS physical evidence left there, then that is what people need to see. What you have posted proves nothing to me or a lot of people. The motives for hoaxing it are very plausible. Sorry, but thanks anyway.

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock Regrettably, that is the most preferred argumentation for hoax theorists, this is, staying hardly above the undetectable for later assuming the impossibility of everything related against their accusations, while being careful about not getting too much into the details for avoiding the questions coming from anyone willing to believe Apollo missions were nothing but a forgery.

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock The previous is, in fact, the most remarkable aspect from the pseudoscientific basis of hoax beliefs, even sometimes using technology to debunk technology itself, like a dog trying to bite its tail.

Now, getting into the affair of the Van Allen radiation belt.

The deadly amount of radiation is 30 sv but the amount of radiation at Van Allen's is 25 sv per year, and this, if and only if the only shielding available is a 3mm wide aluminum foil.

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock This means 304 days orbiting, and only if passing through the inner belt all the time.

But not only aluminium foil can be a way for decreasing the amount of incoming radiations, now that magnetism can help a lot, just as Earth's magnetic field protects us from much of the incoming radiations from outerspace, and it was one more of radiation protection procedures implemented on both modules from Apollo missions, this helped a little on weight economy.

Cheers.

[Thuggin2222]

@rich2rock you're an idiot with your LOL "hoax" theories. They landed on the moon, FACT. Get over your stupid self already and stop trying to be an intellectual jerk because you've only got the "jerk" part down.

[rich2rock]

The 2 pictures look different. There is no atmosphere or wind to change the terrain in the 2 pictures, so it was 37 years after the landing. Why is it different now?

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock It is a flat extract from a stereoscopic scan done by using pushbroom imaging method, which implies averaging from different points of view from 100 km above the surface, this is, a overlapping several sequential strips in order extract the most of 3d data because of the different points of view. 

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock The dimensions of every strip were sectors of 60 km long, 35 km wide at 10m per pixel resolution, done from 100 km above.

Only the objects sized near this value could be anyway tracked, this is, boulders, craters and other things sized hardly less than such value could be viewable on the image, but not fist-sized rocks and similar objects, and of course, details and contours of terrain too.

[rich2rock]

@jcgmed The flag isn't fist sized. 

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock nor 10 m, actually, which is the best resolution available from Kaguya's terrain camera.

The shadow was tracked by LRO from Nasa, not by Kaguya, from Jaxa.

A so narrow object as a flag extended thru its frame as the ones deployed there by the Apollo missions, is just hardly viewable as a tiny line from few hundred meters above, not from a 70 miles altitude as LRO did, with a nearly 50 cm resolution.

[datzfast]

hey jerk you forgot they took stereoscopic photos of the landing site so from the photographs they could have built a set. what a complete jackass. its like saying you cant photograph earth and make a realistic model. what an asshole. what an asshole. it kick you in the nuts if i could.

[jcgmed]

@datzfast Blocked. Offensive language not allowed.

[Wasakracker155]

Im not into this hoax stuff but....when i pause the video on 2:37 and compare the 2 pictures..there not identical.

In the left corner above it seems there is a mountain behind it on Selene photo.

Also the angle of the picture is different then the one of Apollo,were the vehicle stand is a straight line. Selene picture is a line that goes downwards.Put the selene camera in the same position and then compare pictures. Also the heights of the mountains arent the same,some are higher others smallr

[jcgmed]

@Wasakracker155 It was a surface scan about 100 km from above the surface, not a picture taken from the same position on the ground.

[Wasakracker155]

@jcgmed

I understand that it is a scan,but when the scan is rotated the video claims you can see exactly the surrounding including from eye level.

The pictures are from eyelevel i assume or else the picture of Apollo wouldnt be relative.

Now meassure everything and it doesnt make sence,i understand that all mountains in one picture are bigger or smaller.....but not both,smaller and bigger in one picture and thats my problem

Please send link of rapport claiming these pic are identical.

[jcgmed]

@Wasakracker155 Have you read the ad on the beginning ? I'm just republishing a clip done by someone else, so you can browse Jaxa's website if willing to get some more precise details.

[jcgmed]

@Wasakracker155 Btw, Regolith reflexes sunlight in a different way as it does for a laser beam, which together with light conditions at the moment for the shot from A15 was done, can make appear some apparently weird contours when comparing both shots, it's just an optical aberration when comparing a 2d representation from a 3d object.

[tsheppeard1]

Tremeorhellborn: that's because the sand at the beach is weathered, which means the grains of sand are sphere shaped, on the moon, however, there is no weather so the grains are jagged, therefore, the footprint did not cave in, mythbusters put my theory to the test and proved it was true

[jcgmed]

@tsheppeard1 hi there, tsheppeard1. Your theory sounds interesting, could you explain it?. Regards.

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed He is right about the food print not caving in due to being in a vacuum and the regolith jagged shape.

[jcgmed]

@Raindarsus now the mess gets bigger for me.

I have no idea of what Tremorhellborn has posted from the very beginning, that's why I've requested a explanation from tsheppeard1...and now you...but however, thanks for trying some help and the other post.

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed Ah hehe sorry for not having understood what you were trying to do. I think he was refering to a comment he made 24 comments below (9 months ago)

My next comment will be spawn but it's a repost of his comment

[Raindarsus]

#

TremorHellborn

9 months ago

"I've seen the Apollo 17 flag ceremony."

Good. Now explain why dry beach sand does not have the white shockwaves that are present in the lunar video.

In the same video, one of the two astros creates what looks a lot like a miniature "canyon" in the soil as he shuffles backwards, towards the camera. Problem is, however, and as we all agree, dry sand impressions cave in on themselves. So how did the li'l canyon get there?

[Raindarsus]

And woops it's not a comment he made but that Tremorhellborn did.

[jcgmed]

@Raindarsus Ok, unspamed now.

Cohesion between very fine, uneroded grains.

Cheers.

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed yep

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed hehe none of my options really work beside the reply one.

[jcgmed]

@Raindarsus huh ? what you mean ?

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed i eant that the options of thumbs up thumbs done, flag as spam and unspams doesn`t work,

[jcgmed]

@Raindarsus mmmm seems like a statistical bug or something, YT has been behaving weirdly after the layout change.

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed yep been like this for a while.

[jcgmed]

@Raindarsus 24 gosh, no time for the scroll thing, maybe on weekend, thanks.

[Raindarsus]

@jcgmed that'w why I copy pasted it for you, my comment was spammed though, but It's there for you to read it.

[jenleex]

I have been in touch with Jaxa, this guy taking is an idiot go to Google earth and zoom down on this planet, and you can see roof tops and cars and people YES RIGHT ok the Jaxa camera was better and closer only one sixth gravity and with no atmosphere and it would see the lander and rover and the area they covered in it say one or two football pitches, and Jaxa say there is nothing there. Also the laser that covered every inch of the surface shows no lander or rover END OF STORY good con though

[jcgmed]

Links please.

This is a good demostration of what Hoax advocates can fabricate against Nasa and the Apollo missions, people.

[Raindarsus]

@jenleex please post your proof. How have you been in touch with them? email? phone? Have you recorded the phone? have you taken a picture of the email with the full hotmail or what ever else email inbox gui that you have?

If you are making claims, be sure to be able to back them. So come on, we want proof. And I can see that even after 3 months you haven't posted your proof. So this is exactly how hoaxers act, they make a claim but do not back it even when asked to.

[nekotech]

As the angle of the sunlight hitting the moon changes throughout its cycle, I would think the change in shadows would give scientists enough data to create a rather high level of accuracy in making a 3d model of the moon without the assistance of computer graphics.

Eratosthenes used shadows to calculate the Earth's circumference in 240BC.

[jcgmed]

Pretty interesting point.

Eratosthenes results varies from 39,690 km to 46,620 km, according to Earth's polar circunference, which today's accepted value is 40,008 km.

This gives, in terms of kilometers, a tiny a veraging error percentage ( 7.86 ), but in terms of meters...it is too big to fit with Kaguya's.

Best regards.

[jcgmed]

mmmm Old school cameras with 1 meter per pixel resolution, nice.

[WhiteJarrah]

The Lunar Orbiter spacecrafts photographed those mountains long before Apollo 15. So all NASA would need do is model their sets on the topography depicted in the LO photographs.

[jcgmed]

No holographic laser scan or similar available at 60's, sorry.

[WhiteJarrah]

Irrelevant. The Lunar Orbiters had cameras with a resolution of 1meter per pixel. These helped NASA know exactly what the topography was like in advance.

[TremorHellborn]

Hey! Remember in your "The Flags are Alive" series you said the light side of the Moon was -250 degrees? ("Where ARE these emissions?" LOL)

Or how about the times you chose to ignore the painfully obvious bootprints that were created in lunar videos without dust clouds?

Or the time you said the shuttle program was $10 billion more expensive than Apollo? (Can anybody say "math flunkie"?)

Can you see why you're not taken very seriously by the science and engineering communities?

[WhiteJarrah]

I made no such statement in my video or anywhere else that the light side of the moon is minus 250 degrees.

The bootprints and missing clouds are discussed here: watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

And Apollo cost 135 billion, whereas the shuttle program cost 145 billion.

Are cheapshots and character attacks the best you got?

[TremorHellborn]

Shuttle program, over twenty-five years, cost $145 billion.

Apollo program, over FOUR years (1968-1972), cost $135 billion. Now c'mon, do the math properly; Apollo is WAY more expensive than the shuttle program.

So if regolith disturbances are supposed to be faked with sand as you say, what the hell is that white "shockwave" that follows the stronger boot impacts? And why do we not see the same thing at the beach or in the desert?

[WhiteJarrah]

Correction. The Apollo project lasted between 1961 and 1972. Further, the Ares rockets are to be derived from the shuttle technology which they've had for 25 years. If they are using this shuttle equipment to return to the moon they could easily have done it a long time ago so don't you tell me they couldn't afford it.

I take it you are referring to the arcs they kick up? Anyone can do that with dry beach sand.

[TremorHellborn]

"If they are using this shuttle equipment to return to the moon they could easily have done it a long time ago..."

Did not NASA and Russia have a space station to build? As opposed to flying back to the Moon just to take more pictures and bring back more rocks?

"I take it you are referring to the arcs they kick up?"

No I'm talking about the white shockwaves at the END of the arcs.

[WhiteJarrah]

'Did not NASA and Russia have a space station to build?'

Space historians all agree that Skylab was a waste of money, and there were proposals for a mars landing by 1982.

'I'm talking about the white shockwaves at the END of the arcs.'

I have no idea what you're talking about. The sand goes up and then it comes back down. Just as sand does on a beach.

[TremorHellborn]

"Space historians all agree that Skylab was a waste of money, and there were proposals for a mars landing by 1982."

I am aware of the '82 Mars proposals, but who the fuck are "space historians"? People who have spent more than 2 years in college?

"The sand goes up and then it comes back down. Just as sand does on a beach."

This is why I maintain the FACT that the technology to effectively fake a manned lunar mission did not exist 40 years ago, nor does it exist today.

...shockwaves...

[WhiteJarrah]

From what I have read in space books and online most thought Skylab was a waste of money.

The videos of them kicking up moon dust looks exactly like one kicking up beach sand.

[TremorHellborn]

"From what I have read in space books and online..."

Can you at least give me the credentials of these "space historians"?

"The videos of them kicking up moon dust looks exactly like one kicking up beach sand."

Go into my favourites and on page 7, 8 or 9 (maybe 10) there should be a video called "Apollo 17 setting up flag" or something like that. Watch the soil disturbances.

[WhiteJarrah]

I've seen the Apollo 17 flag ceremony. I use it in my Flagging The Gems video, the dust kicked up is exactly the same as dry beach sand.

[TremorHellborn]

"I've seen the Apollo 17 flag ceremony."

Good. Now explain why dry beach sand does not have the white shockwaves that are present in the lunar video.

In the same video, one of the two astros creates what looks a lot like a miniature "canyon" in the soil as he shuffles backwards, towards the camera. Problem is, however, and as we all agree, dry sand impressions cave in on themselves. So how did the li'l canyon get there?

[HeadLikeARock]

For the last 25 yrs the Shuttle has been a priority. Only in recent years has the decision been made to go back to the moon. Saying that economics aren't an issue is very naive.

As for the sand, you need to kick a lot harder on Earth to get sand to move the same distance it does on the moon.

[WhiteJarrah]

There were plans to go to Mars in 1969 back when the shuttle was still in the designing stages. There were proposals from President George Bush Snr to go to the moon when the shuttle was well underway. And scientists all over had been pushing for more flights to the moon, and if they had the technology in their laps the whole time they could have used it long ago.

I've been able to kick up sand like on the moon no problem. See my MoonFaker on it.

[HeadLikeARock]

You're getting away form the cost issue. Apollo was hugely expensive, which ever way you wrap it up. And NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of what it was in the mid 1960's in terms of GNP.

As for the sand kicking experiment, there are loads of occasions in the Apollo footage where a small, slow boot movement kicked sand a relatively long distance. You had to take a hefty hoof with your boot. Totally different.

[jcgmed]

Nope, no digital cameras onboard.

[WhiteJarrah]

You don't need digital cameras, it photographed the lunar surface just fine with old school cameras. They helped NASA uncover details as small as a card table top.

The premise of this video is false.

[liihook]

simply brilliant jc, great point !!!

[WhiteJarrah]

Are you referring to his statement about digital cameras? The Apollo planners used Lunar Orbiter's photographs to extract the topographic details - without digital cameras.

[jcgmed]

Well, you've posted this before: " The Lunar Orbiters had cameras with a resolution of 1meter per pixel "

How to convert a film in a CCD ?

[laserfloyd]

I'm really excited about LRO and the images that it will beam back. But, just you wait... theorists will just say that the photos were doctored or that we sent secret missions to plant things there to make it look real, blah blah blah.

Great work on these vids!

[jcgmed]

But this fits better than a studio ceiling full of invisible lights, magical-non-intersected rail ways for wire supports, also a stadium-sized vacuum chamber and lost wire pins in tv glitches.

If you dont want to believe...dont do it, be happy.

[lokir]

Interesting video.

[dopje31857]

Not a good video, but a VERY good video. I already had it added to my favorites.

It really kills conspiracists, but you are right Daltonist, they are like weed, the cannot be killed definately. LOL

[Daltonist]

good video. hoaxers will probably find something wrong with this trough their twisted logic.

[rich2rock]

@Daltonist Wanting solid evidence isn't twisted logic. Come on, all that trouble to get that rocket there and they didn't look for the flag? In 2008 we humans have the technology to read your license plate from space, why not the flag? Please.

[jcgmed]

@rich2rock Because it remains installed on its staff, almost perpendicular respective to the surface and of course, from everything orbiting above too.

Its shadow has been seen some times on high contrast, but certainly the distance for seeing a flag on its staff properly, is only from a few hundred meters above, not from a probe orbiting at 70 miles from over the surface.

It's like seeing a bond paper sheet placed 3km away, from the side, at naked eye.