The best moonlanding hoax thread on the web

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Do I need to shout to get a response? It kind of screws up your original model doesn't it?

Well, that plus the nonlinear object distance : image size ratio of a wide angle lens.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Oh, yeah! I'd forgotten Frenat's image sequence. I've been flipping through textbooks trying to find a diagram that would help, that would also be easy to reproduce in Paint or something.

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

So here's how it works, kaito. The focal length of a camera lens determines the field of view/angle of view of the subject. This part you translated correctly into your model. But when the image goes through the lens, regardless of the field of view it still gets projected onto the same size of film. That means the angle into the lens does not equal angle out.

I have also been flipping through my Physics and Optics books and I can find nothing in lens theory that says angle in does not equal angle out. Please scan and upload the page/pages of the book you are getting this from or give me the name, author and ISBN reference.

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

In a truly "normal" lens the "object distance" : "image size on film" ratio is (more or less, depending on how actually "normal" the focal length is for a given film format) a linear relationship. The model you use to analyze the Apollo 17 image assumes a linear ratio between distance from camera and object size in image. But in a wide angle or telephoto lens the objects' distance : image size ratio isn't linear. The further the focal length is from "normal" the more deeply parabolic the ratio becomes. In the image you have analyzed the objects you are comparing are at a wide range of distances from the film plane, so they will not have a linear distance : image size relationship.

Please provide a link to this non linear theory.

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

And that is why the objects are not the "right" size per your calculations. In fact, your analysis pretty effectively proves the photo was taken with a mild wide angle lens. Your results are consistent with that fact. That's one of the reasons why I suggested you perform the same analysis using a "known good" image, to prove the validity of your mathematical model to analyze the size of objects in the image.

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Your method of analysis is, by the way, quite clever. Now that I've spent some time looking at what you have done I can see how it could be adapted, but to do so you need to have (or extrapolate from known images) the ratio curve for a given lens.

I disagee as the theory books I have access to provide a perfectly rational explanation for why the image in a wide angle or narrow angle lens differ perceptualy from a "normal" lens which gives an image similar to that perceived through the human eye.
　
　
　
http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2010/07/perspective-distortion-sensor-size-and.html

QUOTE FROM THE ABOVE LINK:
Perspective distortion is influenced by the distance one stands from the subject. If you are near to your subject then extension distortion will cause the parts of the subject that are closer to the lens to appear abnormally large. This tends to exaggerate facial features, particularly the nose, since this is the part of the face closest to the lens. Most models do not want their nose exaggerated!

The opposite type of perspective distortion is compression distortion. If you stand farther away from your subject then distances are compressed; closer parts are relatively smaller than distant parts. This has a flattering effect on people, as it minimises their nose, chin and ears, making their eyes look relatively larger.
　
Perspective distortion is only influenced by how far you are from your subject. It has nothing directly to do with the lens or camera. It has nothing to do with the focal length and nothing to do with the size of the sensor or film you are using. However, if you are using a wide-angle lens you will need to be closer to fill the frame with your subject. This will lead to extension distortion, which is why it is also commonly called wide-angle distortion. And likewise you need to stand back when using a telephoto lens, so you will be able to capture more than a nostril. And this leads to compression distortion, AKA telephoto distortion.

Note that the term "distortion" is here used in a purely geometric way. It is not a mistake or flaw in the lens that produces this distortion; it is a simple fact of optics.

END QUOTE

Note from the above quote that the DISTANT objects will appear perceptually SMALLER (compression distortion) and NEAR objects will appear perceptually LARGER (extension distortion) which is exactly the opposite of what my analysis of the NA$A photo reveals. The mountains are too high compared to the height expected from the contour map and this leads me to the conclusion it is faked.

Also note the standard theoretical explanation of the above holds good in the illustrations available on Wiki (see below) and these diagrams also assume angle in equals angle out as does my analysis method.
　

　




In the above Wiki diagrams the height of the Red object actually takes up the full height of the film frame and the change in the relative image height of the near (Blue) object is shown for normal and wide angle lens conditions assuming the distance between the two objects is the same in both cases.
Anyway...I await the links to your "parabolic ratio" info with interest.

[apollo_gnomon]

Also note the standard theoretical explanation of the above holds good in the illustrations available on Wiki (see below) and these diagrams also assume angle in equals angle out.
　

You're looking at a simplified, schematic diagram that has no lenses. I feel perhaps I've confused you with unnecessary information. The simplified description is simplified; the lines cross over within the camera's lens system, then go through 1 or more additional lenses. The angle in = angle out indicated above is a theoretical thing that doesn't actually relate to how the image is bent within the lenses.

My statement was drawn from memories of a much more complicated discussion on the internal optics of camera lenses.

For our purposes, just remember that regardless of how many degrees field of view a camera lens takes in, the image is still projected onto the same size piece of film. That's the important bit. Don't get hung up on the angles.

I'll try to find the specific references, but they're up in the "scary attic" in a box of other textbooks and I will be leaving for the Mojave Desert late Saturday night so I probably won't have time until I get back in late August.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by kaito

You are not the arbiter of my choices. My choice is to demonstrate that the top image in your post #116 is a Bull$hit Photoshopped montage which, as evidence, is totally worthless.

Still resorting to abuse eh? Ah well..

Let me state this categorically once and for all:

I have faked nothing in Photoshop.

That clear enough for you?

Nothing.

The screenshots I posted were pasted into photoshop, cropped and posted. That's it. Everything else was done in google.

Here we go........
　
　



OOOPS!#1....You have chosen to frame your lower montage within the border of a NA$A map. In the genuine Map the Apollo 17 landing area appears in the lower right hand corner, not the lower left hand corner. Why did you frame it so? Trying to kid the guillible it's genuine evidence from an authoritative source?...

The NASA map is the same one you used draped onto the Google Moon view from above and then moved into perspective. The perspective I chose matches the view taken from the CSM of the LM on its way in to land. That simple. You're implying motive that isn't there and refusing to see what is there.

OOOPS!#2....Obvious Photoshop image distortion that overlaps your "fake" map border.

It is not a Photoshop image distortion. Repeat the exercise yourself. I would urge anyone to do the same so they can see for themselves - you don't have to rely on my version. The 'distortion' is the image following the ground contours in google.

OOOPS!#3....You have then taken the Mare Serenitatis Map from my Drawing 2 and manipulated the image to make it look as if you have placed it on the floor next to your lower montage map to study it. Unfortunately when you distorted the contours on the fake lower "montage map, to try and make them look convincing, the distortion leaked into the upper map ......

Again, I have distorted nothing and manipulated nothing. The screenshot is exactly as it appears in goole moon. Grow a pair and do it yourself if you want to prove it. You seem to be under the impression that the only possible alternative to your version of events is fakery. the other alternative is that you're wrong.

OOOPS!#4, OOOPS!#5 and OOOPS!#6
Again you've created a Photoshop manipulated version of the image from Drawing 2 (my post #85) where I demonstrate I genuinely digitally traced the map in Acad. . You can see my Arial font annotation over the top of the map annotation.

See my comments above. The only reason things appear distorted is because they are following the google moon ground surface. I have done nothing other than position them correctly.

OOOPS!#7 ....My Arial font is there and the Photoshop image distortion you have used is clearly visible.

See above. I used your source deliberately so I couldn't be accused of bringing in fake evidence. I also did the same thing with better contour maps. You could do that yourself as well.

As such your attempt to pass off your "arty crafty" Photoshop BS as a scientific contour fitting exercise is a joke....
　
Below is a screen shot I grabbed from Google Moon showing another element you incorporated in your Photoshop montage.

Pity you didn't try and put the contour map on top while you were there, you wouldn't then have come across as such an arrogant ignoramus. Can't you see that there is a 3D effect there? Can't you see that the contour map is following that? I never claimed it was scientific, you're the one claiming that and you failed to take into account the behaviour of lenses. My sole purpose was to use tools that anyone can use so that anyone else can go out and use them to prove to themselves that the view from the camera is the same as the view in google. You have failed to prove me wrong because all you can be bothered to do is scream 'Photoshop' as if that's all you need to do.

Addendum 1

I can't recall ever coming across a computer screen with the strange proportions shown in your screenshot. Care to let us know the make?

Mine's a genuine screenshot from a 19 inch glass screened AG neovu BTW......

Get out more. Mine's a wide screen 17" laptop.

Addendum 2

Why in your screen grab does the Google Moon NA$A aerial photo overlap the Google tab at the bottom showing latitude, longitude and elevation?
I can't seem to get Google Moon to do that on my computer.....

Because you don't understand how to use computer software?

I would urge anyone who can be bothered to repeat the exercise I tried for themselves. It is not difficult. You will demonstrate quite easily that I have faked nothing.

You could have ended this discussion a long time ago by simply using your software to present a rendered view from the POV of the camera. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I'll try to find the specific references, but they're up in the "scary attic" in a box of other textbooks and I will be leaving for the Mojave Desert late Saturday night so I probably won't have time until I get back in late August.

Have a nice holiday and don't worry....I'll be the first to remind you when you get back.....

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by kaito

Have a nice holiday and don't worry....I'll be the first to remind you when you get back.....

Not a holiday, but thanks. I'm in the National Guard, and our unit is doing our Annual Training there. Ugh. Mojave desert in August. I've been drinking a half gallon of water every day for 2 weeks and a gallon a day for the last several days to get ready for the heat.

While I'm gone perhaps you could do a bit of technical reading on cameras and lenses from actual hard copy books, rather than just relying on the Googleversity. Then maybe we can meet in the middle.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

While I'm gone perhaps you could do a bit of technical reading on cameras and lenses from actual hard copy books, rather than just relying on the Googleversity. Then maybe we can meet in the middle.

I don't need to do that. I don't rely on Google and I have many books on cameras and optics. I'll wait for your "scary loft" input.....

I'm currently digitising the Apollo 17 site using NA$A's Lunar Topophoto Maps Ref 42C3S3(50) and 43D1S1(50).These have level contours at 100 metre and 20 metre interval rather than the 300 metres of the Mare Serenitatis map. It will be in 3D.

The problem with Acad is, although you can model accurate 3D objects and topology, it has no capability to model camera views. That's why I had to use traditional orthographic projection methods in my photo analysis. I confined my attention to the peaks. It is possible to define the expected horizon profile in each candidate photo in this way but it's very time consuming and involves drawing loads of sections which I'm not prepared to do.

On the other hand 3D Studio fits the bill perfectly. You can define the camera focal length, its field of view and take the shot from any defined x,y,z co-ordinate in any direction within the model.
Unfortunately I don't have 3D studio but I know a man who does......

I can't apply my technique to every Apollo 17 photo but there are several to which it is applicable, with varying degrees of certainty. I can't apply it to other missions because the other sites have no prominent hilly terrain. However Apollo 17 is perfect..........

[moving finger]

Apollo 17 site mapped by Hubble in a cool video:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...9/video/c/jaxa

from which:



also



from http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...05/29/image/f/

And by JAXA:

http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp...tc/tc_009.html

http://wms.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp...tc/tc_010.html

From which:



And this from a bunch of serious geek http://djvader.blogspot.co.uk/2006_01_01_archive.html





Even from China's Chang'e-2:

[kaito]

NA$A description of the first image in post #168....my bold

About this image
This image was constructed by overlaying the Hubble Advanced Camera for Surveys image of the Apollo 17 landing region within the Taurus-Littrow valley, taken on Dec. 16, 2005, with a digital-terrain model acquired by the Apollo program to provide a perspective view looking from west to east up the valley. These Hubble data illustrate the high-resolution resolving power of the Advanced Camera for Surveys and display features smaller than a soccer field from low-Earth orbit some 248,000 miles (400,000 kilometers) distant. These images were acquired at nearly full Moon, so the long, dark shadows typical of many lunar orbital photos are not seen; however, this is perfect lighting for color analysis from which to interpret subtle compositional differences. The Hubble Space Telescope Lunar Exploration team is using the Apollo 17 images (and those acquired of the Apollo 15 site) as "ground-truth" in an effort to discriminate lunar materials enriched in ilmenite, a titanium-bearing oxide of potential value as a resource in human exploration of the Moon. The image was processed by the Hubble Space Telescope Lunar Exploration team at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Northwestern University, and the Space Telescope Science Institute.

How can a photograph taken from 248,000 miles away with pi$$ poor resolution and laid over a terrain model from an un-named source (not "mapped by Hubble" as you say) be used to "interpret subtle compositional differences" in the chemical composition of the moon's surface by "colour"?.......ROTFLMAO

If such a technique exists (.....and I'm not aware of one) why use a "crap" photo from Hubble????. Why not use one of the "supposed" genuine ones taken from a probe a few kilometres above the moon's surface? This is pure unadulterated BS....whytf does it need to be laid over a terrain model?.

In spectroscopic analysis of chemical compounds the sample must be heated to incandescence. The parts of the electromagnetic spectrum can then be separated by various means eg prism defraction onto a photographic plate and the chemical composition deduced from that.

wtf is "ground truth"??????????????.....lol

The absurdity of NA$A's pseudo scientific BS increases exponentially with time.....

Moving Finger.....are you the person responsible for writing this crap "working in a basement for the Government"?....


Almost forgot....

Originally Posted by moving finger

Get out more. Mine's a wide screen 17" laptop.

Re your post #164..........17 inch widescreen laptops dont produce Google Earth screen shots with an OOOPS! aspect ratio.....but manipulated Photoshop montages can.

[stelios]

Originally Posted by moving finger

you wouldn't then have come across as such an arrogant ignoramus.

You believers just cant help yourselves can you?
All you see is your own blind faith and blinkered view of history.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by kaito

NA$A description of the first image in post #168....my bold

How can a photograph taken from 248,000 miles away with pi$$ poor resolution and laid over a terrain model from an un-named source (not "mapped by Hubble" as you say) be used to "interpret subtle compositional differences" in the chemical composition of the moon's surface by "colour"?.......ROTFLMAO

Your inability to understand the subject is not proof. Do some reading on the Hubble and it's capabilities.

If such a technique exists (.....and I'm not aware of one) why use a "crap" photo from Hubble????. Why not use one of the "supposed" genuine ones taken from a probe a few kilometres above the moon's surface? This is pure unadulterated BS....whytf does it need to be laid over a terrain model?.

They have used them, they also used the one from Hubble. And?

In spectroscopic analysis of chemical compounds the sample must be heated to incandescence. The parts of the electromagnetic spectrum can then be separated by various means eg prism defraction onto a photographic plate and the chemical composition deduced from that.

The key word is sprectroscopy - looking at the spectrum. Setting fire to thiings and seeing what colour they turn is one way of doing it, there are others.

wtf is "ground truth"??????????????.....lol

The absurdity of NA$A's pseudo scientific BS increases exponentially with time.....

Ground truth is, quite obviously, making sure what your readings say and what is on the ground are accurately matched.

Moving Finger.....are you the person responsible for writing this crap "working in a basement for the Government"?....

No, that was Bob Dylan.

Almost forgot....



Re your post #164..........17 inch widescreen laptops dont produce Google Earth screen shots with an OOOPS! aspect ratio.....but manipulated Photoshop montages can.

They clearly do, because I have one and the screenshot I posted is from one.

I repeat my earlier statements: The only use I have made of photoshop in the images I have posted is pasting a screenshot and then cropping out the unnecessary stuff. You are calling me a liar with no proof other than your own inability to understand a simple image. I am not a liar. If you have some sort of proof that I have manipulated the images I have posted in any way, post it, otherwise stfu. Your accusations of fraud are as tiresome as they are incorrect.

Aside from your tedious insults, your digitising of the Apollo 17 landing site will be interesting. I hope you will post the raw files as well as the views from it, as a lot of people on both sides of the debate will find them useful.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Now you really are behaving like a troll. You are deliberately avoiding that you were hopelessly wrong about perspective distortion, wrong about the Zeiss WIDE-ANGLE lens, and avoiding the bulk of my post

Originally Posted by truegroup

AGAIN: Why have you used the full 6.06m height of the LM, when the legs compress on landing, the footpad sinks an inch or 2 into the regolith, we can't see the whole footpad and the view appears to be from an elevated position?

Originally Posted by truegroup

So after all your posturing, you're just another HB who can draw lines

1….Wrong again....lol

In my analysis a small reduction/increase in the LEM height caused by compression/elongation of the leg struts would have negligible effect on my analysis. All it would do is move the camera position in the order of 10 metres nearer or farther away from the LEM. At present I've positioned Peaks 1 and 2 at respectively 13768 and 28776 metres away from the camera position. Therefore an increase/decrease of 10 metres in these distances would alter the angle of inclination of the peaks at the camera position by.....wait for it!....... the grand total of sweet fa...
You could have worked this out for yourself but all you appear to be interested in is trolling and making childish comments for the sake of it.

2….Wrong again....lol

You keep insisting the photo I am analysing is shot from a raised camera position that's higher than the LEM footpad. Try checking the contour map. The ground actual slopes down from the LEM to the camera position at about 1:38.....

I am not wrong about perspective distortion. I've already explained this to you. Perspective distortion is perceptual and relates to the real difference between an image produced by a wide angle lens when compared to that produced by a camera with similar angle of view/focal length to the human eye. My analysis is an exercise in geometric optics and ray tracing, not in whether the image "looks right" in perspective terms. How am I wrong about the Biogon Lens? Care to chance your arm explaining this "optics theory flaw" which neither you nor your mate apollo_gnoman have yet provided?......

If your up to it please use diagrams or maths as your persistent spamming of gifs/images illustrating the "bleedin' obvious" gets rather boring after a time and will result in an "It's Photoshopped" response from me.....

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by kaito

1….Wrong again....lol

Don't get ahead of yourself, the use of the word "again" is most misleading

In my analysis a small reduction/increase in the LEM height caused by compression/elongation of the leg struts would have negligible effect on my analysis. All it would do is move the camera position in the order of 10 metres nearer or farther away from the LEM. At present I've positioned Peaks 1 and 2 at respectively 13768 and 28776 metres away from the camera position. Therefore an increase/decrease of 10 metres in these distances would alter the angle of inclination of the peaks at the camera position by.....wait for it!....... the grand total of sweet fa...

Bullshit. The dcrease is nothing to do with the decrease in the peaks, but a decrease in the angles emanating from the camera. What flannel are you chucking out now? You haven't incorporated the nonlinear object distance : image size ratio of a wide angle lens (AG point above).

When you blow up a picture by a certain factor, please explain what happens when that figure is wrong by 10% or more. You said you worked out the camera position from the field of view, are you now trying to move the goalposts?

You could have worked this out for yourself but all you appear to be interested in is trolling and making childish comments for the sake of it.

You could have replied the first time I raised it rather than the sixth

You keep insisting the photo I am analysing is shot from a raised camera position that's higher than the LEM footpad. Try checking the contour map. The ground actual slopes down from the LEM to the camera position at about 1:38.....

What contour map is that? How far away between the contours and are you now saying that land is dead flat between contours

I am not wrong about perspective distortion. I've already explained this to you. Perspective distortion is perceptual and relates to the real difference between an image produced by a wide angle lens when compared to that produced by a camera with similar angle of view/focal length to the human eye.

Yes you are. You have drawn lines based on direct ratio 1:1 and have ignored the lens model/perspective distortion. Big fail. You can huff and puff all you like, but it is wrong diddly wrong.

My analysis is an exercise in geometric optics and ray tracing, not in whether the image "looks right" in perspective terms.

Perspective is everything when using a wide angle lens camera. Remember the rectangle you didn't have an answer for (apart from one of your flippant "lol" comments).

How am I wrong about the Biogon Lens? Care to chance your arm explaining this "optics theory flaw" which neither you nor your mate apollo_gnoman have yet provided?

Strawman. Now you refer to the actual distortion of the lens. No problem, there would be neglible actual lens distortion and you know full well I have already said this

[kaito]

Answers to points raised on another thread regarding my analysis drawings.

Analysis drawings are here on this thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=85

Originally Posted by headlikearock

Ah, I'm with you. It did seem at odds with your earlier statement whihc is why I questioned it.

Originally Posted by headlikearock

　
1. Have you allowed for the curvature of the lunar surface, and how that may affect results?
2. False summits. Have you allowed for the possibility of the true summit being hidden from the observer by a lower part of the slope?
3. See the post by Moving Finger. Have you allowed for errors in the height data on the lunar topographic map?
4 Pretty much all of Aulis' studies on shadow direction are based on a false premise. You cannot reliably use the direction of a shadow cast on a surface to determine the light source. To do that, you need to analyse the vanishing points of the shadows with the corresponding part of the object that casts the shadow. For a single light source, all such lines in an image should converge (they may converge outside the exposed part of the film). If the lens axis is perpendicular to the light source, the lines will be parallel and won't converge. This applies regardless of the topography of the terrain. All you need to be able to do is mtach up specific parts of a shadow with the part of the object casting the shadow (i.e. be aware that the tip of a shadow may not be visible to the camera).
Someone else has already done such an analysis of the image in question:-
I'd go further than that. Their observations are based on a flawed methodology, so they can be discarded. Let them perform a vanishing point analysis on the shadows, and see what conclusions they come to then.

1….Lunar surface curvature.
Yes….I’ve checked that and it’s negligible compared to the apparent discrepancies in the mountain heights.…..In round figures Moon Diameter 3474 km…..distance to Peak 2 is 28 km.
For Peak 2 take a chord 28 km long joining two points on the Moons circumference. A quick calculation reveals the perpendicular distance from the chord centre to the circumference is 56.42 metres. In the case of Peak 1 (13.7 km away) it’s less than half that. To put it in context Peak 1 should be 2374 metres higher than the LEM. My analysis of the photo shows it to be 3656 metres higher than the LEM. In other words it’s 1282 metres (54%) too high. Factoring in 20 or so metres for the moon’s surface curvature does nothing to explain away the anomaly. On the contrary it makes the anomaly worse......


2…Re Moving finger's "hidden peaks" BS.....
The sections constructed from the map contours show both summits are within line of sight of the camera position (see section drawing MoonHoax 04). I carried out my analysis based on the Lunar and Planetary Institutes Mare Serenitasis 1:1000,000 Scale Map. I chose this as an initial "trial" investigation after a quick "back of an envelope calculation" suggested that the expected height ratios measured off the photo compared to those on the contour map were way out. The LM42 map is not the most accurate available BUT digitising a map takes many hours of work in Acad and I wanted to confirm as quickly as possible if the conclusion of my ratio calcs had any foundation. My drawings confirmed this to be so and the height discrepancies are, IMO, far too large to be easily explained away by the map error data.


3…I haven’t carried out a detailed error estimate on the currently posted analysis for the following reason. I am now repeating the exercise using the most accurate maps I can find, the 1:50,000 Lunar Topophoto Map Series series which have 100 metre (Main) and 20 metre (secondary) contour intervals rather than the 300metre intervals of the LM42 map. Digitising the contours takes ages. On and off I’ve spent probably 1000 hours working on it and it will probably take another 300 to complete. It’s really boring work ….a bit like trying to embroider a bloody football pitch…..lol . The interesting analysis bit at the end makes the boring bit worthwhile. I can also use the digitised map to analyse other candidate photos. There are lots of them. The stated error parameters on the Topophoto Maps are:

Map accuracy expressed in metres at 90 % probability ….

HORIZONTAL 76
VERTICAL +/- 36

When my new analysis drawing is finished I’ll have a look at the likely effect of these error parameters.

4…Regarding shadow analysis and other anomalies pointed out by White, Percy and others I don’t think you can dismiss all of them out of hand. I think some of them are indicators of possible fakery but they certainly can’t be taken as conclusive proof. Forensic ground shadow analysis is possible on relatively smooth surfaces of known topology and, possibly, a statistical shadow analysis could be performed on rough terrain. However, in the case of the Apollo photos it’s a blind alley. It's not smooth and sufficiently detailed topological data of the slopes in the rough ground of the moon's surface and other required information is unavailable and can not be extracted from the photos. On the other hand fairly accurate info is available on the LEM dimensions despite the "convenient" loss of detail drawings by Grumann so anomalies in shadows cast by parts of the LEM on it's self might be more productive but it's still probably not worth the effort.

On the other hand I think my analysis method has forensically robust evidential credibility. In fact the more accurate the maps the better it performs. If it were applied to a high accuracy map produced from LRO data I think it could settle the "were the Apollo photos faked on a film set" controversy once and for all. If it establishes fakery then NA$A have BIG credibility problems.

I find it VERY suspicious that NA$A, to the best of my knowledge, has so far failed to publish accurate contour maps of the Apollo sites based on LRO data. I stand to be corrected but am I right in thinking that release of accurate LRO maps into the public domain has been restricted to the Lunar Polar regions only?

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by kaito

I am now repeating the exercise using the most accurate maps I can find, the 1:50,000 Lunar Topophoto Map Series series which have 100 metre (Main) and 20 metre (secondary) contour intervals rather than the 300metre intervals of the LM42 map.

That map was produced using the Apollo 15 mapping camera data. The 'Photo' part of the map is from Apollo 17's Panoramic camera. Which you seem to be claiming didn't go.

I find it VERY suspicious that NA$A, to the best of my knowledge, has so far failed to publish accurate contour maps of the Apollo sites based on LRO data. I stand to be corrected but am I right in thinking that release of accurate LRO maps into the public domain has been restricted to the Lunar Polar regions only?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JE003908.shtml

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ccomplish.html

http://pds.nasa.gov/tools/data-searc...nce_orbiter%2C

Other probes have also mapped the landing site (see my posts above), and the views they present are identical to those taken by Apollo 17 both on the ground and from above.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by moving finger

That map was produced using the Apollo 15 mapping camera data. The 'Photo' part of the map is from Apollo 17's Panoramic camera. Which you seem to be claiming didn't go.



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JE003908.shtml

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ccomplish.html

http://pds.nasa.gov/tools/data-searc...nce_orbiter%2C

Other probes have also mapped the landing site (see my posts above), and the views they present are identical to those taken by Apollo 17 both on the ground and from above.

Apollo 15 data could have been produced by an unmanned probe and at the other end of the scale faked from a large plaster model.

Your links above to NA$A Bull$hit are worthless and don't lead to any maps. For example in the last link EVERY SOURCE ITEM ON THE PAGE results in a "PAGE NOT FOUND ERROR MESSAGE"!......Another of your links leads to a pay site for Scientific papers. I'm not prepared to pay for $cience papers that detail how these "non available maps " were "allegedly" produced....

Again....Please provide a link to a NA$A contour map of the Apollo 17 site based on LRO data or admit there is no such map available to the public......

If there's one available I'd be deeeelighted to use it in my analysis.......even if it's Photoshopped....

I'm not interested in your NA$A "views" which can easily be faked with computer graphics software. Let's see this accurate LRO contour MAP!.

[kaito]

From MF's second NA$A link above.

"But because of LRO and LOLA, we now have detailed maps of both the near side and far side of the moon."

More NA$A BS. Where are these contour maps of the landing sites? They're not available are they?

MF's deafening silence noted......

[bertl]

Originally Posted by kaito

Where are these contour maps of the landing sites? They're not available are they?

I'll do you one better - contour maps of all of the Moon. Less than 5 minutes worth of Googling - I expected better research from you.

[kaito]

Originally Posted by bertl

I'll do you one better - contour maps of all of the Moon. Less than 5 minutes worth of Googling - I expected better research from you.

You are just repeating NA$A Bull$hit to divert the attention of others away from the point I'm making. There are no LRO/LOLA contour maps of the Apollo landing sites available!

Quote from your link.

Direct links to color shaded relief visualizations:

"Colour shaded relief visualizations" are NOT contour maps in any cartographically useful or accurate form. Precise...repeat precise level or distance information can not be extracted from these BS NA$A images and you know it. Accurate contour maps have a small scale, they have height labeled contour lines, lines of latitude and longitude, details of projection type, error estimates etc similar to the maps I am using in my analysis.


BTW explain to me how I can extract accurate level information from a scaled ROYGBIV spectrum. If you said this in a Surveying, Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering or Architect's Design Office you'd be laughed out of the room......

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload...4.colorbar.png

I expected better Bull$hit from you...

Edit

On second thoughts I didn't....rotflmao

[bertl]

Have you tried contacting the people responsible for creating the topographic maps for more information?