# Thread: S band weapon against Apollo HB's

1. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
How do you quantify "enough"?
They can only prove that signals were received from the direction of the moon not that any manned landing was performed.

2. Originally Posted by Webbo
They can only prove that signals were received from the direction of the moon not that any manned landing was performed.
So, in your opinion it's..."The signals were coming from the precise direction of the Moon, but that doesn't mean a thing"?

Are we supposed to just ignore all the other evidence for the landings? Signals coming from the precise direction of the Moon are ENTIRELY CONSISTANT with a Moon landing actually happening.

Now if it was "inconsistant", that would be another matter, but they are not.

Are you an HB, webbo?

3. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
So, in your opinion it's..."The signals were coming from the precise direction of the Moon, but that doesn't mean a thing"?
That's the only proof the video can provide. The equipment resolution was 2 degrees while the whole moon is 0.5 degrees, hence the amateurs can only state the signal was received in the direction of the moon.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Are we supposed to just ignore all the other evidence for the landings? Signals coming from the precise direction of the Moon are ENTIRELY CONSISTANT with a Moon landing actually happening.
They are also consistant with a signal being received from an orbit of the moon or as Jeff pointed out; a signal from L1. All the other evidence you refer to wasn't provided in the OP. I wanted to merely point out that the claim made by the OP is IMO false based on the evidence that was provided for it.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Now if it was "inconsistant", that would be another matter, but they are not.
Unless you can prove it's inconsistant with a signal received from an orbit of the moon of from L1 your point is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Are you an HB, webbo?
Why is that relevant? Does belief alter facts? I'd rather stick to the facts as they are presented and evaluate using genuine scientific method.

4. Originally Posted by Webbo
Why is that relevant?
Thanks for not denying it...says everything I need to know....

5. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Thanks for not denying it...says everything I need to know....
Sounds suspiciously like argumentum ad hominem but whatever works for you I guess.

6. Webbo, if you suspect another Member of violating the Rules, Report their post. Do not play Mod. Do not make accusations - even sideways ones - in-thread.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2003
Posts
1,223
Originally Posted by Webbo
I haven't misunderstood it. I know exactly what the doppler should show and what it does show. What's to interpret. They clearly state the wiggles represent the LM travelling over uneven terrain and the straight line represents the landed LM. You're the one attempting to interpret something different.
Invoking Rule 13 with direct questions: Does a Doppler plot show distance from the transmitter and if so how? And similarly does a Doppler plot show velocity relative to the transmitter and if so how?

Please no one else help out Webbo, I want to see if he really does know what he is talking about.

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
11,858
Argumentum ad hominem is not against BAUT's rules.
Your'e thinking of something else with a similar name.

Argumentum ad hominem is a debating tactic that is
sometimes appropriate, though frequently not, so it

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

9. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by Grashtel
Invoking Rule 13 with direct questions: Does a Doppler plot show distance from the transmitter and if so how? And similarly does a Doppler plot show velocity relative to the transmitter and if so how?
It can't be used to give an actual distance. If however one point of the doppler graph is a known point, shifts in the doppler can be used to determine if the transmitter is moving toward or away from the receiver (or reducing/increasing its movement toward or away from the receiver). Changes in the frequency received represents velocity relative to the transmitter.

10. Webbo,

You need to state very clearly what your beliefs about the moon landings are. Maybe you are just asking questions, and maybe you are playing games. It is time you made it clear if you are advocating that all or some of the moon landings were faked.

And yes, that is a direct question from a moderator.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by Swift
Webbo,

You need to state very clearly what your beliefs about the moon landings are. Maybe you are just asking questions, and maybe you are playing games. It is time you made it clear if you are advocating that all or some of the moon landings were faked.

And yes, that is a direct question from a moderator.
No, I do not believe the moon landings were faked, although I would not like to be the individual tasked with proving it using this evidence.

Would you mind answering why my beliefs have any impact on this thread?

12. Originally Posted by Webbo
It can't be used to give an actual distance. If however one point of the doppler graph is a known point, shifts in the doppler can be used to determine if the transmitter is moving toward or away from the receiver (or reducing/increasing its movement toward or away from the receiver). Changes in the frequency received represents velocity relative to the transmitter.
And...

How does that impact your previous statement? :-

Originally Posted by Webbo
Actually if you look closely, if they are maneuvers, then prior to landing it looks like the LM briefly went underground or descended into a valley and had to ascend back out.
If the doppler can't be used to determine distance, how can you determine that the LM was below "ground level"?

And also, from message #60 :-

Originally Posted by Webbo
Originally Posted by molesworth
The caption explains the "wiggles", but it doesn't say, or even imply, that the LM was below its final level, or ascended at any point.
No it cant describe that because it quite obviously shouldn't be possible. However, due to the fact that the doppler does have a lower point prior to the supposedly LM landing point tells its own story.
Maybe you could elaborate on what "story" you think it tells - perhaps it's telling you something different to what it's telling me...

13. Originally Posted by Webbo
No, I do not believe the moon landings were faked, although I would not like to be the individual tasked with proving it using this evidence.
You've got it backwards. The Apollo missions are established historical fact. There is no need to prove that they happened.

Those who advocate the "hoax", have the burden of proving that the landings didn't happen...that the signals didn't come from the moon.

Simply stating, "I don't think the signals came from the Moon...they could have come from L1" is not evidence for a hoax.

14. Does Adobe Photoshop even have the capability to draw completely new objects on a picture? I thought it was for image processing.

15. Originally Posted by Webbo
No, I do not believe the moon landings were faked, although I would not like to be the individual tasked with proving it using this evidence.

Would you mind answering why my beliefs have any impact on this thread?
Because if you were advocating that they were faked, a whole set of responsibilities and rules would fall on you.

16. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
11,858
Glom,

Hoooboy! Yes, Photoshop can be used to draw anything
you can imagine. I use an old version of Paint Shop Pro,
myself, but even though it is a less pricey clone of Adobe
Photoshop, it can can draw both raster images and vector
graphics. I've been using it for both, as well as image
editing, since 1996. Putting spots on LRO images to
look like the Apollo landing sites would be almost trivial,
because so few pixels are involved. A real expert could
probably convincingly fake a landing site on a single
image in less than half an hour.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

17. Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Putting spots on LRO images to look like the Apollo landing sites would be almost trivial, because so few pixels are involved.
So your default assumption is that these things could have been faked, eh? The evidence for such "tampering" is ZERO, so proposing that it "could" have happened is irrelevant.

A real expert could probably convincingly fake a landing site on a single image in less than half an hour.
Again, there is no evidence that any "experts" did anything to alter the LRO images, so speculating that someone "could have" faked it is irrelevant...

18. Originally Posted by Webbo
No, I do not believe the moon landings were faked, although I would not like to be the individual tasked with proving it using this evidence.

Would you mind answering why my beliefs have any impact on this thread?
I think it's just that you seem to be playing a game of semantics for some reason. Perhaps the amateurs did not have sufficient resolution to directly established that signals were being received from a location on the surface of the moon, or from a spacecraft in orbit around the moon. I have had the genuine pleasure over the years to have spoken to a number of people who worked at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek during the Apollo missions. They undoubtedly did have that capability.

Which makes the extended hair-splitting a little inexplicable to me.

19. Originally Posted by AGN Fuel
They undoubtedly did have that capability.
Direct question for webbo...do you agree that Parkes and Honeysuckle creek had this capability, yes or no?

20. Originally Posted by Webbo
They can only prove that signals were received from the direction of the moon not that any manned landing was performed.
The key point of the video was a response to a claim that the signals could be coming from spacecraft orbiting the Earth (the TETR-A in LEO). Do you agree that this would not be feasible?

In no way does the video suggest this is the only evidence supporting the Moon landings, and it's part of a Moon Hoax debunking series, discussing a number of other subjects.

But going beyond that, what would be the useful alternatives to spacecraft in low lunar orbit (in essentially the orbit of the Apollo CSM) and landing on the Moon?

Say for instance you send spacecraft(s) to the Earth-Moon L1 point. How could you be sure that nobody you didn't want was monitoring the radio transmissions as the spacecraft traveled there from LEO? And don't forget, you don't have any massive body at L1, so a trajectory that makes sense for the Moon doesn't make sense for L1.

What's the practical advantage of stopping at L1 anyway? Assuming you can manage it, you still need transmissions with two different Doppler profiles, one that fits something in low Lunar orbit, and another that fits a spacecraft moving up and down over the Lunar surface.

And what would be the other practical alternatives to the Moon, aside from L1? It has to be close to the Moon, so it can't be L4 or L5. The Doppler profile of high lunar orbits would be different. People might also notice the signal strength varying in strangely long periods as the spacecraft moved about the Moon. Why wouldn't it make more sense to do just do a Moon landing?

21. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2009
Posts
808
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
Hoooboy! Yes, Photoshop can be used to draw anything
you can imagine.
Yes, true. But to do so convincingly is very difficult, and when the additions have to precisely match the media being used, even more difficult. When they also involve things like lighting angles, 3d terrain, perfectly matching every detail of a historical record.. even more difficult.

Putting spots on LRO images to look like the Apollo landing sites would be almost trivial
Hoooboy! No. These are quite large areas being imaged, covering lots of 3d terrain, lit at different angles, etc..

Jeff, if you claim it is trivial, I'd like you to explain what would need to be done - I've hinted at just some of the issues in this post, and I'll be happy to point out any you will miss...

I would then invite you to pick one of the larger Apollo sites and create it from scratch yourself, using some other terrain (and not by copy paste)... Alternatively if you truly know someone who would do such a task in less than half an hour.. can you ask them to pop over to the forum and we'll discuss how they would go about it and determine if they are the expert you think..

I'd regard myself as quite a dab hand (but not an 'expert') with Photoshop, and I use all the required techniques for 'similar' work that I do, like putting together very large stitched panoramic images (including ones originally taken on film, so that includes grain/noise matching). And yet there is absolutely no way I could do anything like the LRO images without spending a HUGE amount of time.

As a simple example of the sort of stuff you would need, not only are there things like the precise LRV tracks, there are the areas of those paths that were obliterated or changed by later footprints, and also the differing terrain all along the way.. Then these areas are being re-imaged at differing sun angles, higher resolutions.. Any small error in your 3d mapping (or anything else) will be disastrous - you *can't* just fudge this stuff.. Other countries are already mapping the moon so new images will quickly reveal what is or isn't there eventually.

It would all just be a hideously expensive waste of time to try in vain to cover up something that would eventually have to come out. Frankly, thinking that this would be trivially easy, sounds exactly like many of the shallowest arguments of the deniers.

22. Originally Posted by Van Rijn
Say for instance you send spacecraft(s) to the Earth-Moon L1 point. How could you be sure that nobody you didn't want was monitoring the radio transmissions as the spacecraft traveled there from LEO? And don't forget, you don't have any massive body at L1, so a trajectory that makes sense for the Moon doesn't make sense for L1.

What's the practical advantage of stopping at L1 anyway? Assuming you can manage it, you still need transmissions with two different Doppler profiles, one that fits something in low Lunar orbit, and another that fits a spacecraft moving up and down over the Lunar surface.

And what would be the other practical alternatives to the Moon, aside from L1? It has to be close to the Moon, so it can't be L4 or L5. The Doppler profile of high lunar orbits would be different. People might also notice the signal strength varying in strangely long periods as the spacecraft moved about the Moon. Why wouldn't it make more sense to do just do a Moon landing?
At that point, it would probably be easier to just land on the Moon, rather than faking it.

23. Originally Posted by chrlzs
Hoooboy! No. These are quite large areas being imaged, covering lots of 3d terrain, lit at different angles, etc..
No, there's some fuzzy objects and features covering a few hundred pixels total, only identifiable because we know what to look for. It would indeed be trivial to fake. Your talk about the terrain etc is a red herring, you don't have to fake the terrain, just take a picture of it. The pictures of the tracks and equipment on that terrain are simply not difficult to fake.

There's plenty of other, far stronger evidence we went there (like the pictures actually taken by people standing on the surface). These orbital pictures are fascinating, but claiming they'd be difficult to fake and holding them up as ultimate proof is just ridiculous.

24. To all who say faking the LRO imagery would be easy or trivial: Can you point us to examples of fakery which was indeed done in half an hour (or some such time) and really ever did fool anyone knowledgeable in the field?

If no such imagery exists, why not? I suppose all the Apollos HBs who like to point out "glaring inconsistencies" in the Apollo imagery would LOVE to show around a photoshop with which they fooled "one of the so-called experts".

If it's trivially easy to fake, do it. And show us. Better still, show it to Jay Utah and see if he dosn't spot the fakery.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
11,858
An expert would be an expert not only because he can
use the photo editing software more efficiently than I
can, but because he would know what alterations to
make in the image. Becoming an expert would require
time and effort. Still, there are a lot of people who are
expert at using photo editing software, and a lot of them
have altered images in ways that you and I would not be
able to detect, and that Jay probably would not be able
to detect, either.

The biggest problem here is determining the conditions
for the test. If any subject and any image of any type
and any quality is allowed, then it would be pretty easy.
If you require actual LRO images to be used, then all
you have to do to find out whether a particular image
has been altered is to look up the original yourself.
A real test has to be one where you can't access the
original or see other views of the subject unless the
"hoaxer" gives you access.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

26. Originally Posted by Jeff Root
....there are a lot of people who are expert at using photo editing software, and a lot of them have altered images in ways that you and I would not be able to detect, and that Jay probably would not be able to detect, either.
You and I are one thing, but when you under estimate what Jay knows, well, prepare to be surprised.

27. Well, as I said, do it. "Trivially easy" is the word that hangs in the air. OK, so "becoming an expert" isn't trivial. But once you are, it's "trivially easy" to fake an image that matches every historically reported fact about the Moon landing, in every discernible detail. Really?

Put up, or shut up, is what I'd say. Here's a suggestion: This imagery is from 21 km above the Apollo 12 landing site. Here is footage of the Apollo 15 landing site at similar resolution. AFAIK, this hasn't been done for the other Apollo missions. Fake or have someone fake the same thing of, say, Apollo 16. Fake it to match everything that has been told of that mission. Put an "amazing footage of the Apollo 16 landing site" video on YouTube explaining how this imagery is a perfect match to the historical record. Send it to Jay, and ask for a comment, like "Saw this on YouTube, but nowhere else. Is this real?" (the wording is your choice).

Let's see who is fooled. Should be trivially easy.

Edited to add: What R.A.F said. And cjameshuff: This is a few hundred pixels? Good luck!

28. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by molesworth
And...

How does that impact your previous statement? :-

If the doppler can't be used to determine distance, how can you determine that the LM was below "ground level"?
As I said "If however one point of the doppler graph is a known point, shifts in the doppler can be used to determine if the transmitter is moving toward or away from the receiver". From the point where the doppler straightens we are told this is received from a point on the surface of the moon, therefore prior to that point it can be determined that the transmitter was potentially further from the receiver than it was when it landed. I say potentially because it is very difficult to tell what the doppler is actually telling us because there are no axis markings.

Originally Posted by molesworth
And also, from message #60 :-

Maybe you could elaborate on what "story" you think it tells - perhaps it's telling you something different to what it's telling me...
That it's more likely it was picking up an orbiting transmitter and the wiggles are just aditional calibration as per the initial severe readings.

29. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2009
Posts
753
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
You've got it backwards. The Apollo missions are established historical fact. There is no need to prove that they happened.

Those who advocate the "hoax", have the burden of proving that the landings didn't happen...that the signals didn't come from the moon.

Simply stating, "I don't think the signals came from the Moon...they could have come from L1" is not evidence for a hoax.
Well it's fortunate that I am not stating that then. I am merely pointing out that the OP cannot be used as evidence that we did land on the moon because there are other possibilities.

30. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2009
Posts
808
cjameshuff, do you honestly think there are only a few hundred pixels? I'd suggest you take a look at how many LRO images exist and also how they correlate as the LRO has taken them from different heights, times and angles - see below for a single example. And it seems you have decided to simply dismiss my comments about terrain and lighting..?

Just to take this a bit further:

You are aware that these images are taken at differing sun angles, even different taking angles, of the same locations, at differing heights? How would that affect your photoshoppery on the tracks, and how would you take into account the terrain angles and undulations?

Then, would you have to cross check this against the other imagery - eg the Hasselblad images? Which ones, exactly, or would you have to check pretty much every image? Why or why not? What would you be looking for?

Going further, how would you take into account the dynamic range (let alone other characteristics) of the sensor? Eg, what things should be 'blown' or 'blocked', and why?

There is nothing to stop anyone going over these images with a fine tooth comb, and if any irregularity or inconsistency were to show up now or later... Anyway, I'd love to hear Jay's opinion on this also.

BTW, I'm happy to post a crop of the type of stitching work I do on panoramas that has given me a reasonable insight into this - but that's not much of a guide to the complexity of this supposedly trivial issue - again, I invite Jeff and cjames to show us either their 30 minute photoshop effort, or invite someone to discuss this here - someone who truly appreciates the task and thinks they could/would do it.

Here's a reduced version of just one of MANY similar images:

I'd invite you to go and take a look at the ORIGINAL (ok it's a 1600x1200 jpegged crop, but near enough), and tell me again it's only a few hundred pixels.. And that image doesn't even cover the full extent of the A17 paths. It will also be re-taken later at differing sunlight angles, and probably later by other country's probes..

As I said, it's not so much the number of pixels, it's the fact that you would have to get pretty much every single one, on every single image exactly right in the anticipation of confirmation by every later image (and every previously taken image), and intense scrutiny from people who *do* understand all the issues...
Last edited by chrlzs; 2012-Jul-06 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Misspelled hasselblad? How embarassment...

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•