Apollo 15 site spoted by by Clementine?

[Mifletz]

http://www.shmoozenet.com/yudel/archive/010501.shtml

Signs of Life in Outer Space: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (Space.com)

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the
spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said.
A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

[Azpod]

On 2001-10-25 18:59, Mifletz wrote:
http://www.shmoozenet.com/yudel/archive/010501.shtml

Signs of Life in Outer Space: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (Space.com)

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the
spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said.
A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

I tried to follow it, but the link to the story went nowhere. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img] Does anyone have a (live) link to the story?

[Mr. X]

On 2001-10-25 21:05, Azpod wrote:

On 2001-10-25 18:59, Mifletz wrote:
http://www.shmoozenet.com/yudel/archive/010501.shtml

Signs of Life in Outer Space: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (Space.com)

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the
spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said.
A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

I tried to follow it, but the link to the story went nowhere. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img] Does anyone have a (live) link to the story?

No need for the evil smiley now, it's hardly his fault!

[Karl]

On 2001-10-25 21:05, Azpod wrote:

On 2001-10-25 18:59, Mifletz wrote:
http://www.shmoozenet.com/yudel/archive/010501.shtml

Signs of Life in Outer Space: Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images (Space.com)

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the
spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said.
A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

I tried to follow it, but the link to the story went nowhere. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img] Does anyone have a (live) link to the story?

That would be this:

http://ww.space.com/missionlaunches/...os_010427.html


(repaired link)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2001-10-25 21:34 ]</font>

[Mr. X]

Jeez Karl, you're a real life saver, how do you pull it off all the time?

[Karl]

On 2001-10-25 23:36, Mr. X wrote:
Jeez Karl, you're a real life saver, how do you pull it off all the time?

Long memory for trivia and I know where to look. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[StarMan]

http://ww.space.com/missionlaunches/...os_010427.html

Any one who thinks the hoax geeks will accept this as evidence? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: StarMan on 2001-10-26 01:38 ]</font>

[Iain Lambert]

I take it I'm not the only one that winced a bit at the phrase 'photometric anomalies'. Given the number of times we've disagreed with a certain believer's anomalies I doubt this will convince them.

[Mr. X]

On 2001-10-26 01:37, StarMan wrote:
Any one who thinks the hoax geeks will accept this as evidence? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Ha! No, it was certainly a tricked picture put in front of a telescope! That's right, even if it wouldn't work, it certainly was that. I am sure of it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

[StarMan]

Ha! No, it was certainly a tricked picture put in front of a telescope! That's right, even if it wouldn't work, it certainly was that. I am sure of it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

I'm looking forward to see all the mini anomalies the picture contains. [/irony]
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Kaptain K]

Any one who thinks the hoax geeks will accept this as evidence?

You're joking, right? HBs wouldn't believe it if you took them to the moon and showed them the landers.

[Hat Monster]

Hey, I'm impressed. Good astronomy coming from Mifeltz. There may be hope yet.
Let's find an active link...
Space.com's search really does stink.
http://ww.space.com/missionlaunches/...os_010427.html

[ToSeek]

On 2001-10-27 07:22, Kaptain K wrote:

Any one who thinks the hoax geeks will accept this as evidence?

You're joking, right? HBs wouldn't believe it if you took them to the moon and showed them the landers.

Yeah, can you prove that anyone was ever really in those landers? And you added all those footprints just before we arrived.

[David Simmons]

On 2001-10-26 09:02, StarMan wrote:

Ha! No, it was certainly a tricked picture put in front of a telescope! That's right, even if it wouldn't work, it certainly was that. I am sure of it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

I'm looking forward to see all the mini anomalies the picture contains. [/irony]
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

It is funny. Ha, Ha funny that is and also peculiar funny.

HB's rightly claim that pictures can be faked. In fact, I can add a dark spot to a moon photo using the "clone" tool on my photo editing program. No problem.

But, the HB's use their photos to prove that everyone else's photos are fake. There is no solution to such an approach.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Simmons on 2001-11-08 10:57 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

Proving that it's possible to fake photographs in general is not equivalent to proving that some specific photograph was faked. Beyond begging the question of their own photos' authenticity, HBs adopt a rather indefensible position that so long as they can demonstrate something is possible, it must have or is likely to have happened that way unless it can be proved conclusively otherwise.

[ToSeek]

When the first Mars Global Surveyor photo of the "face on Mars" came out, one of the "true believers" took the NASA-processed, cleaned-up photograph, and used Photoshop to produce something resembling the original, raw image. He then claimed that this proved that the real NASA image was the cleaned-up one and not the one claimed to be the "raw" one. My jaw dropped when I saw that.

[JayUtah]

I can sympathize with that. I've had people show me renderings done with 3D Studio Max and similar programs and say it "proves" that the Apollo photos are faked, since they don't exhibit the same lighting characteristics as those from the rendered images.

[Hauteden]

On 2001-10-27 07:22, Kaptain K wrote:
You're joking, right? HBs wouldn't believe it if you took them to the moon and showed them the landers.

You couldn't even get them to the Moon because they would "burn-up" in the Van-Allen belts [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

I really hate when HB's would post and image and state "Now I just manipulated (a.k.a. altered) the image so you can see what I am talking about."

At least the 'good' HB's just outline the portion of the image with a copy of the raw image next to it. I find that to me much more professional.


Hauteden

[Trish]

On 2001-11-08 17:31, JayUtah wrote:
I can sympathize with that. I've had people show me renderings done with 3D Studio Max and similar programs and say it "proves" that the Apollo photos are faked, since they don't exhibit the same lighting characteristics as those from the rendered images.

Huh? Your kidding, right? I would question them as to whether they are using a bump map filter to produce the appearance of an uneven surface or if they are using noise to create an uneven surface. Plus, the lighting from the sun and reflected from the earth (providing you get the correct albedo punched into the system) would be difficult in the extreme. You would have to provide a light source (far enough and bright enough) representative of the sun - I'm not quite sure that can be done. (Guess I'll have to try it sometime.)

[Hat Monster]

They usually have the moon's texture a mid-grey. It never works because all the shadows are either jet black or totally washed out.
The moon's colour in RGB would be close to 48,48,48

<a name="20020301.4:58"> page 20020301.4:58 aka Page 3 to 1 ?
1k doing some math Assume 29.5 days 1/4 moon to 1st 1/4
2:OR 14&3/4 days = 354 hrs = 180deg about 2hr/deg
3:Assume that at 4:17EDT Sun was East of Lunar Horizon
4:1st EVA was at 10:56 Six & 1/2 hours after touchdown
5:& lasted 2 & 1/2 hr = 9hr max after Touch Down = Sun up
6:9hr times @ .5 deg/hr = 5 deg= shadow lengths about 10:1
7hotos show shadow lengths of about 1.5:1 or 32deg min
8:OR in other words 3 days after Sun up, = Touch down. &
9:4Me its clearly BooGus Made 4prime.Time_TV atleast 4A part

[Squirm]

I shall post a reply here which was submitted elsewhere recently, then make a hasty retreat:

• Are you unaware of NASA’s previous statements regarding the displacement of lunar surface material by the LM’s engine on touchdown and how contradictory this newly processed image and accompanying statements are?
  
  The image created by Misha Kreslavsky and his team points out 3 anomalies: A, B and C. A being the alleged touchdown site with B and C being recent craters. According to this NASA endorsed research, we are now expected to believe the disturbance around the Apollo 15 landing site is comparable in size to impact crater C. How can this be when NASA has tried so hard over the years to explain why no crater or disturbance would be present; how the LM’s engine had a “56 inch nozzle with an area of 2,300 square inches which only generated 1.5 lbs psi thrust on landing, and how this would disperse rapidly in a vacuum,” thus causing no damage or displacement?
  NASA has also claimed the minimal thrust generated on touchdown would not be strong enough to disturb the fine lunar dust, and this is why no dust accumulated within the bowl-like feet of the LM. However, Misha Kreslavsky clearly states “The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing.” He contends that “The alteration has been created by the lunar module’s engine during touchdown.” In another statement he claims yet again that “This is caused by the Craft’s ENGINE BLAST.”
  
  Kreslavsky offers no further evidence or explanation as to why he believes object A is the landing site and not just another crater. His evaluation appears to be based upon object A’s position being fairly close to where NASA claims Apollo 15 landed. Judging by the scale of the image, the area of disturbed surface material caused by Apollo 15 would be huge and would have to represent more than your “it’s just a little bit” claim, and should be evident in the surface imagery as well.
  
  It appears that NASA is willing to use the “Low thrust = no dust” argument whilst dealing with the absence of any disturbance beneath the LM in all of the surface imagery but is equally willing to destroy its own argument whilst engaged in a limp attempt to somehow prove the authenticity of Apollo.
  
  Are you aware that Kreslavsky has found no trace of the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 16 or 17 Landers? And yes, he has looked!
  
  To the average uninformed person in the street this created image must appear to be "proof" that Apollo 15 actually got to the moon. But to those of us who have questioned NASA’s claims over the years this is just another complete turn around that proves absolutely nothing! Do they truly believe our memories are so bad?
  
  Orion

Baring a few minor quibbles, the man has a point.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-03-01 08:10 ]</font>

[SeanF]

The Clementine photos are not visible-light photos (I believe they're infrared). They show a disturbance of the regolith, but not a crater.

Anomalies B and C in the photo mentioned coincide with the small, fresh impact craters. Note that wording. These are not pictures of the craters - they are indications of disturbed regolith that coincide with the locations of the craters.

Also, the Clementine orbiter did not take these types of photographs around the other landing sites, and that's why Kreslavsky "found no trace" of them - Orion's statements are apparently intended to imply that there are photographs which show no disturbances, which is not the case.

These are not "minor quibbles," and there is no "point" to Orion's argument.

[David Hall]

There is one thing though that Squirm's post has brought to my mind. What if the reason the disturbance is there is because the A15 site itself got hit by a meteorite?

[DaveC]

Sqirm: "It appears that NASA is willing to use the “Low thrust = no dust” argument whilst dealing with the absence of any disturbance beneath the LM in all of the surface imagery but is equally willing to destroy its own argument whilst engaged in a limp attempt to somehow prove the authenticity of Apollo."

I don't recall anyone ever making the statement that low thrust equals no displacement of dust. The low thrust information is directed at those who expected a crater under the LM. Since the loose dust forms a relatively thin layer over the compacted regolith, it is expected that it would be scoured away and displaced laterally by the exhaust plume. All the Clementine image purports to show is disturbance of the regolith at the landing site - which is expected from both the exhaust plume and a couple of astronauts walking around the area kicking up dust. It's not proof of a landing - it's simply a piece of evidence that fits with the position that there WAS a landing at this precise location. There are obviously other explanations, but no basis to assume they are any more correct than the theory that the A 15 mission itself is responsible.
Clementine didn't find a similar pattern at the other landing sites because it didn't image the other landing sites.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-03-01 10:45 ]</font>

[SeanF]

On 2002-03-01 09:23, David Hall wrote:
There is one thing though that Squirm's post has brought to my mind. What if the reason the disturbance is there is because the A15 site itself got hit by a meteorite?

Then there should be an impact crater. That's why it's pointed out that there are craters at the locations of the other two disturbances in the photo, but not at this one . . .