|
Post by gwiz on Feb 23, 2006 9:31:35 GMT -4
Well, the lines between the strips look light to me, so you lose them going across the white dots.
The dots were on the developed film aboard the Lunar Orbiter, so they got scanned with the image, and line up in the re-combined strips just the same as the lunar features that go across the joins.
|
|
|
Post by octoman on Feb 23, 2006 12:17:38 GMT -4
I don't know about the film stock, but it looks like narrow image passes layed down on an 8"x10" negative with slight overexposure overlaps. The dots look like the result of bubbles clinging onto the film sheet, with a result of over and under developing the center and edge of the bubbles. In fact, the bubbles look like they might be clinging to a fingerprint or other surface effect.
Is Mitrabor really Margamatix? I thought he was banned.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 23, 2006 14:14:21 GMT -4
The spots are definitely wrinkles and other discontinuities in the contact processing method. The pattern is highly characteristic of film-cling behavior. The negative did not touch the processing plate at those points. I hesitate to call them "bubbles" because that implies an ambient gas, but it's apt enough.
The seams in the strips do not seem to affect the places in the latent image that were saturated, so we don't really expect them to affect the bubbles either. The dark parts of the stripes don't overlay the bright parts of the image that we know are legitimate images of terrain.
Further, the general density of the dot pattern matches the density gradient of the stripes. Where the stripes are darker, the dots are less pronounced. Where the stripes are lighter, the dots are more pronounced. This is consistent with them having been produced in the onboard film developing process.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 23, 2006 14:15:44 GMT -4
margamatix was banned for posting obscene images. mitrabor comes here occasionally and makes snide (and usually inaccurate) comments, much like margamatix did. Personally, I suspect mitrabor is the same person, but can't be bothered to research it. Unlike the typical HB, therefore, I won't claim it as a fact. (Though we all know that margamatix couldn't have survived the drenching aqueous hell surrounding Britain on his alleged trips to Europe!)
|
|
|
Post by octoman on Feb 23, 2006 21:43:37 GMT -4
The spots are definitely wrinkles and other discontinuities in the contact processing method. The pattern is highly characteristic of film-cling behavior. The negative did not touch the processing plate at those points. I hesitate to call them "bubbles" because that implies an ambient gas, but it's apt enough. Is there an informal contest here to correct JayUtah? I think I've got one. Why would the film be developed in vacuum? Wouldn't it be easier to contain the development machine to some variation of Standard Temperature and Pressure, rather than invent developers that don't boil off in vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Feb 23, 2006 22:48:19 GMT -4
The effect was noted in the introduction to the Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon (1971). A PDF is available on the LPI site and there is an HTML version. IMPERFECTIONS
Certain imperfections may be observed in some of the photographs. These imperfections are directly traceable to the method of film development, the readout system, the video data, or the GRE system.
[...] "Lace" (shown in plate 116) appears as a spotted area of unprocessed film arranged in a random manner. The areas vary in size and location on the film and do not follow any pattern.
Plate 116 is IV-091-H1 which shows the same effect. Back to IV-103-H1. Image IV-098-H1 overlaps IV-103-H1 showing the lunar surface in some of the areas covered by the "lace".
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Feb 24, 2006 1:11:22 GMT -4
Thanks Chaps.
I only asked because I have seen this before somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 24, 2006 4:23:42 GMT -4
The spots are definitely wrinkles and other discontinuities in the contact processing method. The pattern is highly characteristic of film-cling behavior. The negative did not touch the processing plate at those points. I hesitate to call them "bubbles" because that implies an ambient gas, but it's apt enough. Is there an informal contest here to correct JayUtah? I think I've got one. Why would the film be developed in vacuum? Wouldn't it be easier to contain the development machine to some variation of Standard Temperature and Pressure, rather than invent developers that don't boil off in vacuum? The entire Lunar Orbiter camera system was contained in a spheroidal container which looks like it was designed to hold pressure, so it seems likely that vacuum wasn't a problem. Edit: A little googling confirms that it was indeed a pressurised system. Octoman gets a T-shirt!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 24, 2006 13:32:34 GMT -4
I didn't know for sure. In retrospect I'd rather engineer a pressurized system than a photo process that works in a vacuum.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Mar 19, 2006 20:50:34 GMT -4
Or cameras used to get a better idea of the Soviet Unions nuclear programs.
|
|
|
Post by mosis2 on Apr 29, 2006 19:49:32 GMT -4
It occurs to me that the high-resolution mapping cameras carried on the service modules of Apollos 15 to 17 are a strong argument in favour of the reality of Apollo. The images from these cameras are the best imagery of the moon for the swathes of the surface that they covered, much better than can be obtained from earth, better than earlier US and Soviet unmanned probes, and they include images of the respective LMs on the lunar surface. Well that's convinced me! "They include images of the respective LMs on the lunar surface." How laughable. Isn't it possible that those images are faked? And obviously the images are "much better than can be obtained from earth" - you act as if this banally obvious fact is somehow a testament to their being genuine! Yes, isn't it odd how it's over 30 years since Apollo and we still haven't got any new satellite images of the Moon that are even AS GOOD as the ones taken during Apollo? I wonder why that would be... I guess nobody is interested in the moon, right? And how old will the perpetrators be when the hoax is eventually shown up for what it is? Real time, high resolution video footage of the landing sites, clearly showing the LM, etc. will be the only thing that will convince a lot of people. I guess the powers that be are waiting for computer graphics technology to improve enough so they can produce yet more fake images...
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 29, 2006 21:32:10 GMT -4
Real time, high resolution video footage of the landing sites, clearly showing the LM, etc. will be the only thing that will convince a lot of people. And why would this convince anyone who is currently unconvinced by the existing imagery? If they believe the existing pictures are faked why would they believe future images are genuine?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 23:12:06 GMT -4
And how old will the perpetrators be when the hoax is eventually shown up for what it is?
You know, I've had the privilege of working for, and with, some of the very smart, very dedicated, and very competent engineers you call "perpetrators".
Real time, high resolution video footage of the landing sites, clearly showing the LM, etc. will be the only thing that will convince a lot of people.
If you are not convinced by the existing, massive Apollo record - why exactly would you be convinced by new images which would be captured, stored, compressed, encoded, transmitted, received, decoded, re-stored, distributed, received, decompressed and displayed electronically?
I guess the powers that be are waiting for computer graphics technology to improve enough so they can produce yet more fake images.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would it be so hard to fake pictures of descent stages after three-plus decades of technological advances, when the original images were so much more complex than your proposed pictures?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 2, 2006 9:15:42 GMT -4
It occurs to me that the high-resolution mapping cameras carried on the service modules of Apollos 15 to 17 are a strong argument in favour of the reality of Apollo. The images from these cameras are the best imagery of the moon for the swathes of the surface that they covered, much better than can be obtained from earth, better than earlier US and Soviet unmanned probes, and they include images of the respective LMs on the lunar surface. Well that's convinced me! "They include images of the respective LMs on the lunar surface." How laughable. Isn't it possible that those images are faked? And obviously the images are "much better than can be obtained from earth" - you act as if this banally obvious fact is somehow a testament to their being genuine! You seem to be missing my point. The high-res Apollo photography is the best imaging available for the area of the moon it covers, not just the LMs, but all the small craters and other details. Do you think a hoax would leave all that data to be falsified by any other nation that subsequently launched a high-res lunar mapping mission? I know that no-one has yet done it, but at the time of Apollo, NASA could well be expecting the Soviets to do it in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 2, 2006 12:51:47 GMT -4
Isn't it possible that those images are faked?
Isn't it possible that every image ever taken of anything is faked? If you propose to negate evidence by questioning its authenticity, you have the burden of proof to show it's fake. You're attempting an affirmative rebuttal, which carries a burden of proof. You have suggested a way in which this evidence could be impeached, but you have not actually undertaken to impeach it.
Imagine a lawyer cross-examining a witness who has just given devastating evidence. The lawyer cannot simply turn to the jury and say, "But ladies and gentlemen, this witness could be lying." The abstract possibility of falsehood is not enough. The lawyer would have to show evidence, the best explanation for which is that the witness is lying. Then and only then is the witness impeached. Otherwise it's just as abstractly likely -- more so, in fact, if you consider the threat of perjury -- that the witness is telling the truth.
You're trying to set up a situation where your critics have to meet an impossible burden of proof. They have to show, according to you, not just that their evidence is true, but that there's no possible way it could be false. Sorry, stacking the deck won't work here.
...you act as if this banally obvious fact is somehow a testament to their being genuine!
No, he acts as if the questions of authenticity and of quality are separable, which they are.
The SIM bays of certain service modules carried state-of-the-art surveillance cameras that photographed the lunar surface from an altitude of 60 miles through no atmosphere. That is better than most orbital surveys of Earth can achieve. Based solely on the circumstances of the claim, that is the best photography that can be achieved.
You raised the question of authenticity in an attempt to evade the evidentiary nature of this photography. That is, if the photographs can be dismissed as fakes, you don't have to discuss what they contain and how that affects your belief; you don't have to get into the nitty-gritty of how to get surveillance equipment to the moon and how to get the pictures back again and how expensive and difficult that would be.
Unfortunately since it is possible to prove conclusively that something is fake, but not possible to prove conclusively that it is real, the presumption is always for authenticity and the burden of proof is always upon any who claim forgery. And further, since you are attempting to undermine evidence by providing an alternate explanation for its provenance, you also have the burden of proof by the nature of the affirmative rebuttal.
No matter how you slice it, you can't merely suggest that the photos are fake and pretend that gets you off the hook to explain them.
Yes, isn't it odd how it's over 30 years since Apollo and we still haven't got any new satellite images of the Moon that are even AS GOOD as the ones taken during Apollo?
Asking your reader to believe that something is "odd" is begging the question.
When you consider the engineering and space science required not just to equal but also to surpass the Apollo photography, it is not "odd" in the least that no one has wanted to do it. Well, we want to do it, but no one will pay for it. There are plenty of initiatives to image the lunar surface, but they generally are not interested in resolutions finer tens of meters.
I wonder why that would be...
Your lack of imagination isn't proof.
I guess nobody is interested in the moon, right?
That's a good answer, yes. Any time a public initiative arises to conduct an extensive survey of the moon, the general response is, "Didn't we already do that back in the 1960s and 1970s?" It is always easier to get money to study something that's never been studied than to get money to increase our knowledge of someplace we've already been.
If you plan to argue that NASA and others must be hiding something on the moon because all the other reasons for not going back don't make sense, then you have the burden of proof to examine all those possible reasons and show evidence why they don't make sense. Merely suggesting that they don't begs the question (again).
And how old will the perpetrators be when the hoax is eventually shown up for what it is?
Complex question. In the three decades since 1975 when Bill Kaysing fabricated (yes, admittedly fabricated) the moon hoax theory, there has not been one single shred of credible evidence to show than any such hoax has been perpetrated. There has only been a parade of lackluster moneygrubbing efforts by people with no appropriate knowledge.
Real time, high resolution video footage of the landing sites, clearly showing the LM, etc. will be the only thing that will convince a lot of people.
Hogwash. The people who disbelieve the mountain of existing evidence are not going to be satisfied in the least with additional imagery.
No, instead that line of reasoning serves only to perpetuate the debate and therefore to maximize the profit and exposure of the hoax theorists. If the question is answered either way, people stop buying the books and videos and stop listening to the pundits on spooky radio shows. Hence the goal is not to answer the questions but rather to keep the issue ambiguous and controversial. Hoax theorists make a calculated concession. They say they will be convinced if some certain new bit of evidence is obtained, but sadly that cannot currently be done and so they remain skeptical. This gives the reader the impression that the hoax believer really does have an attainable standard of proof and that his claims are scientifically testable, but just that it can't currently be attained. So he comes off sounding reasonable without actually having to concede to any evidence, and he gets to rake in additional cash and notoriety while science advances to the point where his suggested test can be carried out.
But it's never enough. Critics and audiences almost always forgive a slight upward nudge on the standard of proof every so often. You can always get away with just a little bit more skepticism, regardless of what evidence was presented. The talent of the hoax believers is to do this in the right amount and at the right times to keep that standard of proof just far enough out of reach that people will continue to believe them, yet not so far that they tip their hands as unreasonable. Unfortunately it's all hogwash. The conspiracists have no defensible rationale for rejecting the current evidence. They simply decline to believe it. So the request for additional evidence rings very hollow.
I guess the powers that be are waiting for computer graphics technology to improve enough so they can produce yet more fake images...
Circular.
|
|