Hadley : A study in fakery by Colin Rourke

[cos]

I see Prof Rourke still insists he is right and by implication Google are now in on the hoax!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVOxymGUPY

[carpediem]

I think that is a little unfair on Professor Rourke. That message is 3 weeks old. In the meantime Rourke has supplied his data to GoneToPlaid.

The latest video is here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEDFJJoPa6M

I'll admit I don't understand the maths. But as far as I can gather one of the Topo maps is inaccurate. However instead of realising this Rourke decided to leap to the absurd conclusion that Apollo 15 photos were faked.

The interesting thing is what happens now, will Rourke accept that he is wrong or will he double down?

[cos]

The topographic data he used wasn't accurate. What I find unforgivable in a man a science is, that based solely on this data, he jumped straight to the conclusion that the photos were faked. The clearly observable perspective changes should also have caused pause for thought. Occam's razor?

I am happy he has shared his data (and the error unearthed - remains to be seen if he'll admit it) but going public with such an egregious claim is frankly astounding and won't help his Professional reputation.

[Grand Lunar]

Jack White has demonstrated he has no photographic analysis skills whatsoever... unless you are a CT believer.

It's funny to see their devotion to White's analysis.
Jack's claim show him to know next to nothing about the spacecraft and space science, let alone photo analysis.
But of course, you see hoaxers (no names please!) that claim his analysis to be "top notch".

Right. On what sort of scale?

[cos]

Jan 28, 2010 2:44:49 GMT -4 carpediem said:

I think that is a little unfair on Professor Rourke. That message is 3 weeks old. In the meantime Rourke has supplied his data to GoneToPlaid.

The latest video is here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEDFJJoPa6M

I'll admit I don't understand the maths. But as far as I can gather one of the Topo maps is inaccurate. However instead of realising this Rourke decided to leap to the absurd conclusion that Apollo 15 photos were faked.

The interesting thing is what happens now, will Rourke accept that he is wrong or will he double down?

Well he hasn't replied to GonetoPlaid and he has posted additional CT stuff on his blog. Time to check if his academic qualifications are real!

[tedward]

Spot the difference 2. From the link on page 1. Methinks a mistook is in the offing. I am seeing a lot of disturbance in the one labeled AS15-11866, from the astronauts kicking it up I would assume. AS15-12447 has what appears to be a more pristine surface. 12447 appears to show the two as a handy comparison. Disturbed and non disturbed.
12447
11866

Standing by for the shoot down in flames.

[trebor]

Feb 6, 2010 4:10:54 GMT -4 tedward said:

Spot the difference 2. From the link on page 1. Methinks a mistook is in the offing. I am seeing a lot of disturbance in the one labeled AS15-11866, from the astronauts kicking it up I would assume. AS15-12447 has what appears to be a more pristine surface. 12447 appears to show the two as a handy comparison. Disturbed and non disturbed.
12447
11866

Standing by for the shoot down in flames.

I am not sure what the issue is here...
But 12447 is certainly not more 'prestine'. The foreground is covered in rover tracks and the regolith kicked everywhere by the rover.
Could you be more specific?

[tedward]

From the link in the first post. "spot the difference 2". I read it as why are the two different from Mr Rourke. It is a PDF comparing the two shots.
Yeah, rover tracks but what appears to be undisturbed in between yet where the astronauts have been walking around there is regolith kicked over. In the 12447 there appears to be a half and half of coverage as in the right half is disturbed all over yet the left half just has a few tracks with undisturbed inbetween. In 11866, which is later time wise (if the Apollo journal piccy site is correct) has most of the foreground disturbed.

From previous topics and watching film of astronauts moving around I am thinking that the difference is the footwork of the astronauts has covered over the tracks.


However, I had not thought about the rover kicking up regolith and my comment on pristine is not correct, but it would still appear that the walking around (as best as you can on the moon) has still covered and altered the appearance between the two times. Separate EVA's I think?

[trebor]

11866 is from EVA 3 and 12447 is from EVA 2.
It certainly looks to me as though the astronauts have covered most of the rover tracks by moving about.
Several are still visible behind the astronaut in 11866 however.

[drewid]

also the tow photos are clearly taken from different positions (one is closer in athe the camera is tilted more skywards).

[tedward]

Probably not the best from me but my thought was even if they could be regarded as similar there is a known mechanism that will explain the difference.

[cos]

Well Professor Rourke ploughs on. He has updated his paper on Hadley and added some more photos he claims are fake. His best mate is Jack White and he recommends readers visit his site. He appears to have completely ignored GoneToPlaids explicit debunking and backed out of doing a VR simulation on the photos no doubt because it would prove he is talking hogwash.
If an undergraduate gave me such a shoddy piece of work it would be all I could do to return it to them without having wiped my bottom with it. For your amusement here is the updated paper;

msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdf

and GoneToPlaid's latest debunk (and I can understand why he has lost patience with the man)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=owvhQqYnaNI

I will refrain from questioning the Professors state of mind but make of it what you will..

[PeterB]

Dear Lord, talk about jumping to conclusions - given the choice of an incorrect map or a faked Apollo record, I'll go with the incorrect map.

Can anyone explain his process of assessing the map? I think I understand it but I'm not sure. He seems to be drawing a series of cross sections from the point of the photograph across Mount Hadley to determine the shape of the mountain's horizon, and claiming that what he draws doesn't match the photo. Is that right?

[cos]

I think this explains where he went wrong

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEDFJJoPa6M

but he has apparently ignored all the information sent to him.

[ka9q]

Feb 7, 2010 4:34:18 GMT -4 trebor said:

11866 is from EVA 3 and 12447 is from EVA 2.

Correct, these are from different EVAs. Note the changing shadows on the LM as the sun continued to rise by half a degree per hour. That may not seem like much, only 1/30 the angular rate of the earth, but to paraphrase Galileo, nevertheless it does move.

They ran out of color film before the flag salute at the end of EVA2, which is why they reshot the salutes with color film at the beginning of EVA3.