Kaguya Render vs Apollo Photo
Here is an interesting comparison found on the Japanese Kaguya mission site. The two images shown above are of the Apollo 17 landing site. The top is obviously a photo taken on location by an Apollo astronaut and the lower image is a render from data taken by Kaguya in orbit around the moon. When programmers compile their data to show how the moon looks from the same position as the original Apollo photographer, the results come pretty close to matching. Such a comparison offers an idea of how real other such renders we may see from the mission can be trusted.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The Kaguya mission hasn’t received much coverage that I’ve seen, but it has returned some really lovely images, especially the new Earth-rise videos.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
This alone should be proof enough to silence the moon-hoax people, unless of course, they argue that Kaguya is a hoax as well.
October 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Phantastic Images. a better proof for moonlanding than any picture of mooncar or landing module
November 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
That is great; it proves the Apollo pictures are fake. I’m sure NASA sent probes to take pictures in 1969, the just didn’t send people. In the Apollo pictures you can see a line where the stage stops and the back drop begins. In the Kaguya pics you there is no line. When you spend a billion dollars on a movie, you at least get the backround correct.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:58 am
i’m going to go out on a limb here… anyone browsing my site looking for evidence that we never landed men on the moon. you might want to take a good look up your ass as i’m quite sure that is where you might also discover who really killed Kennedy and who shot missiles at the World Trade Center.
Get a paper route or something, please. Keep busy.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:03 am
by the way… those aren’t pictures from Kaguya. They are renders based on data. SO in a sense… the Kaguya “pix” are fake and the Apollo ones are real. you might try reading all of one paragraph before spouting half-baked theories.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The Kaguya rendering appears to be set at a slightly higher “viewpoint” relative to the actual Apollo image. No conspiracy is required. Amateur astronomers saw the Apollo 13 debris cloud. Ham radio operators monitored communications from the spacecraft and their ALSEP packages. Millions saw with their own eyes the Saturn V launches. People saw the Apollo CMs re-entering the atmosphere on their return. Private citizens, ordinary folk, reasonable people.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The moon-hoax people never cease to entertain me with their utter stupidity. Here’s one of my favorites:
“There’s no stars in the Apollo pics. Therefore the black background can’t be outer space.”
Intelligent and learned response:
Stars as we’re used to seeing them at night are much, much dimmer than a fully sunlit landscape. When you take a picture on a bright sunny day, the shutter speed required to get a good picture without overexposing the film with reflected sunlight is too fast for dim stars to even hope to show up. On the moon, full daytime has just as much sunlight as full daytime on Earth because the moon never really gets much farther from the sun than 93,000,000 + roughly a quarter million for the Earth-moon distance. That means similar shutter speeds for cameras on the moon are required, which means no stars show up.
Maybe if you moon-hoax-mentality type people would put your God-given brain to work instead of listening to other morons, this wouldn’t surprise you. Of course, you’re allowed to believe anything you want. You have every right to be wrong.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:00 am
amen brother. as you can see above i have little patience for that kind of ignorance.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Am looking around at a lot of blogs getting ideas for one I am going to do soon.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Gandaff “My Apollo 17 landing site you haven’t age a bit. You don’t look a year older than 40, infact it seem you haven’t age at all.”
1969 images + Reconstruction of a 3D surface image from multiple images requires extremely accurate rendering. There for 3D image generation is easy to manipulate.
http://developer.apple.com/business/macmarket/riacsnasa.html
October 31st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
The problem with the Moon Hoax debate is that about half the evidence is really a misunderstanding of the technicalities of what goes on in space. Josephs post above covers very well the “where are the stars?” question. So that’s that one covered.
The next question is ” how come we can see foreground astronaut detail in Pics when the Sun is behind him so his front should be black?” Well the earth is a Big reflector, The astronaut taking the photo has a big mirrored visor and the moons surface reflects a lot of light too (ever see skiers wearing sunglasses!!).
Next question would be “how come there is no engine sounds when the astronauts are coming in to land and are talking on the radio?”. Simple - Sound does not travel in a vacuum. The microphones are in the helmets.
On the flip side: “where are the blast craters under the LEMS?”. That’s a big problem for me.
“How come the astronauts got through the Van allen belt without getting radiation burns?” -This could be down to secret materials that Nasa wouldn’t want to make public knowledge. We’ll let this one slide.
Lastly “Why are some of the cross hairs in the moon pics behind objects even though they are etched into the camera lens. Also why are pics taken miles from each other the exact same landscape/rock formations?”. This is the real crux of hoax theories. If Nasa had admitted they jazzed up the pictures for publicity and to keep their budgets then we wouldn’t have so many disbelievers. The pics are definately doctored. No question about it. But I think it’s just bad publicity management by Nasa.
Like I said , where are the blast craters? Not even dust on the LEM feet. This is impossible. Even Nasa engineers can’t explain this away.
Thomas - you need to have more tolerence man. That’s what science and exploration is about. Questions Answered , Answers Questioned..That’s what seperates man from monkeys.
Thanks for letting me post anyway Thomas. I Look forward to hearing anybodys thoughts.
PS. anybody want to answer “why is the flag waving about in the video pictures?”- Maybe it’s a result of the stiff bar across the top and the twisting motion of the flag by the astronaut. Bit like the transfer of motion down a slinky
November 1st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I can’t let it slide. One thing I cannot tolerate is conspiracy theory based on misinformation or outright lies. The people who perpetrate these beliefs are not people in search of answers… they are people who are already convinced of their ideas and no amount of evidence will stop their “pondering”. These are the same types who question if Obama was born in Hawaii and the same people who think the World Trade Center was torpedoed. The tolerance of such absurdities is what poisons public debate. We don’t have to give equal time to those who’s ideas are baseless in the interest of being fair. That weakens a society. I am interested in debating theory and ideologies… but I am not interested in debating fact.
I mean… no matter what “loose ends” you consider… at this point, foreign nations have observed the remnants of our moon landings with their own orbiters. I heard that people alive at the time of the landings observed the puffs of dust when the astronauts departed the surface with their own eyes through powerful telescopes. What more do we need? You may as well question whether or not Washington actually crossed the Delaware. I mean… show me the evidence.