View Full Version : Superimposed Lanscapes!?

2003-Jul-18, 12:18 PM
About two days ago I was talking with my HB workmate ](*,) , he stated that he had just watched the Fox Moon Hoax Special :evil: and found it interesting. I was able to counter his statements with material from Bad Astronomy 8) .

He then stated that the program had shown a view of a terrestrial landscape and superimposed it on a picture from the Apollo program the landscapes were allegedly identical.

I think that this claim may have been inspired by the simulated landscape created to train the Apollo 11 astronauts. (See "The Planets" documentary series for details.)

Can anyone provide information on this claim, especially as to its origin?


2003-Jul-18, 12:28 PM
From http://www.geotimes.org/aug00/lunarfeature.html

As part of the intensified training, moon-like areas on Earth were the stage for dress rehearsals. The setting that most nearly duplicated lunar terrain was a replica prepared in a field of black volcanic cinders called Cinder Lake, a few miles northeast of Flagstaff, Ariz., within the ashfall from Sunset Crater’s last eruption.

At Cinder Lake, astronauts walked across craters of the same size, shape and position as those in a particular section of lunar terrain photographed a few years earlier by a robot space probe, Lunar Orbiter. By the summer of 1970, they were touring these crater replicas in a mockup of the 450-pound electric go-cart, the Lunar Roving Vehicle, that would be used on the three final moon landings. They maintained radio contact with a mock-up mission control in Flagstaff, where geologists monitored the astronauts’ progress, answered their questions and asked for clarifications as the astronauts described what they saw.

Geologists devised an ingenious design for the Cinder Lake training ground. First, explosive charges were buried in a pattern corresponding, on a one-to-one scale, to that visible in high-resolution photos of a section of the moon’s dark, flat plains, the maria. The size of each charge was adjusted so that the explosion would produce a crater roughly the same size as its lunar counterpart. But geologists also wanted to duplicate two basic aspects of lunar impact craters. For thorough realism, ejecta from newer craters had to overlap ejecta from older ones, and the site needed a continuum of crater “freshness,” with the youngest having the sharpest, most distinct features. Rather than set off all the charges at once, the oldest, most eroded craters (eroded on the moon by micrometeorite bombardment and other cratering processes) were blasted out first, with succeeding series of explosions producing younger, fresher craters.

2003-Jul-18, 12:30 PM
In my dealings with HBers ](*,) , I've found that they constantly refer to this and that example without actually giving the example in question. Often it's things like ratty fiducials or identical backgrounds and it's possible to address the general argument by explaining bleed due to saturation and parallax but they are in a position to say that those arguments don't apply to the particular argument in question and there's nothing you can do about it. They then claim victory on the grounds that you can't adequately address the argument. Of course, it's like saying you're illiterate because they've stolen all your pens and pencils.

The best response would be, "I can't speak to the specific point because you are unable to show me the example in question, but this kind of phenomenon crops up often and it is generally due to..."