Netizens pick apart the Chang'e moon photo

critics and doubters of the motherland are the running dogs of a dying imperialism!

nasa's failures have been exposed today by the patriots of new china. the wreckage of your space program sleeps now for all time in the crater that china has discovered on the moon's surface!

the apollo lunar landing was a hoax. china will lay claim to human civilization's historical dream of landing a man on the moon in 2012. chang'e and houyi will be reunited at last by the glory of the people's republic!

the enemies of china--the u.s., its western allies, and their traitorous chinese--collaborators will sleep under a chinese moon!

One word, dude: retroreflector.

b.: Your troll rating is 68 percent. Try harder, work smarter, and maybe you too can be a scourge of the intartoobes.

To our Chinese patriot - relax. Your doing great over there. Keep up the good work and I'm sure we'll all get along just fine.

In response to b., I'm not sure if he is being serious or sarcastic, a Chinese-American or Chinese national. To believe the US Apollo program is a hoax and then turn around and believe in the Chinese Space program defies logic. I would say that the evidence so far is inconclusive, let's wait for a few more pictures to see. Remember the face on Mars that turned out to be just a bunch of boulders? There will always be discrepancies, even in authentic pictures, when you are dealing with space due to the wide variety of factors that can interfere with the camera lens.

Joel wrote:

"Additionally, the shadows in the two photos are at different angles, making it even more unlikely that one photo was copied from the other."

Where'd you get that? I ask because they look the same to me. Any difference in angle that I can find seems to result from the botched stitching job. The evidence provided by 'Beautiful Eyes' of stitching errors in the Chang'e images is overwhelming (particularly in this image; previous examples also show obvious feature repetition). If you want to claim they were carried over from the NASA images, you 'd have to show them there. Good luck.

I don't see why anyone should be surprised that a PRC institution has fabricated data to save face. Such behavior is absolutely the norm, not the exception. Certainly we should allow other possibilities (e.g. incompetence on the part of NASA), but given the current evidence, the simplest and most straightforward interpretation seems to be that it was an embarrassingly slapdash cover-up.

Rebuttal?

Cheers

That was meant to be a cite to here, Du Yisa: ...it's also clear that the sun's rays are hitting the lunar surface at different angles in each image. It would be fairly difficult to rotate every single shadow in the NASA image to match the orientation of the Chinese photo.

It's fairly obvious in this image, which points out another area of discrepancy between the two photos.

Wow! So many comments appeared while I was composing mine. You westerners really need to develop a feel for irony. b.'s comment was brilliant, crystalline satire, and I would like to thank him for helping to preserve my faith in reason and humanity.

Maybe it's a common trait of those who have lived under totalitarian regimes, but a certain type of humor sometimes seems the only form of discourse left to sanity.

Cheers

"Maybe it's a common trait of those who have lived under totalitarian regimes, but a certain type of humor sometimes seems the only form of discourse left to sanity."

In my dealings with inhabitants of this totalitarian state I have come to the conclusion that SARCASM doesn't go over well. SARCASM doesn't translate in their culture and when they attempt to respond in kind they end up just insulting westerners.

To add to the comment mess above I ask one question. Why do you find it surprising that they copied a U.S. image and furthermore why do they have a space program when they can't feed half their people or keep toys lead-free.

One space scientist, Emily Lakdawalla, of The Planetary Society Weblog has proved that the Chang'e moon photo is genuine.

In the link that IMCCjoke provides, Emily Lakdawalla arrives at the same conclusion as the Chinese netizen:

How did that happen? the Chang'e 1 image is actually a mosaic of 19 image strips taken on different orbits. It is incredibly difficult to get every tiny feature in a large mosaic to line up properly; you have to have very, very precise knowledge of the shape of the body being photographed, and we actually don't have very good topographic models of the Moon (Kaguya will change that). So it's no surprise that there are seams in this image. I commented last week when I first posted this image on the beauty of the mosaic, and the fact that there were no obvious seams. It's evident from this little snafu that the seams are there, just blended well to make it difficult to see them.

I don't have time to do it now but I bet if you go back to the original image you can see other places along the same seam where features are offset. It's a bit embarrassing that Ouyang Ziyuan cited the crater as being a new feature when in fact it's just an artifact of their mosaicking process. This is one reason you often see lots of image seams in mosaics produced by space missions, why scientists generally don't take the time to make their images prettier by blending seams away; such blending is, in a sense, a "fakery," making the data looking prettier than it is. It's perfectly okay to clean up images for use as illustrations, and this first Chang'e image release was clearly designed to wow the public. However, because of the blending of the seams, this is not a product that should be used for scientific research -- including looking for new craters. Some of this problem should go away once the Chang'e team improves their knowledge of their spacecraft's orbit and of the shape of the Moon; with more precise positional information, their mosaics will automatically improve, having less obvious seams with smaller offsets.

Thank you for publishing my first message. Since the fakery story of the Chang'e 1 image has been refuted, it's time for me to have a dig at those smart alecs who seem to find faults with whatever thing they can get hold of. Here is my joke:

After working many years as a journalist in Beijing, a Chinese man returned to his home village to visit his relatives. He showed them a photograph of the late U.S. President Nixon who visited China in 1972. All the relatives of the Chinese journalist claimed that the photo was a fake because Nixon did not look like Mao Zedong, or rather, Nixon did not look like a Chinese.

The journalist’s home village was situated in a remote part of western China where the people had never seen a white foreigner in their lives. To them, Nixon was an alien from the outer space.

In order to convince them, the Chinese journalist took out a Beijing newspaper that published the news of Nixon’s China visit. He pointed to a photo of Nixon in the newspaper and asked them to compare it with his photo. However, the villagers accused him of trying to hoodwink them by publishing a fake photo in the newspaper. They argued that both photos were created by him because they looked alike even though the photo in the newspaper showed a smiling face while the journalist’s photo showed a solemn-looking face.

By now, most of those villagers should have gone to heaven or hell. If you happen to pass by their graves at night, you may still hear them arguing about the fake photos.

That guy who refers to critics as runnung dogs needs a lot of training in clear thinking. Any thinking child can tell you that China faked NASA's moon photo. The moon's surface is a damn big place for a probe, and for two probes to photograph exactly the same area is a one-chance-in-a-trillion phenomenon. Why can't these so-called "China scientists" come clean on the issue? Covering up one lie with another is a moral vice. Two lies don't make the truth. China is famous as a producer of poisonous food, fake drugs, dangerous toys, and unusable products. China is now also renowned for fake moon photos and a fake space program. I cannot think of a bigger pariah state.

The huge hullabaloo over the South China tiger and the Chang'e moon image reminds me of this joke:

A Chinese couple had the misfortune of giving birth to two retarded children. Their elder son was so retarded that he could not differentiate all other men from his father and called them "daddy". The younger son was worse as he could only imitate his brother's action. Whenever the elder son called somebody "daddy", the younger one would follow like a parrot.

The father was very angry with his two retarded children. Whenever they called somebody "daddy", he would flew into a rage and give them a good beating. It seemed that heaven was rather cruel to him as misfortune came one after another. When he reached the age of 70, he became senile and started to call everybody (including his wife and children) "daddy".

What's about the old man's wife? Never in her life had she ever acknowledged her two retarded sons as her own children. Even when her visiting relatives asked her about the two children, she replied that they were orphans picked up from the street. When her husband became senile, she refused to acknowledge him as her husband in front of others. Instead she lied that her husband had passed away, and the senile old man was a distant relative brought under her care.

Dear Dr.Lok Chong Hoe,

After reading your message, I get the impression that everything in China is fake. Well, so far I agree with you in one point. I was trying very hard to find the Great Wall of China when the orbiter was orbiting round the earth, but I could find no trace of it. I won't argue with you if you allege that all other Chinese things are fake, but I would definitely demand justice if you allege that I am a fake moon image.

I am sure you don't want anybody to call you a fake doctor. Similarly, I don't want myself to be called a fake moon photo. I just want back the justice that is due to me. Please provide all your evidence to convince everybody that I am a fake moon image.

Say, the two jokes posted under pseudonyms remind me of a joke about an anonymous commenter who invariably compared critics to ignorant villagers, retarded children and senile geriatrics, as though their skepticism were grounded in nothing more than superficially derisive 'just so' stories, rather than a consistent and well-documented history of prevarication. Maybe you've read that one.

Anyway, in this case, it looks like the photos are authentic. Two comments:

1. If the PRC government had lied about the provenance of the photos, it would have been entirely consistent with previous behavior, whereas a public admission of failure would have been unprecedented, and nothing less than shocking.

2. If the Chang'e mission had failed, it would have joined a venerable tradition of failed missions by all the space-age nations. More than a few of the early US and Soviet attempts were failures. This is to be expected, and in fact is part of the engineering process, and consequently nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

Finally, to Fritz: Actually, in many ways, it's easier to run a space mission than it is to improve the living standards of such a large population, and in any case, I don't think it's fair to present the two as comparable activities. China's interest in space isn't simply a matter of face, but one of national security, and is of vital national interest (I'm being entirely serious here, not sarcastic). I'm perfectly happy to bash China if I consider it justified, but I honestly consider the criticism that the PRC shouldn't work to develop domestic advanced aerospace technology because they haven't yet fully addressed some serious, extremely difficult and long-standing social problems, to be both misguided and unfair.

Cheers

Hi! Du Yisa,

It is amazing to find that some diehard sceptics still stick to their guns even after Emily Lakdawalla published her verification of the Chang'e moon image on the website link

Emily Lakdawalla is an American space scientist from the non-governmental and nonprofit Planetary Society which is the largest and most influential public space organization group on Earth. Its members come from more than 125 countries and are astronauts, scientists, entrepreneurs, educators, parents, and grandparents, corporate and foundation leaders, engineers, planetarium, museum, and science directors, policy makers and space enthusiasts.

It would be very exciting if any of the sceptics can upstage Emily Lakdawalla by refuting her verification. To find such a smarter-than-Nasa expert among the sceptics is exactly like discovering a South China tiger in the Shaanxi forests. That genius is likely to end up as a space expert in NASA.

As the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them". If the sceptics fail to disprove Emily Lakdawalla's verification, they should admit their mistake and agree with what she said: "....the notion that China faked their lunar photo can be put to rest. (What is it about the Moon and conspiracy theories, anyway?) At least it certainly isn't a copy of the Clementine image; and it's certainly not a Lunar Orbiter image, either."

You have missed one important point in FakeDoctor's joke. Besides criticizing the sceptics of the Chang'e photo, he has also criticized the Chinese government's handling of the South China tiger fiasco.

You say: "Anyway, in this case, it looks like the photos are authentic." These words of yours show that you are unsure about the authencity of the photos. You just judge them by their "looks". You will definitely fail your job interview for a cashier's job if you give this type of reply to your future boss when he tests your logical thinking with a mixture of genuine and fake notes. He definitely does not want to employ you and end up poorer by a few dollars every day.

Like other sceptics, your allegation of fake moon photo is based on the "previous behaviour" of the Chinese government. This reminds me of Aesop's fable about "the Shepherd Boy and the Wolf". Take the example of another story about a man whose son liked to play pranks on others. His son was so naughty that he lost all trust in the boy.

One day he heard his son shouting for help in the water while he was lying on the beach and enjoying the cool evening breeze. Based on his son's consistent "past behaviour", the man chose to ignore his shouts for help and did nothing to save him from drowning. As a result, the man had to live with his regrettable mistake for the rest of his life.

You also say: "If the Chang'e mission had failed, it would have joined a venerable tradition of failed missions by all the space-age nations. More than a few of the early US and Soviet attempts were failures. This is to be expected, and in fact is part of the engineering process, and consequently nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of."

If many car accidents have occurred at a certain stretch of a road, it does not mean that you should avoid driving along that road. It does not mean that all drivers will definitely involve in accidents when they drive along that stretch of the road.

I agree with you, however, that "nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of" if the Chinese moon probe goes wrong. There is no need for China to cover up any failure in the space project to "save face". China has achieved a more difficult and spectacular feat than the Chang'e moon probe, but it chose not to publicise it until it was revealed by the U.S.

US officials disclosed that China had used a ground-based medium-range ballistic missile to destroy a weather satellite at more than 865km above the Earth on 11 January.

An article in the website link says that "China's apparently successful destruction of a satellite in space shows its determination to be a global power and is set to leave lasting jitters in the United States and Asia".

In another website link an article says that "these skeptical observers dismissed that laser incident, but then appeared to be stunned by the reported Chinese destruction of a satellite January 11, 2007".

Some sceptics in Internet forums are losing no no time in ridiculing China's space program. Dr .Lok Chong Hoe, for example, called it a "fake space program". In contrast, the U.S. and other western nations view it with awe and trepidation.

The successful destruction of a satellite in space is like shooting a distant mobile object in the dark with pinpoint accuracy. If China can achieve such a feat, there is no reason to doubt its ability to do a more simple task like taking pictures of the moon. It is as silly as doubting the walking ability of a baby if he is already running round the room every day.

It won't come a surprise if the U.S. and its allies are monitoring China's space program closely all the time. The Chinese space agency should expect its rivals to glue all eyes and ears to the heaven for every movement of the Chang'e orbiter. Hence the Chinese government should be aware of the political cost of covering up of any failure.

Do you think that any failure in the Chang'e lunar probe can escape the detection of the U.S. and its allies? If a failure is discovered, do you think that NASA would collaborate with its Chinese counterpart to cover up the scandal? If the Chinese really copy NASA's photo, do you think NASA would forego the chance of suing the Chinese space agency for copyrights infringement so to get an astronomical sum of money as compensation?

The smarter-than-NASA sceptics will have to pray hard day and night for any protest by NASA to its Chinese counterpart. If they hear no news of protest at all, they will have to wait for the next Chinese space probe to begin another round of cover-up allegation.

More Cheers

Dear Anonymous,

After having read your comment with "awe and trepidation", it is difficult for me to respond, largely because what you wrote doesn't constitute a rebuttal, but rather an incoherent rant. Accordingly, only a few points need be made:

1. The response to my use of the common English verb construction "looks like" represents the kind of elaborate misinterpretation only the semi-fluent could possibly generate, much less imagine to be valid. The unambiguous meaning of my assertion was that based on the available evidence, the photos seem to be genuine. I hope we can agree this is reasonable.

2. My skepticism regarding any claims made by the PRC government is based not only on past behavior, but also on current behavior (cf the laughable assertion by Ouyang Ziyuan that "whether China's photo is genuine is a question of principle" - Joel's translation, 7 Dec). Such behavior is far more embarrassing than any failed mission. As I must confess ignorance regarding what makes a technical question a matter of principle, so I will leave that to brighter minds, such as the pseudonymous commenter ChineseMoonPhoto above, who at least claims enough expertise to know what it takes to get a job as a cashier.

3. The most ignorant assertion in the entire anonymous rodomontade was the following: "The successful destruction of a satellite in space is like shooting a distant mobile object in the dark with pinpoint accuracy. If China can achieve such a feat, there is no reason to doubt its ability to do a more simple task like taking pictures of the moon. It is as silly as doubting the walking ability of a baby if he is already running round the room every day."

If so, please explain the two NASA shuttle disasters, both of which followed numerous technical accomplishments by the United States which still outclass anything even attempted by China to date. As it happens, NASA also managed to lose its Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999, and fail the subsequent DART mission in 2005. Note that for the latter, NASA has been accused of trying to cover up its mistakes in order to save face.

While considering these facts, you might want to refer to the point about engineering in my previous comment. Moreover, I challenge you to find any space program that has never experienced a failed mission. That said, maybe the Chinese space program will be the world's first baby that never fell down. Who knows?

Finally, you seem to have missed the point about 'the boy who cried wolf'. It's overtly about the type of behavior that results in a lack of credibility, and the understandable result - which is exactly what we are witnessing now. This may well have something to do with the fact that the South China tiger photos you mention were unequivocally shown to be bogus. In fact, the only argument that officials in Zhenping can now offer in their defense is that the photos' authenticity is a matter of principle, and have accordingly sued the poster factory in Wuyi that maliciously connived to copy their photos before they were even taken.

That's a better joke than I, at least, could ever hope to make. Unlike the old man in your story, however, this leaves me with no regrets.

Cheers

Dear Du Yisa,

1. If you had read the article by American space scientist Emily Lakdawalla on the website http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001248/ you would prefer to keep silent like Dr. Lok Chong Hoe because Lakdawalla has cleared the Chinese Space Agency of outright fakery. She said: “The Chang’e image isn't a fake as far as I can tell; my personal opinion, based upon the evidence I was able to dig up, is that the Chinese do have an orbiter at the Moon, and that it is producing really beautiful images that are a great improvement over Clementine.”

The following is her explanation that “the notion that China faked their lunar photo can be put to rest”:

“The two images cover the same areas, but they are evidently not the same image. The biggest difference arises from a different lighting angle between the two: the Clementine image is lit from the top (north), while the Chang'e image is lit from the northwest. There is also much more detail visible in the Chang'e 1 image. The extra detail arises in part because of the slightly higher resolution of the Chang'e 1 image, but it owes more to the much better camera on Chang'e 1; a decade of technological development will do that for you, and also, Clementine's camera was not really a Rolls Royce among spacecraft imagers.”

You say: “The unambiguous meaning of my assertion was that based on the available evidence, the photos seem to be genuine.”

You have simply changed your previous statement from “it looks like the photos are authentic” to another statement with the same meaning -- “the photos seem to be genuine”. Unlike Lakdawalla, you still stick to your guns and assert that the photos are faked without taking the trouble to track down the truth behind them. This shows that you share one common trait with the other critics of the Chang’e moon image – following the mob blindly and jumping into accusation without trying to investigate the truth. Her article was already mentioned in this forum, but you did not even care to take a look at it.

Her article has not only verified the authenticity of the Chang’e moon photo but has also embarrassed Ouyang Ziyuan and the sceptics. The brouhaha over the Chang’e image started with widespread rumours on the Internet that it was copied from a "2005 NASA photo”.

Lakdawalla began her investigation by plowing through databases of lunar imagery and dredging up a U.S.-produced picture for comparison. It is not a NASA picture, as rumoured on the Internet because there was no NASA spacecraft in orbit at the Moon in 2005. She discovered that the so-called "2005 NASA photo” was one of the tens of thousands of pictures taken by the UVVIS camera aboard the Pentagon’s Clementine lunar mapping orbiter on March 21, 1994, as part of its systematic mapping of the lunar surface.

Her findings have answered Dr. Lok Chong Hoe’s rant that “Any thinking child can tell you that China faked NASA's moon photo. The moon's surface is a damn big place for a probe, and for two probes to photograph exactly the same area is a one-chance-in-a-trillion phenomenon.”

The discovery shows that the sceptics have made an embarrassing mistake in referring to the wrong photo in their accusation. It shows that they did not know what they were talking about, and were simply attacking blindly.

Taking an analogy, if a witness vowed that he personally saw the murderer stabbing the victim to death on the previous day, but the coroner found out that the victim had died two days ago, the judge would certainly throw out the witness’ account of the murder.

2. An article on the website http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/04/495870.aspx carried Lakdawalla’s explanation of the moon crater mystery:

(Begin excerpts)
Lakdawalla found that a mistake was apparently made in stitching together the 19 strips of imagery to produce the finished picture - and that Chinese officials unknowingly pointed out that mistake as they defended the photo's veracity.

The mission's chief scientist, Ouyang Ziyuan, told the Beijing News that a new crater had been spotted on the Chang'e imagery - a crater that didn't appear on the U.S. imagery. Lakdawalla determined that crater in question it wasn't exactly new - instead, it appeared to be a crater that had been moved from one spot on the picture to another spot slightly south.

Lakdawalla, who knows her way around spacecraft photo databases as well as photo-retouching tools, hit upon the likeliest explanation for the gaffe. Often, surface features that show up on two strips of data have to be manually corrected to produce the finished image, due to subtle changes in perspective.

"You know that there should have been seams in that image, and I just did not look for them carefully at the time," Lakdawalla told me today.

She said the Chinese must have blended together the seams between the strips - misplacing the crater. The picture may be pretty, but it's pretty much useless as a scientific product, Lakdawalla said. (End excerpts)

You say: “My skepticism regarding any claims made by the PRC government is based not only on past behavior, but also on current behavior (cf the laughable assertion by Ouyang Ziyuan that ‘whether China's photo is genuine is a question of principle’ - Joel's translation, 7 Dec). Such behavior is far more embarrassing than any failed mission.”

I agree with you that “such behaviour is far more embarrassing than any failed mission”. However, “such behaviour” does not mean that the photo is faked. As Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait had said in his praise of Lakdawalla’s “really amazing sleuthing: "This is how it's done, folks. Case closed!"

NBC News space analyst James Oberg, who has had his own experience with moon-hoax controversies, pointed out on the same website http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/04/495870.aspx

"This isn't the first time that photo problems have created illusory 'moon features,'" Oberg wrote in an e-mail. "The very first Soviet moon photo probe, Luna 3 in 1959, sent back images of the back side that included a view of what Moscow grandiosely called 'the Soviet Mountains,' stretching for hundreds of miles. It turned out to be an emulsion smear on the negative."

As pointed out by Lakdawalla, “It's a bit embarrassing that Ouyang Ziyuan cited the crater as being a new feature when in fact it's just an artifact of their mosaicking process." As the Soviets had also mistaken an artifact as a new feature in their moon photos in 1959, Mr Ouyang should not feel ashamed of the gaffe. Though “a bit embarrassing”, the “little snafu” is not a fatal mistake. Instead of using “a question of principle" to fend off questions, he should close the case honourably by admitting that “the photo was badly retouched for public release”.

According to the above article, Oberg expected the Chinese to "be forced to backtrack a bit" once they see the full evidence even though the Chinese insist that the first picture from Chang'e is scientifically accurate. I hope he won’t be disappointed.

3. You say: “I challenge you to find any space program that has never experienced a failed mission. That said, maybe the Chinese space program will be the world's first baby that never fell down. Who knows?”

No need to challenge, I agree with you that no space program has ever achieved zero failures in their missions. Similarly, nobody can guarantee himself that he will arrive safely at his destination in a plane even though flying is considered the safest way of travelling.

For your information, China’s failures in rocket launches are mentioned in an article on the website http://www.space.com/news/china_rocket_991207.htm

It says: “According to Chinese space analyst Chen Lan, China offers 16 different configurations of the Long March model. There have been 67 launches of the rockets with 60 flights into orbit. Lan says that of these, there have been 56 successful launches, seven failures, and four partial successes. He calculates 21 commercial Long March flights have orbited a total of 76 satellites of various types.”

Looking at the other way, it is illogical to argue that a man whose twin brother had died in air crash some years ago would meet the same fate if he travels on the plane for the first time. We can’t rule out the probability that China’s next space endeavour will end in failure. Neither can we rule out another success. Only God knows.

Mr Ouyang’s behaviour is typical of Chinese officials and leaders. In fact, we may say it is a typical Chinese behaviour – that of saving face. However, it is illogical for you to write off the Chinese lunar probe as a failure simply by judging Mr Ouyang’s behaviour or the consistent past behaviours of Chinese leaders and officials. It is also illogical to link the bogus South China tiger photo with the Chinese lunar image.

If you lose all trust in the Chinese leaders, then you should at least trust the foreigners, especially those experts like Lakdawalla. Don’t be prejudiced towards the Chinese space program. Make an effort to read the analysis by the foreign space scientist. If you have a better argument than Lakdawalla’s, please share it with the whole world. Perhaps Mr Ouyang will employ you as his assistant and you can revamp the entire Chinese Space Agency. If you have no better argument than Lakdawalla’s, please don’t feel embarrassed to admit your mistake; otherwise there is no difference between the accuser and the accused.

More Cheers

ChineseMoonPhoto: In what world does "seems to be genuine"="faked"?

If Du Yisa isn't simply yanking your chain, then I would guess that this is a matter of epistemology. It has been convincingly demonstrated that the photo was not copied from the 2005 NASA photos as some Chinese netizens first alleged; it has also been shown how the errors in the photo made public came about. But as for whether the image is truly genuine, that's a matter of accepting the word of the space agency that took the photo. It's highly, highly likely (in my view), but has it been proven? I'm willing to trust the integrity of the scientists in this case - I'll accept the photo as genuine - but I still chafe at Ouyang Ziyuan's attitude that doubt is unconscionable.

Hey CMP

I think we're talking past one another. Actually, I did skim the article by Lakdawalla as soon as Joel posted your link. That means I learned about the article from you, and it led me to believe that the photos are genuine. In fact, I tried to say so, twice.

In fact, at no time did I "assert that the photos are faked". In my initial comment, I did say that there was evidence indicating that possibility, and asked Joel to provide contrary evidence (viz differences in shadow angles). My initial impression was based on extremely limited evidence, and was, in fact, pretty ignorant. Although I am a bit embarrassed that I didn't recognize my ignorance from the beginning, you will note that my course of action was to ask for more information and a rebuttal, rather than to form a conclusion.

So, thanks for taking the time to reference further online citations of Ms Lakdawalla's article, but what I took exception to was not Ms Lakdawalla's conclusions; rather your various other arguments and anecdotes, which I consider imperfect.

Finally, I agree with the points regarding logic in your most recent comment, with a caveat regarding your point that "[i]t is also illogical to link the bogus South China tiger photo with the Chinese lunar image." While I agree there are certainly differences between the two, they are also linked, insofar as both were exhibited by PRC government agencies that have been less than forthcoming in providing related information to the public.

I suggest this similarity illustrates precisely why it would benefit the PRC government to increase its transparency. The Chinese people are not babies, and don't need the government to be their daddy - or godfather, for that matter. When officials like Mr Ouyang insult the intelligence of the public, they expose their own inadequacy rather than save face. If this leads members of the public to question them, and further find their answers unsatisfactory, it should surprise no one if the end result is continuing suspicion.

While I agree with you that it is best not to be prejudiced toward or against anything, I don't think that lack of public trust in the PRC government is due to public incompetence, immaturity or stupidity - on the contrary.

What's really frustrating about this is that there are in fact many intelligent, competent and reasonable people in the PRC government. If only they could extend us the same credit.

Best regards

What can I say? They are brainwashed. They think everything in China is fake.

I don't even want to argue.

I don't believe Chinese communist party can complete the project. You are all lazy and good at revolution

I would like to see a follow up: one thing I have noticed is that only ONE (1) photo has ever been released by China. ONE! When other countries send stuff up, hundreds, even thousands of photos are obtained. Here, we have one. Did the probe break down? Did it fly by the moon and not enter orbit? Why only one photo?

this comment is the best of all comments.
Its rediculous to argue over one photo!lol i have never seen this in my life ......entire texts written on one photo when supposedly chinas probe should have taken thousands of them.
let the chinese government release 1000 lunar photos to shut everybody's mouths. Until then i suggest all of you to wait and dont say things you will regret later...