# APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2014)

This seems about the most appropriate forum heading to post this so here goes.

I've often heard of controversy around various aspects of images from Apollo missions. I'd never taken it too seriously but an interesting old video on youtube ..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W79mIGx9Ib4

.. caught my attention the other night and I started watching it.
I've only gone thru the first 1.5 hours, it's ~3:40 total.

They present a variety of interesting discontinuities and other inconsistencies which could lend some credence to some of these images being produced in ways that are not congruent with the official story.
Whether differences in lighting or physical geometry, some things just don't look right.

None of this was obvious, when I was a wide-eyed kid watching these events unfold, back in the day on a small B&W TV. Thinking about it now, that would have been an exceptional feat to accomplish with the technology of the time! So there's room for doubt.. and deception.

Has there been a good discussion on this topic on this site before?

If not, with all the expertise available here, it should be possible to have a very interesting one.

For convenience' sake, if you comment on this, or any other video you may reference on the subject, please include the video time relevant to your reply.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 18, 2014)

Actually this conspiracy theory was debunked by Myth Busters. They set up a scale model of the lunar landing site, the lunar module. The set construction included accurate representations of the contours of the surface and used materials with similar reflectivity as the lunar surface. They then positioned the LEM and astronaut models at the correct position and orientation, and a point light source at the proper orientation and azimuth that the sun was at at the moment the photos were taken. The shadows and light artifacts in the original images that are often sited by conspiracy adherents as "inconsistent" were in fact accurately duplicated in their scale model experiment.

http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing


----------



## distant.star (Aug 18, 2014)

.
Geez...

I'm retired, and I don't have four hours to sit around watching this kind of stuff. And frankly, I don't really care. The reality is, human beings are incapable of keeping a subterfuge of that magnitude a secret.


----------



## weixing (Aug 18, 2014)

Hi,


Aglet said:


> Thinking about it now, that would have been an exceptional feat to accomplish with the technology of the time! So there's room for doubt.. and deception.


 The different between the Apollo period and now is that cost and safety wasn't the highest priority during the cold war period... landing human on Moon first is. 

Anyway, if the Moon landing is fake, USSR will sure know and make a joke out of it... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

I was impressed with the "flag blowing in the wind" sequence and how it is proof that it was done on a soundstage... except, of course, there is no wind on a soundstage unless you get some "honking big" fans and turn them on.... this is not something that would go un-noticed....


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

and as has been posted before..... proof that it was faked because if you look carefully in the left hand corner of the picture, you can see a housecat...


----------



## Click (Aug 18, 2014)

Ha Ha Ha ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 18, 2014)

I also believe that numerous lunar orbiters have since photographed the site.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I also believe that numerous lunar orbiters have since photographed the site.


yes, but photos can be manipulated


----------



## dak723 (Aug 18, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Has there been a good discussion on this topic on this site before?
> 
> If not, with all the expertise available here, it should be possible to have a very interesting one.



It is hard to have a "good" discussion on this topic as it is complete BS. The only interesting thing about it is how large numbers of people are not interested in real science, but will enjoyably gobble up the baloney.

Here are a few links that explain it all. Of course, if you believe in the conspiracy, then all the links in the world really won't matter, will they...

http://www.universetoday.com/99531/why-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-2/
http://www.universetoday.com/111188/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-isnt-fake/
http://lightsinthedark.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/no-the-moon-landings-werent-faked-and-heres-how-you-can-tell/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html


----------



## KacperP (Aug 18, 2014)

All "proofs" and "inconsistiencies" suggesting that Moon landing was fake, are forgery themselves.
Considering the forum, a "spotlight" theory and "astronauts weren't photogtaphers" should be especially easy to laugh at.


----------



## slclick (Aug 18, 2014)

If they were real photographers they'd have had that 1200mm Canon Monster Lens that all you faux-togs want to buy to shoot the royals from the Sea of Tranquility


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 18, 2014)

Considering Aldrin's approach to such malarkey, all I can say is that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Jim


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> and as has been posted before..... proof that it was faked because if you look carefully in the left hand corner of the picture, you can see a housecat...



I was wondering where my cat went! Lost him shortly before Apollo 11 lifted off. ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 18, 2014)

It's estimated that 500 million people watched the Apollo 11 landings live on TV. A lady in Australia saw a Coke bottle roll across the moon's surface. Nobody knows her name. If that doesn't prove a hoax, I don't know what would.

Here's the thing. The only people who see a hoax, inconsistencies etc, want to see those things. Some want to sell books on the topic. Others just want to feel smart, superior. The hoax feels good.

Did you know that Scientific American (The Magazine) wrote and article where they declare a hoax!? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/
It's actually a pretty good read, they talk about the physiology of why some people want to believe it.







Oh and you have to check out all the hoax theories debunked in one place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories (be sure to read the 200+ scientific articles cited as support.)

Oh and don't forget the ton's of their party evidence (China Russia etc) that proves the moon landings were real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Aug 18, 2014)

Next you will be trying to say that Santa Claus doesn't exist!!!


----------



## BK (Aug 18, 2014)

The moon landing being fake seems about as likely as a floor sales rep at Best Buy having inside knowledge on the fate of the 5d3.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 18, 2014)

serendipidy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > and as has been posted before..... proof that it was faked because if you look carefully in the left hand corner of the picture, you can see a housecat...
> ...



He went Hollywood...


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 18, 2014)

This website has truly jumped the shark.


----------



## TeT (Aug 18, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Geez...
> 
> I'm retired, and I don't have four hours to sit around watching this kind of stuff. And frankly, I don't really care. The reality is, human beings are incapable of keeping a subterfuge of that magnitude a secret.



+1


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2014)

OK, some of you are jumping to the extreme end of a different argument about whether or not the moon landings happened at all. My post is not about that.

I'll reiterate my point, underlined below

They present a variety of interesting discontinuities and other inconsistencies which could lend some credence to some of these images being produced in ways that are not congruent with the official story.
Whether differences in lighting or physical geometry, some things just don't look right.

Now I'll expand that a little by saying, it certainly does appear that some of the images appear to have been made in a staged production environment, or in near-earth-orbit, or composited in such a way as to try make them appear genuine when they may not be. There are many reasons why this may have been done, frankly, many of them I would also think of as contingency items if I were part of that team at the time. Still others may have been manipulated for purely artistic and marketing reasons and not disclosed as such.

If you don't watch the whole video, try watching these short segments.
Otherswise it's a lot of time to spend when you could be reading CR instead. 

E.g:

0:20:50 thru 0:21:40 - scene items in FRONT of camera reticle marks, these do not necessarily look like "bleed outs" as described in the debunk. But that would be sloppy compositing work otherwise.

0:22:40 thru 0:26:40 - shadows that don't line up for infinity isotropic light source (sun). I'd like to hear a good reason how this photos like this were taken on the moon and not under artificial light. I've never seen a lens create this kind of anamorphic distortion and the surface does not appear to have any topographical features that would create an apparent shift in shadow directions. see screen shot below.

0:31:45 thru 0:33:14 - sure looks like fill-light hot spot (artificial lighting argument continues a few more minutes) and does not match the wiki debunking image I looked at.

0:38:30 thru 0:43:15 - seriously uneven lighting causing falloff, + some front fill light, possible horizon too high relative to where camera should be. another few minutes on, central reticle is not in the center of the shot, or even close, it looks reframed. 
all these items are plausible debunkable - but what was the source of the image being analyzed? Was it purported to be an unadulterated copy or was it a concocted one? likely the latter.

As for the ozzy woman, she's not alone seeing the coke bottle and it's live vs a later rebroadcast 
0:49:20 - 0:53:00


There's more, but the premise I would not quickly discount is that, altho the Apollo program accomplished what was intended, it sure looks like some images and video were also produced from a secret contingency plan and used in support of the main program.

It sure would be nice to see high res scans of the original images disputed with their full DR and detail available.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Now I'll expand that a little by saying, it certainly does appear that some of the images appear to have been made in a staged production environment, or in near-earth-orbit, or composited in such a way as to try make them appear genuine when they may not be.



Wait a minute...are you saying the house cat was NOT on the moon??? 

My life will never be the same...


----------



## mdmphoto (Aug 18, 2014)

They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 18, 2014)

all the "moon hoax" crap is debunked already.
if you took the time reading about it instead of posting this shit you would know.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2014)

Aglet said:


> 0:22:40 thru 0:26:40 - shadows that don't line up for infinity isotropic light source (sun). I'd like to hear a good reason how this photos like this were taken on the moon and not under artificial light. I've never seen a lens create this kind of anamorphic distortion and the surface does not appear to have any topographical features that would create an apparent shift in shadow directions. see screen shot below.



I'll answer just this one. The lander is up on legs and next to a slight hill on camera right. This makes it's shadow appear like it's going a different direction when it's not. Look carefully at the lander and its legs and you'll see that its shadows are consistent with those in the rest of the image.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/68/9487.jpg

By the way, this one and many more were debunked by the Mythbusters. Go watch the episode.


----------



## serendipidy (Aug 18, 2014)

brad-man said:


> serendipidy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



LOL...good for him. At least someone in our family made it big ;D


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 18, 2014)

The problem with MythBusters... All they do is conduct some tests, whether the tests are flawed or not, and then draw a conclusion for TV. Just because their "test" does not work, does not mean the Myth is false, it just means they could not replicate it. 

It took DECADES to disprove the Lochness and Bigfoot pictures... Or in one case... One they "scientifically" disproved - you can't get electrocuted pissing on something electrical...

Problem is... There was a gentleman in NY, found dead in a subway... near the 3rd rail, and small burn on his thumb and forefinger, big burn on the head of his member. 

Me thinks they should go back... Fill up their bladders more fully and try this again and again.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again...

As for me... I take the record of of a Doctor, the evidence, and a death certificate over a made for tv show... Joseph Patrick O’Malley the deceased would probably agree.

Seriously. This one is not hard to prove as well as not hard to see the flaw in their testing... "Lets really fill the bladder to bursting and then piss as hard as we can" 

Seems to me this is one they did not have the guts, heart, and stamina to replicate, though it does prove they can draw false conclusions which makes everything else they have done suspect, and perhaps so much of the "myths" they have disproved are more of sloppy tests and not enough variation, creativity, and dedication


----------



## pedro (Aug 18, 2014)

I rather read 5DIV rumors than walking through these swamps again... 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

I also like the part about how it was too dangerous so it would not have been done for real....

Imagine sitting on the top of a 363 foot high tube filled with 6,030,000 pounds of high explosives, knowing that someone was going to ignite it and the blast would send you into orbit. That takes real bravery. If they are prepared to accept that, then they were probably ready to accept a bit of radiation... The plan for a solar storm was to shelter behind the heat shield of the re-entry module and if a solar storm happened while on the moon, to abort the landing mission and return to the orbiter.

These people were prepared to die, but hoped that they didn't. They had seen friends die in rockets and they went anyway.... and then someone in their nice comfy chair says it must be faked because it was too dangerous..
Show some respect!


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

mdmphoto said:


> They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?


Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president,. Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid enough to be an avid watcher of Fox News Channel.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 18, 2014)

infared said:


> Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president.



What would be insulting about being Indonesian (I mean - to anyone who isn't inherently racist)?

And he's not "_our_" President. Yours, maybe, but there's still a big ol' world out there outside of the US of A...


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I also like the part about how it was too dangerous so it would not have been done for real....
> 
> Imagine sitting on the top of a 363 foot high tube filled with 6,030,000 pounds of high explosives, knowing that someone was going to ignite it and the blast would send you into orbit. That takes real bravery. If they are prepared to accept that, then they were probably ready to accept a bit of radiation... The plan for a solar storm was to shelter behind the heat shield of the re-entry module and if a solar storm happened while on the moon, to abort the landing mission and return to the orbiter.
> 
> ...


Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.
I think the conspiracy theories say that the Van Allen radiation belt would have killed the astronauts or sickened them to the point that they would have a very short life expectancy. Buzz Aldrin says they passed through fast enough for them to be safe.
So the mission would have been to orbit the earth in space but below the Van Allen radiation belt and then land later on, having first faked all the footage on earth somewhere.
Who was panning the camera when they took off from the moon to come home? Was that remotely controlled by NASA? - The "What a ride, what a ride" bit. My sister reckons it was the aliens. Haha.
No doubt that the Apollo missions went to space but the doubt is whether they landed on the moon.
Are the recent Chinese probe photos similar to the Apollo Mission ones? I've read yes and no answers to this question.
Surely someone has photos of the LEM on the moon and all the other paraphenalia that NASA left behind? I've seen some bad photographs showing blobs and tracks on the moon, however.
From what I remember, some of the crosses on the photos were missing, whereas they should have been in front of the subject. What does that mean?
And what about the fact that cosmic rays would make streaks across the exposed plates? Who has these answers?
My friends at school used to debate all this stuff but alas some of it stuck in my head.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 18, 2014)

There are _very accurately placed_ mirrors on the surface of the Moon which allows Earthbound scientists to bounce laser light off them in order to confirm and track the Moon's slowly movement away from Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

Been there for more than 40 years. They didn't get there on their own, nor would the degree of precision in their placement be realistically achievable back then unless - y'know - _somebody physically put them there and lined them up_...

(Earlier attempts by the Russians to remote-land mirrors didn't work nearly as well, _precisely because_ of the lack of control over their placement).


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 18, 2014)

robbinzo said:


> Who was panning the camera when they took off from the moon to come home? Was that remotely controlled by NASA?



Yep, NASA, by remote control - the techician who did it having practiced before the event with a simulation into which the comms delay caused by the Earth-moon distance was built, so that he could get used to anticipating the delay.


----------



## zim (Aug 18, 2014)

Yip they faked it once, got away with it them thought to themselves.... hey lets do it six more times   

Aye, right!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> robbinzo said:
> 
> 
> > Who was panning the camera when they took off from the moon to come home? Was that remotely controlled by NASA?
> ...



I thought it was the aliens in Area51 who did the filming... I guess I was wrong. I am glad to read Canon Rumours, you learn something new every day.... The truth is out there


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

One of my uncles worked on the Lunar Lander project and keeps saying that when you look at the moon that you can see his work....


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

I was in commercial product illustration back in the film days, 4x5, 8x10, giant light kits studios etc...I could be wrong about this..but here is my take on it. The way I would figure out great photographers photos was to look a a shiny object in the photo...I could see all of his light, where they were placed, what type etc.
Now...what could be a better shiney object than the front of an astronaut's helmet? So when I see the photos from say Life Magazine..."some" do not ring true...they look like they were shot on a giant sound stage...(where did the big white reflector come from that is giving fill-light and adding a nice rounding accent to the reflective globe around the astronauts face? The reflector has a perfect rectangular shape, is very bright and on the opposite side of hi helmet than the very bright sun??). The only explanation I have is that some of the images were heavily retouched by expert retouchers before being presented to the American public. I used to take advertising Chromes into NYC and have these amazingly talented people work on the flaws. it was all done by the hand of an artist and it was just incredible what they could do! Just amazing...It was an incredible talent mix with technical skill. I revered them.
That is the only explanation that I have when I look at some of the Apollo images...because they just don't "ring true" to my trained eye. No way.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2014)

robbinzo said:


> Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.



No it's not!

A very small group of nutters have the totally insane idea that maybe it was faked, despite an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

Nothing complex about it.


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 18, 2014)

I think you are mis-reading the intent of the original comment.





infared said:


> mdmphoto said:
> 
> 
> > They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> robbinzo said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.
> ...


WARNING! Sarcasm!
But what about the re-touched images! What about all the images that were re-touched to remove the reticule marks? Surely it could not be as simple as they wanted the images to be cleaner or more artistically pleasing? 

Sarcasm warning lifted!

Almost all pictures that you see in print/publication are doctored. An essential kit of any darkroom was a series of greys and a set of tiny brushes for re-touching photos. Now we have photoshop, but it's the same thing.... you edit pictures before publication.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> I think you are mis-reading the intent of the original comment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree... we really need a sarcasm tag


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 18, 2014)

Delightful to see that ignorance can still shore up the most absurd conspiracy theories.

Don't make me call Buzz...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > robbinzo said:
> ...



Not photojournalism images!


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president.
> ...


OK...let me clarify... I live in the USA. So he is "my" president. Of course that was implied, but I understand that you are a little slow. The insult and insinuation from the partisan politics people is that he is not a United States Citizen. Bill O'Reilly could pick any country, name one....No racism implied here...that is all YOU dude.


----------



## LDS (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I also like the part about how it was too dangerous so it would not have been done for real....


Especially when they were almost all military pilots with active service in war, and/or test pilots flying prototypes and experimental planes - which may kill you as well.
Having a chance of walking on the Moon and enter History is a good incentive to risk, far better than dying over Vietnam, for example, and be remembered by no one.
After all, for example, even reaching South Pole at the beginning of the last century was probably too dangerous - and Scott's team died in the attempt - but Amudsen succeeded despite how risky it was (thanks to careful planning - the Moon program was very well managed, unlike the Shuttle one).


----------



## AE1Pguy (Aug 18, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Thinking about it now, that would have been an exceptional feat to accomplish with the technology of the time! So there's room for doubt.. and deception.



Bull. The 747 was designed from scratch and brought into production in 28 months during that period, without computers. Remember the Concorde?

It _was_ an exceptional feat. That's the kind of thing you get when thousands of dedicated individuals, with extraordinary resources, work for a long time on a common goal.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 18, 2014)

It is absolutley true, Stanley Kubrik faked the pictures of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in a special Studio of the CIA. Even Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig confirmed it in Interviews. How can you not believe it? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26EicKfNYPg


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Aug 18, 2014)

The movie about Kubrick was very good. How they got all these people tell the "truth"- and the finale- GREAT!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 18, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> This website has truly jumped the shark.



You mean the _shark-nado_! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

Berowne said:


> It is absolutley true, Stanley Kubrik faked the pictures of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in a special Studio of the CIA. Even Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig confirmed it in Interviews. How can you not believe it?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26EicKfNYPg


What nobody seems to get is that Stanley Kubrik filmed the whole thing in his secret soundstage on the moon....


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 18, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking about it now, that would have been an exceptional feat to accomplish with the technology of the time! So there's room for doubt.. and deception.
> ...



I agree. Feats like this are possible when great leaders inspire great minds and many talented/smart individuals to work together to achieve a common goal. Those 1960's folks did all that with slide rules and an enormous amount of guts, sweat and sacrifice. (Not to mention copious amounts of coffee and cigarettes!)

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we have mostly forgotten that spirit of self sacrifice and achievement in this country. Our leaders are largely selfish, corrupt or just too weak to make a difference. The majority of our youth are now poorly educated, apathetic and self centered. (And those are the ones that aren't on public assistance programs.) Our smart and motivated youth are in short supply these days. It's a terrible shame. Now more than half of our populace fears the future is less hopeful than the past. :'(


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 18, 2014)

Keith_Reeder said:


> There are _very accurately placed_ mirrors on the surface of the Moon which allows Earthbound scientists to bounce laser light off them in order to confirm and track the Moon's slowly movement away from Earth.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
> 
> ...


*Oh man! You beat me to it!! Of course, it's a LOT more fun to learn about those mirrors from The Big Bang Theory! ;D

http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lunar_Excitation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k
*


----------



## robbinzo (Aug 18, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> Actually this conspiracy theory was debunked by Myth Busters.
> 
> Of course a couple of movie special effects guys know all about photography and lighting, how silly of us all. Case closed.
> Not so fast.
> ...


----------



## zim (Aug 18, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > This website has truly jumped the shark.
> ...



Now your talkin, non of that Stanley Kubrik amature hour stuff there


----------



## LSV (Aug 18, 2014)

This is a gag post, right? I went to CR and the Onion site breaks out.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > robbinzo said:
> ...



It WAS the aliens...by remote control from Area 51.

Man...keep up! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

[...if the moon landings happened recently...]

Those photos are fake! The EXIF says they were shot with Canon DSLRs but everyone knows that Canon sensors do not have enough DR to capture everything in that scene! Look at those shadows...where's the shadow noise??? What, did they take a Sony Exmor to the moon??? And that spot right over there...CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED. What are they hiding? Studio lights??? ;D


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 18, 2014)

The unsurvivable maximum and minimum temperature, the radiation, no stars in photos of the sky, shadows not parallel. There is only one logical conclusion, *Man has never landed on Earth*.


----------



## Maui5150 (Aug 18, 2014)

You want to go down the rabbit whole further... 

Look into Stanley Kubrik.

The back of Napkin telling... 

NASA / CIA trying to fake... because of technology, Space race, and $$$ Looking for a fast win and PR

Kubrick hired to "consult" to help shoot. Kubrick had done amazing things with Dr Strangelove and despite Air Force blocking, had impressed a lot of people

Kubrick finally agrees, sees NASA and CIA have collective heads up collective asses, takes over for Carte Blanche and to be left alone. Kubrick told fine, but if he talks, he and family killed.

Lunar landing "Happens" and Kubric becomes a recluse of sorts. Movies become increasingly symbolic with tons of themes related to New World Order, Mind Control, etc.

Eyes Wide Shut gets produced - Supposedly a view into Sex Cults, but more of the men who run the world. Kubrick screens film at his home, shortly there after has mysterious death, Eyes Wide Shut undergoes a 30 minute re-cutting and that footage never seen again.

Those are unrelated except for Kubrick, as well as one of the key science advisors on 2001 was key scientist for Apollo

Lots of goodies here:

http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> The unsurvivable maximum and minimum temperature, the radiation, no stars in photos of the sky, shadows not parallel. There is only one logical conclusion, *Man has never landed on Earth*.



MIND. BLOWN.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

The fact that photos were edited PROVES! that man has never been to the moon. *NOT!*

Just like the following picture proves that I have never been to Nova Scotia....

(it has been edited)

So we ask ourselves, were the pictures of the moon landing edited for creative/artistic reasons and to remove scratches and dust, or was it to create a conspiracy that somehow 400,000 people have kept silent about for 45 years....


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I'll answer just this one. The lander is up on legs and next to a slight hill on camera right. This makes it's shadow appear like it's going a different direction when it's not. Look carefully at the lander and its legs and you'll see that its shadows are consistent with those in the rest of the image.
> 
> http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/68/9487.jpg
> 
> By the way, this one and many more were debunked by the Mythbusters. Go watch the episode.



Thanks for the link, certainly changes the appearance and perspective of the image when the R side of it isn't cropped away! Lots of other great images there to explore too.



LSV said:


> This is a gag post, right? I went to CR and the Onion site breaks out.



HAHA! Not completely gag. 
Just looking at poor quality, compromised images and explanations for them leave too much wiggle room. Combine that with the pressures such a mission would have, from so many angles, that it's conceivable to have also spent a lot of effort to generate some contingency images.... Then again, this was pre-Nixon era... but not by much. 



RustyTheGeek said:


> AE1Pguy said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



That's another good point.
Cold war era saw tremendous innovation and expansion of technical capability, really pushing the limits of the technology of the day.
Despite much great technological information and abilities in the small-scale ways we have now, I don't think we've seen anything, in a big-picture technology push, that's comparable to what was done back then. Lots of great unmanned probe stuff has been accomplished but manned exploration, unfortunately, seems to have faltered due to budget cuts and possibly also a different mindset in general.
The muddling about with the space station and shuttles was a good example of how that became inefficient.

If the moon landing program had not been done back then, and were, for whatever reason, a project of this time, I wonder how smoothly it would progress, how much it would cost, and how long it would take.
Perhaps I need to look at some news from China and India to get an idea.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Just like the following picture proves that I have never been to Nova Scotia....



Oh, but I say it does Don! Just look at the dramatic difference in color balance. Obviously shot on a sound stage with gel covered lighting.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING???


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the following picture proves that I have never been to Nova Scotia....
> ...


I work for the government. I rubbed out 13 tourists just for being in the way of my picture and nobody can find the bodies  If you people keep trying to expose the moon landing hoax I shall be forced to make you "disappear" too.....


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 18, 2014)

*OK - If you read nothing else in this thread... READ THESE!*

*You will be fascinated beyond words with these great write-ups on Mission Control! Seriously, Check Them Out!! *
*http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/going-boldly-what-it-was-like-to-be-an-apollo-flight-controller/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/apollo-flight-controller-101-every-console-explained/

And the incredible Eidophor Projectors they used in mission control!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor*

Eidophors used an optical system somewhat similar to a conventional movie projector but substituted a slowly-rotating mirrored disk or dish for the film. The disk was covered with a thin film of high-viscosity transparent oil and through the use of a scanned electron beam, electrostatic charges could be deposited onto the oil, causing the surface of the oil to deform. Light was shone on the disc via a striped mirror consisting of strips of reflective material alternated with transparent non-reflective areas. Areas of the oil unaffected by the electron beam would allow the light to be reflected directly back to the mirror and towards the light source, whereas light passing through deformed areas would be displaced and would pass through the adjacent transparent areas and onwards through the projection system. As the disk rotated, a doctor blade discharged and smoothed the ripples in the oil, readying it for re-use on another television frame.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 18, 2014)

*AND - For those of you with some extra time on your hands with science loving kids (or grandkids)...

http://www.cnet.com/news/pretend-to-be-nasa-at-the-mission-control-desk/*


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 19, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The unsurvivable maximum and minimum temperature, the radiation, no stars in photos of the sky, shadows not parallel. There is only one logical conclusion, *Man has never landed on Earth*.
> ...





9487 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 19, 2014)

It is a simple thing to find out the truth.

Why not just go up to Buzz Aldrin and ask him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k
Ok, maybe it would be better not to ask him. ;D

There was, however, some recently discovered video that shows somethign interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwyY2DzO2I

Pictures and video don't lie


----------



## Aglet (Aug 19, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ...
> And the incredible Eidophor Projectors they used in mission control!!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor[/b]
> 
> Eidophors used an optical system somewhat similar to a conventional movie projector but substituted a slowly-rotating mirrored disk or dish for the film. The disk was covered with a thin film of high-viscosity transparent oil and through the use of a scanned electron beam, electrostatic charges could be deposited onto the oil, causing the surface of the oil to deform. Light was shone on the disc via a striped mirror consisting of strips of reflective material alternated with transparent non-reflective areas. Areas of the oil unaffected by the electron beam would allow the light to be reflected directly back to the mirror and towards the light source, whereas light passing through deformed areas would be displaced and would pass through the adjacent transparent areas and onwards through the projection system. As the disk rotated, a doctor blade discharged and smoothed the ripples in the oil, readying it for re-use on another television frame.



That is really cool! I'd never heard of this thing before.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 19, 2014)

...and I thought I had too much time on my hands...then I skimmed through this thread....


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ...and I thought I had too much time on my hands...then I skimmed through this thread....



Skim the info on the links I provided above and you'll be glad you did. IMHO, much more interesting than the whole Apollo Moon conspiracy stuff.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...and I thought I had too much time on my hands...then I skimmed through this thread....
> ...


Okay, I'll confess, I watched some two hour special on the Discovery Channel or National Geo or something about all this one time. I wasn't convinced...but maybe I'll check this out.


----------

