Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[brainpanhandler]

Yah. This is a remarkably civil board although I think we sometimes lose sight of that. Just visit G.L.P. for contrast.

I think some of the zealotry is probably the result of the feeling among the conspiracy minded that the faked apollo moon landing branch of the conspiracy tree has a few nuts on it and not wanting to be associated with what is perceived as the mouth breathers of the conspiracy community. I myself find the moon and everything about it, including the faked apollo moon landing meme, fascinating. Even if most of the evidence of fakery has been pretty thoroughly debunked imo it's still fascinating as a cultural and psychological artifact and mirror of sorts.

[Ben D]

I have a background in digital photo manipulation, working for a time in a Kodak photo lab digitally restoring old photos.

I can tell you that in my opinion, those high quality photos of the Apollo moon landings we all know and love were not taken under the conditions said to have existed on the moon. The most tell-tale sign is the very clear indications of artificial lighting used to make the photos more clear and "cinematic", a trick used frequently by professional photographers and which is very apparent in the photos, IMO.

In my opinion, the rest is speculation, but of course one cannot help but wonder, "If they faked photographs, WHY did they do it?" Of course the simplest and most logical reason is that they never went to the moon in the first place. But there is also a possibility that they went and saw something they weren't supposed to see.

However, in my opinion they were staged. Just offering my opinion, if there are any raging Apollo-lovers out there please don't bother trying to spur a "debate", this is not a crusade of mine just offering friendly info.

Well Brandon, since you are of the opinion the Apollo moon photos were staged, would you please go through these Apollo program moon photos available on the link below and see if the 'tell tale signs' of staging are consistently evident throughout?

Mind you, them there's a heap of photos, but at least you will be able to clarify their genuineness or not for your own peace of mind.
\
Apollo Image Gallery

[BrandonD]

Well Brandon, since you are of the opinion the Apollo moon photos were staged, would you please go through these Apollo program moon photos available on the link below and see if the 'tell tale signs' of staging are consistently evident throughout?

Mind you, them there's a heap of photos, but at least you will be able to clarify their genuineness or not for your own peace of mind.
\
Apollo Image Gallery

I don't think that the tell tale signs need to be consistent throughout, and I will explain why.

Say that a man with a mustache is in a series of photos. I say to you, "I suspect that man's mustache is fake, as you can see from photos #2 and #13 his mustache is hanging at a diagonal."

Someone might reply, "But his mustache looks just fine in all the other photos. This supposed anomaly is not consistent throughout."

See what I mean? If there is strong and compelling evidence of artificiality in a few of the photos, one doesn't necessarily need to see this evidence in absolutely every one of the photos to draw a conclusion.

There is lots of evidence put forth such as "non-parallel shadows" and "astronauts hanging from strings" and all those sorts of things, but I don't consider those arguments to be compelling in themselves. I'm aware that changes in topography can easily cause parallel shadows to appear to diverge, for example.

The evidence of multiple localized light sources is the most compelling evidence, IMO.

[8bitagent]

If the moon landing was fake, than this documentary has the best damn CGI I've ever seen. Truly an incredible watch.

[BrandonD]

If the moon landing was fake, than this documentary has the best damn CGI I've ever seen. Truly an incredible watch.

Dude think whatever you like, I don't care. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just offering info and opinion for anyone who is interested.

[Ben D]

Well Brandon, since you are of the opinion the Apollo moon photos were staged, would you please go through these Apollo program moon photos available on the link below and see if the 'tell tale signs' of staging are consistently evident throughout?

Mind you, them there's a heap of photos, but at least you will be able to clarify their genuineness or not for your own peace of mind.
\
Apollo Image Gallery

I don't think that the tell tale signs need to be consistent throughout, and I will explain why.

Say that a man with a mustache is in a series of photos. I say to you, "I suspect that man's mustache is fake, as you can see from photos #2 and #13 his mustache is hanging at a diagonal."

Someone might reply, "But his mustache looks just fine in all the other photos. This supposed anomaly is not consistent throughout."

See what I mean? If there is strong and compelling evidence of artificiality in a few of the photos, one doesn't necessarily need to see this evidence in absolutely every one of the photos to draw a conclusion.

There is lots of evidence put forth such as "non-parallel shadows" and "astronauts hanging from strings" and all those sorts of things, but I don't consider those arguments to be compelling in themselves. I'm aware that changes in topography can easily cause parallel shadows to appear to diverge, for example.

The evidence of multiple localized light sources is the most compelling evidence, IMO.

Ok ok, don't waste time theorizing, the pics are there, get into it....

[dbcooper41]

if we could land on the moon in 1969, why can't anyone do it in 2012?
when someone can answer that reasonably I'll believe we landed 40 some years ago.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Who's to say we can't tho.

Just cos no has in the last week .... does that mean its impossible?

[BrandonD]

Ok ok, don't waste time theorizing, the pics are there, get into it....

I wasn't theorizing but rather explaining that I've already identified artificial localized light sources in multiple Apollo photographs, so for me it isn't really necessary to go through all the rest of them and see if they have these inconsistencies as well.

I'm sure that I might be able to dig through all of them and find one that is even more compelling, but that task is for someone who is on a crusade about this subject. And as I said, I'm not on a crusade about this subject, I just happen to have an opinion about it that runs counter to the commonly held consensus.

[Ben D]

if we could land on the moon in 1969, why can't anyone do it in 2012?
when someone can answer that reasonably I'll believe we landed 40 some years ago.

Who said it couldn't be done again now, NASA has to work within the framework of the US government space policy and budget, neither of which allow for manned moon missions since Apollo days. In fact the last three proposed Apollo moon landing missions 18, 29, and 20 were scrapped by the then US government. When the political will of the US government is there for the US to return to the moon, it will happen. Until then, don't blame it on lack of technological know how.

[Elvis]

I might be able to dig through all of them and find one that is even more compelling

Could I persuade you to post a couple of examples, with some notes on what you see as the evidence of artificial lighting etc? I'm open to the idea of NASA hoaxing some moon photos, and a little intrigued by the "partial hoax" take on it. It's not as if they would not fake something out of principle or something.

[BrandonD]

I might be able to dig through all of them and find one that is even more compelling

Could I persuade you to post a couple of examples, with some notes on what you see as the evidence of artificial lighting etc? I'm open to the idea of NASA hoaxing some moon photos, and a little intrigued by the "partial hoax" take on it. It's not as if they would not fake something out of principle or something.

Sure, I wouldn't mind. It's actually been a while since I did this analysis so give me a little while to find them. I'll find the particular ones that initially made a red flag go up in my brain.

BTW, I'm still open to the possibility that the moon missions in fact happened but Nasa was not certain that it would be successful so they took a series of studio photos as "insurance" just in case it failed. Maybe after the legitimate mission they decided the studio photos just looked better?

Who knows, I don't pretend to have the back story

[BrandonD]

Ok taking a quick look, the images of Buzz Aldrin climbing down from the lander are just dead obvious IMO. Disregarding the absolutely absurd amount of ambient lighting that is just epically illuminating everything in an area of total shadow, you can also see an additional hard shadow being cast upon the lander from a localized (ie, non-ambient) light source originating from an area I'd estimate is about 10 feet up and to the left of the camera, where of course no light source is supposed to be. There is also an additional localized light source slightly to the right of the camera creating the "hot spot" on the astronaut's boot, which I think has been discussed in certain "moon hoax" videos before.

I'm not really pointing out anything arcane, it's just from simply looking at the photos and thinking, "Hm, that looks odd." If it doesn't look artificial to another person then that is ok with me.

[lupercal]

Space may be the final frontier
But it's made in a Hollywood basement. . .



just one of those random lyrics that makes ya


p.s. by the why Brandon you got my vote. In fact it was the second time I read the McGowan series from a link on this site that I thought ya know, it IS awfully odd how we seem to be laboriously and not terribly successfully reinventing that wheel, half a century after we supposedly breezed right up and back in a flimsy craft packed with high-end photo and broadcast equipment and room to spare for a big bag of rocks. But it was the petrified wooden rocks that did it.

[Elvis]

Ok taking a quick look, the images of Buzz Aldrin climbing down from the lander are just dead obvious IMO. Disregarding the absolutely absurd amount of ambient lighting that is just epically illuminating everything in an area of total shadow, you can also see an additional hard shadow being cast upon the lander from a localized (ie, non-ambient) light source originating from an area I'd estimate is about 10 feet up and to the left of the camera, where of course no light source is supposed to be. There is also an additional localized light source slightly to the right of the camera creating the "hot spot" on the astronaut's boot, which I think has been discussed in certain "moon hoax" videos before.

I'm not really pointing out anything arcane, it's just from simply looking at the photos and thinking, "Hm, that looks odd." If it doesn't look artificial to another person then that is ok with me.

Thanks. In a quick search, I found this, which is the pic we're talking about?:



Enlargable version here: http://abrancoalmeida.files.wordpress.c ... r_full.jpg

I'm not sure where you see the hard shadow; could you indicate where it is?

The ambient light is probably mostly the whitish lunar surface reflecting the intense, unfiltered sunlight. Keep in mind, reflected sunlight from the moon casts hard shadows here on Earth---it's a lot of reflected light. Light may not scatter on the moon, but of course still reflects (no atmosphere required).

Which brings us to the Earth; where is the Earth in relation to the lander in this pic? (up and toward the left maybe?) Does anyone have a measurement of Earth-light taken on the moon? I bet it's pretty bright and considerably illuminates areas of sun shadow on the moon.

Plus, the lens aperture is probably open fairly wide to get details in shadow in a rather extremely high-contrast environment, evidenced in the "blown-out," overexposed appearance of the lunar surface.

By the way, what was the photographic format of those particular ladder shots? It's not from video is it?