I have seen a number of photographs and intriguiing collections of facts that support the ideas that either:
A) We never went to the moon, it was all a cold-war sham to intimidate the Russians in the Race for Space; or
B) We went to the moon, but some of the photographs have been altered and some information may be incorrect
There are a number of photographs that have CLEARLY and UNARGUABLY been doctored / altered from their original form. For what reason? Was it for improved composition, to appear more patriotic somehow? Or was it to cover up some horrifying facts that were discovered there? Or was it a completely staged event that never occurred?
Take this photo for example, linked directly from NASA's site. This is an OFFICIAL photograph from the Apollo 11 mission. Take it in and look it over carefully:
Original Source is Here - check out the higher resolution JPEG version too! And Here! - sorry, there are a couple of varying scan qualities.. I embeddeded the clearest lowres one above.
Now you skeptics consider this: where are the flag & flagpole's shadows? There are VERY long shadows in that image from the low position of the sun on the horizon - geometrically determined, the shadow should extend off the right side of the image, yet there's none to be seen at all. Don't make up some nonsense about a slight rise in the terrain that obscures it from view, that's just nonsense - that terrain is perfectly flat enough to have seen something.
And then look closer still: why isn't the ground at the base of the pole disturbed at all? If it was so difficult to get the pole even 6-8 inches into the soil, why is there no sign of packing or disturbance? There are merely a few footprints crossing by..? This is admittedly not as solid as the shadow, but the two add together to indicate the idea that the flag and pole were planted into the photo after the fact.
There are more questionable photos like this, I'll see what else I can find..
That's very interesting.
I would have to argue the question though. My uncle used to work for N.A.S.A. and he programmed the shuttles with another group and even designed the piece that stops the ships from burning up during launch. (like one of the Apollos)
I think I'm going to beleave what he has told me about the moon Landing compared to the picture. (not speaking of the flag but of the picture all together) I do know that you can see the flag through a strong enough telescope.
I was going to ask that - can't we see the the flag through a telescope? If we can - stands to reason that there should be a picture of it. It'd be interesting to see - if indeed it exists and can be found.
I don't think you can see the flag thru an earth-based telescope. As I understand it, earth-based scoped cannot resolve details less than a few meters across.. much less half an inch by 36 inches across. Keep in mind that observing from Earth you would be looking straight down on top of the flag pole.. not a nice side-profile shot showing the starts and stripes.
However, I have heard of laser-based gear being left behind on the moon so that with a laser we can accurately measure the distanc and position of the moon (since the distance DOES vary, believe it or not: it's not a perfectly circular orbit, hence the moon's axial "wobble". So being able to reflect an earth-based laser off this surface would, indeed, seem to be evidence that supports that we did, in fact land on the moon.
Let me also clarify MY position on this: I think we DID land on the moon, but that some photographs, for whatever reason, may have been falsified. They may have been falsified for reasons of international politics, or perhaps for generating improved public & government support for funding purposes, etc - but regardless some photos have definitely been falsified. More will follow. The nature of the falsified images may range from completely staged studio shots to slightly altered images actually shot on the surface of the moon.
Why despite this evidence do I think we landed on the moon? Aside from what I mentioned above, it's simple: there's no reason not to have. It's too easy to reach the moon. The physics, math, resources, everything that went into it - they're all fundamental elements of what drives an increasingly high technology & highly scientific society that we enjoy today. Concepts and discoveries made along the way for those Apollo missions live on in every day society today. If you doubt the Apollo program, then you have to doubt the space shuttle program in the same light: they use all the same principles!
Many who doubt that we ever even made it to the moon tend to doubt it because they don't think we're capable. To me that just highlights their ignorance of exactly what capabilities are required to make it to the moon...
Now THIS image shows a shot that should be an impossible vantage point to achieve from the moon: NASA Source
The shot was NOT taken from the ladder of the lander. In the reflection of the mask, you can see the photographer standing on the ground. The ground is FLAT - that's why they landed there: landers LIKE flat landing spots. So if the photographer was standing on flat ground with a camera mounted in the center of his chest, "how on Earth" is it possible to take a photo that appears to be angled down from above the head of the subject? Or could it be that, indeed, the photo was taken on Earth..?
The following caption accompanies the bottom image on NASA's website:
"Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 exravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70mm lunar surface camera. While astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin descended in the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" to explore the Sea of Tranquility region of the Moon, astronaut Michael Collins, command module pilot, remained with the Command and Service Modules (CSM) "Columbia" in lunar orbit."
Perspective accounts for curvature distortions and for scale reduction - it does not account for altered point of view. Go snap a shot that looks down on someone's head, the camera has to physically be ABOVE their head. To think otherwise, then by that logic if you walk far enough away from the empire state building you should be able to see down on top of it: impossible.
I think was have to assume that the camera has zoom capability because of the hash marks in the image - they tend to be 5x5 and both the top and bottom images have them. If it were cropped, then some of the hash marks would be cropped out.
Another oddity to figure out is that reflection of the Aldrin's shadow in his visor. It doesn't seem right that the shadow seeming to cast 45 degrees to the side would reflect in his mask more like 15 degrees, regardless of the curvature.. the shadow only covers a smal portion of the curvature of the reflective surface, but doesn't seem to curve really so much as just magically change angles... (?)
This is the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander, lovingly christened the "Eagle". Note how placidly it sits in the cold-hearted grip of the moon's gravity. Funny - to look at the image, one might not guess that perhaps only minutes, certainly no more than hours ago, that lander was firing a powerful retro-rocket down at the surface of the moon in order to decelerate and perform a nice "gentle" landing. Sure, nice and gentle for the two passengers, but the moon itself would have been blasted all to hell by a liquid-fueled rocket - so why is there no indication of a blast area? In fact, there's no indication that the soild beneath the lander has been disturbed in the slightest. How is this possible? There are DOZENS of lunar lander photos that replicate this phenomenon..
More nice, fluffy moon-dirt, also Apollo 11: NASA Source
Captioned, "First EVA picture. Neil's first frame in a pan taken west of the ladder. Jettison bag under the Descent Stage, south footpad, bent probe, strut supports. The view is more or less up-Sun, so we are seeing the shadowed faces of boulders. There is a fair-sized crater ESE of the footpad which is probably East Crater which Neil will visit at the end of the EVA. 20 July 1969."
Even better:
Same source as above
Captioned, "Shows the area under the Descent Stage, including the jettison bag. Neil turned to his right to take this photo while waiting for Buzz to get farther out of the cabin."
How kind of Neil to so clearly demonstrate the point here for us.
"This post-EVA photo out Buzz's window shows the U.S. flag, the TV camera, and the cluster of boulders beyond which were probably ejected from West Crater. Note the raised rim on the fresh, young crater in the middle distance beyond and to the right of the TV camera."
So.. does this mean that the famous shot of Aldrin by the flag was snapped by a "TV camera"? Sure looks that way...
Originally posted by Sean Kelly Now THIS image shows a shot that should be an impossible vantage point to achieve from the moon:
I found another image:
Captioned, "In order to take the bootprint photos, Buzz removed the camera from his RCU bracket and, in this frame, got a picture of his own boot."
So apparently the cameras COULD be removed from the RCU bracket and operated, as demonstrated in the above photo, so it is possible that the more highly elevated than should be possible posted above was snapped similarly: by removing the camera from the bracket and holding it overhead for the shot.
Could this be a response to the mystery of the missing rocket blast?
NASA Source
Captioned, "Buzz took this photo of the area under the Descent Stage to document the effects of the engine plume. A radial pattern of scouring is readily visible. Note the gouge made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) strut at contact. The fact that the spacecraft landed directly over this gouge mark is a clear indication that, as is discussed after 102:45:32, the LM was drifting left (south) during the final moments of the landing."
Somehow it just doesn't appear as I'd have expected it to.. am I blowing holes in my own case here? Fine by me, I've been trying to debunk this conspiracy theory for two years now..
My parents have a friend that works in a rather large observatory.
she sometimes sends cool information about Metor showers about 2 months in advance. I'll see if I can get her e-mail and ask her about the resolution and visual options.
The people who claim we didnt land on the moon make very good points, and i may even agree that the first landing didnt happen, but i have one question. Why wouldnt the soviets have noticed these things? I mean they would have been the first to try and discredit the moon landing. Im not yet ready to agree that any of the landings were fake. I also have a problem with the Apllo thirteen. Was that misson to a fake? did they fake the ever Famous " Houston we have a problem"? Wow what measures the US went through to make us believe that not only did we land on the moon, but one misson went terribly wrong , with a dramatic rescue and re entry. I guess NASA was pretty good at drama. I will give some credit to the fact that flag does look fake, and i may even be convienced the first misson was a fraud, but not all of them. I simply would have to refer to the above questions of apollo 13 and the soviets not trying to show the world that evil captalist pigs in america had faked the whole thing. But i would stop listening so much to Art Bell. Conspiracy theories are usally all theory with little evidence to back it, as you said some photos controdict your claim. But who knows . Thanks
The more I post about this, the less I believe any of the ideas of fakery. The only photo I cannot explain now is the one where the flag's shadow is missing. I've analyzed several photos from different angles and plotted where the flag's shadow -should- have landed in the image in question, but it simply isn't there.
As for why wouldn't the Russians have noticed.. perhaps they had no reason to doubt. Perhaps it was so convincing that they couldn't disprove it. Perhaps astronauts on the moon was all so new, in such a new environment, and having no experience to draw upon, they had no basis for an argument.
If it was ALL faked, indeed NASA it seems should be in the movie-making business..
02-27-2003 11:04 PM
