Moon Landing: Hoaxed?

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Sorry, but that is bullshit. Any Apollo photo you have seen which is retouched is a promotional image, not an original one. The only 'manipulation' anyone has done to the original photos is during the development stage, where the photos have been developed by precisely the right amount to bring out the details. I expect they created numerous versions of each photo and selected the one which shows the most detail.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Without any applying any interventional defences of it being a unique setting, or an unprecidented context, a significant proportion of lunar mission imagery really does look very unrealistic. And that's even before applying any level of technical analysis.
Also bullshit. I have analysed these photos myself, using methods employed by astronomers and by considering 3D model illumination concepts that were undreamt of when these photos were taken, and the originals all stand up very well.

Consider this image once again, for example.

What are the sources of light in this photo? Obviously the Sun, which is almost directly ahead, but which is not shining directly into the Hasselblad lens because of the lens hood. The LM is illuminated by ambient light, reflected from the lunar surface with a reflectivity of approximately 17%; this light would be enough to show much of the detail in this image, but there are three other sources of illumination that add to the effect.

1/ The Moon's surface is non-Lambertian, so it displays a so-called opposition effect. Light is reflected back from the anti-solar point with an increased brightness, which augments the reflected luminance by as much as 20%.

2/ The lunar surface is also liberally sprinkled with spherical glass balls, created by meteor impact over billions of years. This adds a small but significant amount of internally-reflected light to the image which would shine directly onto the lander at this angle.

3/ The astronauts took with them a brilliant white object that was also reflecting light towards the lander in this image; this object had a reflectance of roughly 80-90%, and was exactly behind the camera. What was this mystery object? The photographer's spacesuit. (Either Young or Duke, possibly both, were behind the camera when this image was taken).

---------------
Many moons ago, not that many years after these landings, I wrote a dissertation on the concept of albedo, mostly because the word sounded funny; I rarely get the opportunity to use that field of study in an analytical fashion, but it is all still there. Don't imagine for a moment that I am being 'unanalytical' when I look at these photos. Quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... Without any applying any interventional defences of it being a unique setting, or an unprecidented context, a significant proportion of lunar mission imagery really does look very unrealistic. And that's even before applying any level of technical analysis.
I'd love to hear your rationale for disengaging evaluation of the photographs from the decidedly non-terrestrial characteristics of the environment within which they were taken.

Most, if not all, the incredulity applied in questioning the original Apollo photographs (to the extent anyone uses the originals as supposed evidence) is based on the (frankly) naive supposition that they should somehow match photos taken here on dear ol' earth.
 

Ringo

Musky Sly Old Foxy Stoat
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
4,810
Points
184
Location
Stockholm
Sorry, but that is bullshit. Any Apollo photo you have seen which is retouched is a promotional image, not an original one. The only 'manipulation' anyone has done to the original photos is during the development stage, where the photos have been developed by precisely the right amount to bring out the details. I expect they created numerous versions of each photo and selected the one which shows the most detail.
I didn't say Apollo and I didn't say 100% proven. I said images "that suggest" NASA have repurposed images but the evidence is lacking as there are no offical sources (which is why I didn't say proof). For example, Collins' Gemini X space walk image. Obviously not a real mission photo yet being bandied about as one. Who released the photo is unclear.

Wouldn't it be prudent of NASA to shoot some shots just in case no photographic evidence made it back?

What about the test shots from their cameras during training? I'm not sure I have seen those. How do they compare to the actual images from the moon?
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
The only place the Collins picture appeared was in his own book, not in a NASA publication. Note that the very same book also includes the unretouched original.

 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
eburacum,

No, the image of the lander you presented isn't the one I am referring to. If I come across it I'll try to post it.

As for footprints.

There is a picture of footprints 'beneath' the lander. The point is that for the footprint to be there the astronaut would have had to be standing upright.

There are many such anomalies in the photos supplied.

For instance there are two short video clips that are supposed to be taken at different locations. But when superimposed it shows the background to be exactly the same for both.

INT21
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
No, there are not. Post them, and I'll debunk them to the best of my abilities. I can state without fear of contraception, that there are no undebunkable anomalies in the official photos and movies.
 
Last edited:

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
eburacum.

..No, there are not. Post them, and I'll debunk them to the best of my abilities. I can state without fear of contraception, that there are no undebunkable anomalies in the official photos and movies...

You give yourself away.

You do know that 'debunk' does not mean the same as 'explain', don't you ?

Debunking is to give a plausible explanation that fits in with the preferred narrative.

On a simple level, if someone sees a very unusual aircraft at a secret airfield then the authorities may explain it as a normal aircraft seen under unusual light conditions.

Their explanation will be half correct. But will miss out any reference to top secret planes. It is to deflect further interest.

INT21.
 

Ringo

Musky Sly Old Foxy Stoat
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
3,013
Reaction score
4,810
Points
184
Location
Stockholm
@eburacum - I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm not a lunar mission denier. I believe we have been there and that the lunar missions were successful. I am just of the opinion that if I had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a project that had to succeed, then I would probably have a contingency plan against all of the negatives coming back damaged from radiation. There may even have been pressure from other agencies (CIA for example) to make sure the propaganda machine could still roll out images even if the actual images were damaged.

However, you seem very well informed on the lunar missions which is great for the discussion and you certainly know more about it than I do.

The only place the Collins picture appeared was in his own book, not in a NASA publication. Note that the very same book also includes the unretouched original.

So if I understand it correctly, the same photograph was published twice in the same book? One showing the training mission on a Zero G fight and the other, reversed photograph with a blacked out background? Do you know what the caption was on the reversed photograph? I don't.

Whilst his book isn't a NASA publication, I find it interesting that the photograph exists at all. Unless it was just a publisher who didn't want to buy the rights for an actual image of his space walk and just manipulated an image they already had.

EDIT: I can answer my own question. The 2nd image was a double spread image in the same book but carried no caption. Collins himself wrote in the book that there was no photographic evidence of his spacewalk. So I presume it was just an over zealous publisher.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Collins states quite clearly (in his book) that there were no pictures of his space walk. The two astronauts (Collins and Young) on board were too busy to take pictures, or forgot. Instead the publisher mocked up this image which was also used on the cover for some editions.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
Ringo,

Which Collins book are you referring to ?

Is it 'Carrying the Fire' ?

I don't recall that image in the book, but it is a very long time since I read it.

I was always intrigued by the emphasis he put on the odd radio noise he heard.

Also by his rather cryptic 'Do you see what I see ?' when referring to the picture at the back of the book.

INT21
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
eboracum,

Ref the picture, Does the publisher explain anywhere that the picture is a 'fake'.

INT21
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
eburacum,

...I have no idea what you are talking about. These claims are bunk; we need to debunk them. Simple as that...

A somewhat dubious approach. Hardly scientific; would you not agree ?

Sort of approach that the inquisition used on heretics.

INT21
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
"One of the great disappointments of the flight was the fact that there were no photos of my space walk over to the Agena. What with camera malfunctions and John's understandable preoccupation with keeping us from hitting the Agena ..., all we had was the film from one movie camera, which was pointed straight ahead and which automatically recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky a few feet below the Agena."

Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire (1974 edition), p. 253.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
These claims are particularly pernicious, since they attempt to diminish the scientific value of these extremely expensive and rare photos. By studying these images, lunar geologists can find plenty of new data, and make plans for the future exploitation of lunar resources. It seems likely that when the resources on the surface of the Moon and in the upper crust are first utilised, there will be no humans involved - instead automated mining devices and teleoperated robots will take advantage of the short time-lag between Earth and Moon.

Long before humans go back to that world regularly, there will be teleoperated excavators digging up the regolith and exploring the surface rocks - these systems will be designed by people who have studied the Apollo photos minutely, and if any 'anomalies' exist in these images they'll find them. But it would be very surprising and disappointing to find that such anomalies do exist, apart from a few 1960's chest hairs accidentally trapped on the negative during the printing stage and so on.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
...These claims are particularly pernicious, since they attempt to diminish the scientific value of these extremely expensive and rare photos....

So, questioning photographic anomalies is pernicious.

An interesting approach to investigation.

Wasn't it the (supposedly) most powerful man in America who recently said 'don't believe what you see or read'.

INT21
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
As I said, lunar geologists are studying these photos minutely, with the ultimate object of gaining monetary value from the lunar resources. If they ever found that there were fudged or faked images they would be understandably angry, and it would be big news. Has this happened? No.

The surface of the moon contains iron, oxygen, aluminium, silicon, titanium, and a number of more valuable elements including uranium and thorium in some locations, as well as small but extremely valuable quantity of ice. Although it will be expensive to mine these resources, even using remote-control devices, they are valuable because they do not need to be dragged out of Earth's gravity well. The Moon, and its resources, are the key to the rest of the solar system. Relying on a set of possibly faked images from the 1960's is not a good business plan; but so far there is no supportable evidence of this fakery.
 

Anonymous-50446

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
10,902
Points
279
Is it possible to see the lunar lander for the alleged faked landing with a telescope...?
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
21,810
Reaction score
31,197
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds

Vardoger

I'm #1 so why try harder
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
5,518
Points
309
Location
Scandinavia
Is it possible to see the lunar lander for the alleged faked landing with a telescope...?
No, not even Hubble or the coming European-Extremely Large Telescope will be able to image it.
A 200 meter wide telescope is needed to image it.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
...Although it will be expensive to mine these resources, even using remote-control devices, they are valuable because they do not need to be dragged out of Earth's gravity well...

Only viable if they are processed on the Moon.

It may be easier to get them away from the Moon, But if you are talking about the remote ferrying of multi thousand ton space transporters to Earth, remember you have to slow them down when they get here.
And should there be a glitch with this system, a massive ore freighter hitting a city at multiple thousands of miles per hour will make a pretty good meteor substitute.

INT21
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
44,032
Reaction score
35,972
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
It may be easier to get them away from the Moon, But if you are talking about the remote ferrying of multi thousand ton space transporters to Earth, remember you have to slow them down when they get here.
And should there be a glitch with this system, a massive ore freighter hitting a city at multiple thousands of miles per hour will make a pretty good meteor substitute.

INT21
Bring 'em down in the Middle East.
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
...Is it possible to see the lunar lander for the alleged faked landing with a telescope...?..

I believe there are modern Moon Orbiter pictures of the lander and other assorted bits.

INT21
 

INT21

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
6,472
Points
279
...Bring 'em down in the Middle East...

Bad boy.

INT21;)
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
...Although it will be expensive to mine these resources, even using remote-control devices, they are valuable because they do not need to be dragged out of Earth's gravity well...
Only viable if they are processed on the Moon.
It may be easier to get them away from the Moon, But if you are talking about the remote ferrying of multi thousand ton space transporters to Earth, remember you have to slow them down when they get here.
And should there be a glitch with this system, a massive ore freighter hitting a city at multiple thousands of miles per hour will make a pretty good meteor substitute.
INT21
There is nothing on the Moon we haven't got on Earth, so these resources won't be destined for Earth markets. Lunar resources are the key to setting up an economy in space. Together with Near Earth asteroids, these metals and other elements can allow us to build infrastructure in orbit without having to boost it out of Earth's gravity well. Read Gerard K O'Neill's The High Frontier.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Space-ebook/dp/B00CB3SIAI
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,966
Reaction score
2,271
Points
184
Having said that, getting from the Moon to the Earth is relatively easy; a low-powered rocket or mass-driver to leave the lunar surface, and an aerobrake manoeuvre to enter the Earth's atmosphere.

The entry velocity is reasonably low as well - considerably slower than an asteroid; about 11km/s, less than a typical asteroid velocity of 17km/s. In his novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein somewhat overestimated the damage a Moon missile would cause by kinetic energy alone.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
52,027
Reaction score
27,351
Points
309
Location
Eblana
Saw First Man last night, really liked the Kubrick scenes, he did 123 takes of the first moon step.
 
Last edited:
Top