The Moon Hoax-A Discussion of a Photo

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by KChrisC, Jan 31, 2016.

  1. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Follow the little red ball...

    The first photo is one from a famous smoking-gun series of Aldrin supposedly coming down the LEM ladder. In the series, the photographic fill-light used to illuminate the back side of the LEM, and Aldrin, is very visible as a point reflection on Aldrin's boots. That reflection can still be seen in this photo, and shown zoomed in on in photo 2.

    Even more revealing is the tell-tale point reflection on the red ball (CO2 release?) on Aldrin's suit (Photo 3). Being that it is tucked under Aldrin and far inside and away from the outside edge, the reflection cannot possibly be reflected light from the surface.

    The yellow arrow points to the point reflection at the center of the ball. But even more telling is that the fill-light is seen to "smear" around from the point reflection because of the curvature of the ball. This is most evident to the right of the point reflection (Green arrow).


    AS11-40-5868HR.jpg HeelAS11-40-5868HR.jpg TheBallAS11-40-5868HR.jpg
     
  2. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    http://www.soccerissue.com/wp-conten...goal-Posts.jpg

    Maybe my eyesight aint what it used to be - but I'm not seeing much of a difference in your examples. :roll:
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The reflection is from Armstrong in his white suit in dazzling sunshine. Amateur photographer - meh!
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,866
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    (from post #16)
    That might turn out to be right.
     
  5. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I clearly stated examples - that is examples with an "S". No, I don't think much of your EXAMPLES! :roll:
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, it's another "moot point" isn't it!

    I've highlighted the problem.

    Classic. You make a clear bold statement then ask a question to confirm it!

    You're missing the ability to think properly without your judgement being clouded by total bias. The second full print is on top of it.
     
  7. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18

    It sure looks like something is wrong there. If twisting around made the print - where is the evidence of the twisting? The print looks cleanly made. I challenge the Apollo faithful to twist a similar boot print in wet sand and come up with a similar result. Bet ya can't! :roll:
     
  8. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    The scoop in this photo must be coated with some kind of shadow twisting coating, as not even shadows can be seen to fall upon it.

    Observe how the shadow from the experiment's leg just stops at the scoop. The shadow of the experiment's leg, the leg's coupling to the experiment, and then the experiment itself, should continue over the scoop, but the shadow just ends at the scoop's front.

    Even more revealing is the closeup of the scoop (next photo). It shows the experiment's leg shadow not only failing to fall upon the scoop, but the shadow is seen to actually be falling UNDERNEATH of the scoop (blue circle).

    Interestingly, the scoop itself casts a shadow (yellow circle).

    Also, the experiment should be shrouding much of the scoop, and terrain underneath, in shadow, but as seen, does not (red circle).

    Oops. "Lucy, you have some splainin to do..."

    AS12-48-7083HR.jpg ShadowAtScoopInAS12-48-7083HR.jpg
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  9. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    What do you think of this one?

    cat_on_moon.jpg
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nonsense, the scoop is not flat on the ground, the leg shadow falls just behind it.

    Just behind it, not flat on the ground.

    The fact that we barely see it gives a clue to its orientation.

    Why should it? The Sun is very low on the horizon between 15.8 and 17.8 degrees EVA 2, long shadows do not fall below the base under such circumstances.
     
  11. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I believe that Jack White identified the following anomaly in the below photos.

    Seems that budget was tight in the background department--I guess that when you're committing fraud, every dollar counts.

    In one there is a crater in the foreground, and in the other, no crater, but a rock. Same background in both. The foreground is also pretty much the same, except for a few cosmetic changes.

    The same terrain features are present through out both photos. I have circled the most prevalent of these.



    CircledAS15-85-11428HR.jpg CircledAS15-85-11454HR.jpg
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What is about you that stops you looking at the real reason for these so called "problems? The background as you call it is atmosphere and distortion free mountains several miles away. Since you avoid pretty near every one of my replies, don't answer this.

    There is nothing at all to distort distant objects as there is on Earth, so exactly what should distant mountains look like?

    Here is a very good example of how something apparently close and small is in fact hundreds of yards away and extremely large:-

    [video=youtube;yAd5pfWBRZ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAd5pfWBRZ8[/video]
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Further to the above, I have closely aligned the two pictures with an added green circle to show how the direction of the picture has altered so the "missing" crater is just not in the shot anymore!

    [​IMG]
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  14. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,374
    Likes Received:
    36,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male






    [​IMG]




    [video=youtube;BlVOsHZNabQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlVOsHZNabQ[/video]
     
  15. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    While cataloging bad carpet-terrain photos, and studying backgrounds, in photos from Apollo 15, I noticed a continuity error.

    The first photo is AS15-87-11839, and was taken, according to NASA, at 147:27:12 (Time Here). The yellow arrow indicates the approximate location and facing-direction of the photog in the next photo. The circles indicate a visible line between the foreground and mid-ground under the LEM.

    The next photo is AS15-88-11864, and was taken according to NASA, between 163:58:27 and 163:59:05 (Times Here), or about 16 hours after the first photo. The yellow arrow is the approximate location and facing-direction of the photog in the previous photo. Notice in the blue circle the missing disturbances that were visible in AS15-87-11839 16 hours earlier.

    AS15-88-11864 is also a wonderful example of visible stage-lines. Note the abrupt change between the foreground terrain-carpet and the lighter colored mid-ground area, and then the abrupt change from the mid-ground to the much darker background.

    AS15-87-11839MarkedHR.jpg AS15-88-11864MarkedHR.jpg

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     
    PeoplesRepublicOfMe likes this.
  16. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    95,466
    Likes Received:
    26,066
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Duh, it is behind the astronaut. You must think these were real.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Plagiarizing Jack White again. In a matter of a few minutes of just walking around, big areas are transformed from the volumes of dust kicked by astronauts as they move around. This is one of the more stupid claims. I notice you've given up responding to me completely. So strong is your argument that you vacate once it is torn apart. This particular argument is one of those ignorant appeals to incredulity.

    What should distant mountains look like with no atmospheric distortion? Your claim is so sad considering the numerous examples of the camera zooming out large distances up places like Hadley Rille Here is a nice example showing how the terrain is very deceptive and a very distant astronaut:-

    [video=youtube;-mrhAW_8T1c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mrhAW_8T1c[/video]
     
  18. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    While doing some research on the geography of the supposed landing site of Apollo 15, I came across the following cropped photo:

    16232599341_0e8236837b.jpg

    Immediately I noticed the strange shadows. It then occurred to me that the most likely reason for the shadows to appear as such is if the light source used were too close to the photog. From experience then, I knew to look for a lightening, or even ghosting, of the shadows toward the foreground of the photo. As expected, right under the drill-stem rack, a lightened shadow is apparent, clear as an artificial day.

    Next I was off to get the original photo, AS15-92-12407, from NASA. Below is the marked up version.

    AS15-92-12407MarkedUp.jpg

    The arrows indicate the apparent angles of the shadows. The red circle is the original lightened shadow, and the yellow circle highlights an additional lightened shadow around the photog. The green circle is highlighting the light source's "hotspot," which is most evident toward the bottom of the circle, approximately around the shoulder of the photog.

    The blue circle is of terrain that seems to be throwing a shadow toward the left of itself. Very strange. It is zoomed in next.

    AS15-92-12407RightSide.jpg

    For good measure, I have included close-ups of both the lightened shadow under the drill-stem rack, and around the photog's head.

    AS15-92-12407LeftSide.jpg AS15-92-12407Head.jpg

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As you are a novice in photo-analysis I can suggest you consult with somebody who has better understanding. What you are posting and suggesting is the most ludicrous of ludicrous claims. They "pasted" in shadows or some crap? This on ektachrome exposed film? Or how?

    Regarding the astronaut shadow - heiligenschein:-

    http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/images1/8fasm5.jpg

    The Moon is one mass of volcanic beads that cause that very effect. Your other observations are just crazy.

    The picture itself looks like some over exposure effect. The previous picture and subsequent one are perfectly exposed but don't have the bright astronaut in them up Sun.
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21056249453
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21651171796
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yada yada yada.

    Maybe I can help you out with some stunningly obvious observations from a video used to debunk an equally absurd claim from the "Australian grandson":-

    [video=youtube;ATrFuCnW6T8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8[/video]
     
  21. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This photo, AS15-90-12243 (12243), is part of a panorama from Apollo 15 that I have seen many times. Something always bothered me about it, but I was always in pursuit of something else, so I never stopped to investigate it. The other day I did stop. Took a longer look at it, and what do you know, clear as day, another smoking-gun error. It is also a "how" reveal error.

    AS15-90-12243HR.jpg

    Photo 12243 was taken at Station- 4, at the edge of Dune Crater. The large pointed boulder at left of center is on the edge of the crater. Behind the boulder is the opposing side of the crater, a full half a kilometer (.5km) away. Problem is, the pointed boulder's shadow is impossibly visible behind it. How could this be, as, for a half kilometer, there is nothing but empty space until the crater's opposing side is reached. The boulder's shadow should fall invisibly down into the crater.

    Zooming in on the area in the blue circle in the marked version below, the answer is revealed, along with a lot more: The boulder's shadow is falling upon the front-screen projector screen that is displaying the background behind the foreground. This is even more apparent in the blue circle of the zoomed version where the background terrain features are seen within the boulder's shadow--busted.

    AS15-90-12243MarkedHR.jpg AS15-90-12243ZoomedHR.jpg

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A close up of the boulder shows how the terrain is perfectly consistent with being cast on the uneven slightly raised part of the downslope. The claims and amateur observations you are making are extremely unscientific.

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11778HR.jpg

    The way nearby terrain and far terrain appear next to each other is a property of the same color, no atmospheric distortion and the exposure/focus settings on the camera. The Sun is roughly 30 degrees in the sky.
     
  23. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Dude! Where's My Boulder?

    AS15-85-11423HR.jpg AS15-85-11448HR.jpg

    The photo on the left is AS15-85-11423HR (11423), taken by Apollo 15 at 122:38:47. The photo on the right is AS15-85-11448 (11448 ), also from Apollo 15, and taken at 123:17:15.

    The first photo has no boulder, and the second, which has the exact same background, does--"Houston, we have a problem boulder."

    AS15-85-11423Marked.jpg AS15-85-11448Marked.jpg

    Same photos, but marked up.

    Notice the rock groupings circled in blue and yellow, and their orientation to each other, Hill 305 behind, and the foreground. The green circle indicates where the boulder that appears in 11448 should be, in relation to the aforementioned rock groupings. The red circle is of import because the three terrain components in it, Hill 305, surface/floor, and the oblong peak at right, do not change relative to each other or the foreground between photos.

    In 11448 there is now a boulder in the middle ground. Its relations to the background rock groupings, and the terrain further back, indicates that it is in about the position circled in green in 11423. Note that the terrain in the red circle does not change relative to each other or the foreground.

    The fake dialog to go with these pictures had the astronauts on a slope of some kind. Note that the rock grouping in 11448 have moved slightly downwards toward the stageline. If these photos were real, the movement downward of the rock groupings would indicate the photog moved backwards some. However, the nonexistent change in the photogs' view of the oblong peak relative to the surface/floor belies such a conclusion. Therefore it must be deduced that the background projector's position was lowered a fraction.
     
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Dude, where's your brain!

    [​IMG]

    As can be seen the picture is taken from a different angle. The distant mountains several miles away are clearly not a backdrop or projection on pictures of such clarity from the 70's!

    No. It must be deduced that the sum total of your efforts so far in this thread are just one scientifically inept epic fail!
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,866
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Viewers: Check out this info and judge for yourselves.
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
     

Share This Page