Moon landing replica strangeness

AJP092502 - Wernher von Braun walks around a replica of the Apollo 11 moon landing at Atlanta’s Southeastern Fair, 9/25/69. High-res image

This "moon set replica" from Atlanta is very interesting.

I'll give you a hint of what is so strange with this set, see if you can spot the same as I did in this official Apollo image:

Apollo 11 image

You will need to compare it with the higher resolution image of the moon set:
High-res AJP092502

The photos are taken from different angles, but do you see the smoking gun? Compare the area around the reflector. Still don't see it? The "replica" matches every bootprint, every stone, and every little pebble exactly. Is this a work of perfectionists set makers, or is this an actual part of the moon set used for faking the Apollo 11 mission?

This photo was taken two months and one day after the Apollo 11 splashed down in the ocean, would there even be enough time to make such an exact replica match in that time?

Both images compared High-res image

Both images compared with highlighting of similar features High-res image

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

the replica is a very imprescise faxsimilie - i can see veveral obvious diferences at first glance - might i sugest a visit to specsavers ?

further - your entire premise is flawed - as the replica construction - is documented - so how was that faked , seeing as your premise demands that this was the set used to alledgedly fake the appollo footage

lastly - the replica is only a few meters across - and if you look at pictures in contexty - it has borders - whereas the moon [ where the apolo misssions occured ] is slightly bigger - to put it bluntly

I always find anything to do with the moon interesting. Whether it be about the hoax, or some unseen pictures. Either way it is a fascinating thing to research.
As for the pictures you've posted. I can see what you mean about the reflector being the same and the footprints around it in the same places.
They always say that if you're going to hide something, do it in plain sight.
Something isn't right with the whole moon landing thing, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

S+F

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
I can see loads of differences...

The pile of rubble around the reflector's edge.

Angle of prints.

The big rock on the corner of reflector which is there on original and not on replica.

Maybe it's my screen quality or something but there's loads of differences.... no?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The "replica" matches every bootprint, every stone, and every little pebble exactly.

No it doesn't.


Even the surface is completely different.




Take a good look...

Still don't see it?

...Then as ignorant_ape said, you should visit Specsavers.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Your red colored footprint is turned away from the reflector while the one in the set picture is walking more towards it. There are other noticeable differences, but I guess they are hard to see when you are looking so desperately to prove that the moon landing was fake.

Sorry man, but I see several differences, just with a relatively short comparison on my phone screen.

This is the kind of stuff that got me on ATS in the first place, and I love it. Thanks for putting up at least, but I don't think its hit the mark.

I see a lot of differences.
I would think that they tried to make the replica look as similar as possible to the real picture.They did an ok job but it certainly isn`t identical.

Haha thought it was just me!

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The "replica" matches every bootprint, every stone, and every little pebble exactly.

I'm sorry but this is statement is incorrect. Here are cropped sections from both images for comparison:

(larger image)

Perhaps most noticeably, the rotation of the lander is all wrong relative to the object in the foreground. As for the rest: I don't see anything that matches in the terrain, the footprints are clearly not a match and even the small crater is markedly different between the two.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Tell you what I see. The puppet strings coming from Werner Von "Who Me" Brown nose.

What is worrying about this thread are the 6 stars and 9 flags it has received so far. As a new member I judged threads by their gathering of stars and flags. So who the hell gave this thread points?

originally posted by: and14263 who the hell gave this thread points?

who cares? it's all grist for the mill.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Tell you what I see. The puppet strings coming from Werner Von "Who Me" Brown nose.

Here is another picture from the same moon set.

High-res

Those moon set pictures could have passed for a official NASA picture had it not been for Von Braun in them.

-MM

In those days, Hollywood craftsmen could put a set like this together in less then a few days so for it to be up in a couple of months since landing is no big deal. Secondly the poster above me stated this could be A photo from the moon minus Braun. Yes it could be, the setting was to make it look as realistic as possible, hence the term 'replica'.

originally posted by: and14263
What is worrying about this thread are the 6 stars and 9 flags it has received so far. As a new member I judged threads by their gathering of stars and flags. So who the hell gave this thread points?

Always judge a thread/post by the quality of the content not the stars or flags. The stars and flags may be a good indicator of a quality post or thread, but that isn't always the case. By going by the stars and flags, you are letting yourself be led by argument ad populum fallacies.

Keep in mind, that no matter how crazy the premise (like the two pictures in the OP are the exactly the same for instance) there will be some loon who agrees with the OP and s&f's the thread. Or they do it out of some sort of auto reaction after reading the thread (it's not like there is criteria for why people star and flag things).

I hope that helps a bit.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Those moon set pictures could have passed for a official NASA picture had it not been for Von Braun in them.

Do you prefer your replicas to look fake or something?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Your red colored footprint is turned away from the reflector while the one in the set picture is walking more towards it. There are other noticeable differences, but I guess they are hard to see when you are looking so desperately to prove that the moon landing was fake.

It only looks like that because the two photos are taken from different angles, if you take into calculation the different angles the footprints match in both images.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Not really. The angle of the replica set puts the foot about parallel with the reflector while in the real landing, the foot is clearly pointed at the reflector. Just because a footprint happens to be in front of the reflector in both pictures doesn't mean that they are the same footprints. You are just seeing things you want to see.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Those moon set pictures could have passed for a official NASA picture had it not been for Von Braun in them.

Not really. See all the bright spots of light on the ground? Those are multiple spotlights over head. Kind of gives the stage away.

On the real moon there is but one source of light.

Image