NASA Exposed! Fake Moon Images?

Originally posted by Zeus2573
I've always said we have never been to the moon. Why would we go there in 1969 and never go back. I think every single picture from the so called "moonlanding" was taken right here on Earth on some sort of universal studio stage.

There are other photos as well. I believe there was one where it showed Earth in the background......not one star in the sky! Sure is alot of stars out in space for not one to show up in that photo. I've heard that they doctored the photo to show true beauty of Earth. If that is true, then where is the original photo?

What do these people think we are a bunch of mindless idiots?

Great find OP!

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Zeus2573]

W: Why would you expect to see stars? If you took a photo of the night sky on earth, the stars don't usually show up either, right? Normal cameras don't capture stars in the night sky.

reply to post by WWu777


This may be a little beside the topic, but there are in fact some Apollo photos where you can see stars and planets. These photos were taken in lunar orbit or during the journey back to Earth. The ones I know about are:

AS15-98-13311
AS15-98-13325
AS16-124-19885
AS16-124-19888
AS17-154-23647

In these photos you can see stars and planets during eclipse with the solar corona and the bulk of the Moon.

Here is one of the photos (AS16-124-19888):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9c3bd69dca7.jpg[/atsimg]

You can find the other images here, use the search function and type in the image ID:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by weedwhacker
You don't care that an entire shadow was added/deleted in a picture?

Ok!

Originally posted by mikesingh
Darn! Is this all that we're capable of in the year of our Lord 2009? We don't even possess the technology to do this right? Jeeez!

Probably making a panorama using a pin hole camera would produce better results, what?

We have the technology, but it was not used when the photos were taken.

I think that ISIS could make a good panorama (it's the program used to create the mosaics of the planets, like the ones from Clementine or Mars), but it would need camera data.

I suppose that with the right data (data about the lens distortion) it's relatively easy to create a program that could make a perfect panorama with those photos.

reply to post by WWu777


I've taken plenty of pictures here on Earth at night and so have many other people and yes the stars show up just fine. Through the Earths atmosphere and all. The moon has no atmosphere, how can there possibly be not one star in the background? I take most of my pictures with those disposable cameras even. I'm sure NASA had much better cameras than that even back then.

When this thread was started by the OP I took it upon myself to do google search for any moon landing images that would seem genuine and I couldn't find one.

Isn't this thread about Fake Moon Images or am I missing something?

Originally posted by Zeus2573
reply to post by WWu777

 

I've taken plenty of pictures here on Earth at night and so have many other people and yes the stars show up just fine.

What exposure and ISO setting? Set for daylight? No, but that's what you'd have to do to properly expose objects on the SUNLIT moon.

Through the Earths atmosphere and all. The moon has no atmosphere, how can there possibly be not one star in the background?

Because the exposure setting was way too fast.

I take most of my pictures with those disposable cameras even. I'm sure NASA had much better cameras than that even back then.

Actually, modern films are much faster. But in any case, this is what you have to do to a disposable to capture real stars:
deep-sky-blog.blogspot.com...

[edit on 23-4-2009 by ngchunter]

I would wonder why they wouldn't just use a wide angle lens, I mean maybe they didn't want the slight distortion caused at times by it.

Other than the issues of stars in the picture, if it is spliced. How does that prove that the pictures are fake.

Don't get me wrong, during a cold war. I'd think it completely feasible that we would fake a moon landing in order to give the impression of having superior technology. If it meant to the minds of the government officials that it would prevent an escalation to war.

I guess I should find more threads that have to do with evidence that we didn't actually go.

We should just go to the moon now, lol. certainly we have the technology.
Atleast then I'd feel better and think we're actually going somewhere with space travel.

Stranger and stranger guys, 2 sets of rocks that look the same, craters removed from the pictures of the moon ... i think they want to hide something or something like this. Just think it can be an error in 1 picture, but in 3, 4 ... all with digital anomalies? wierd h?

reply to post by Mclaneinc
Hi Mike,
Going by the mountain backgrounds in the two Moon pics,
the second pic has been taken a good bit further
away and more to the left as viewed.
In the second pic the two most noticeable rocks on
the far left and and far right,
still correspond in size to one another,
as the two most noticeable rocks in the first pic,
so they look,
( to me) to be the same two rocks.
The second pic being more to the left,
(apologies, this post is in reply to mikesingh)
is just showing more facets of the right-hand
rock not seen in the first pic,but with less detail.




[edit on 23-4-2009 by smurfy]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by XanderBlue
I would wonder why they wouldn't just use a wide angle lens, I mean maybe they didn't want the slight distortion caused at times by it.

The lens they generally used was a mild wide angle lens actually.

Originally posted by Zeus2573
The moon has no atmosphere, how can there possibly be not one star in the background?

Because the camera's exposure settings were for day time photography. Usually around 1/250th's of a second. Go out at night and take some photos at that speed and see what happens.

Venus has been found in some Apollo 14 photos however. But Venus would be the third brightest object in the Lunar sky. Much brighter than any distant star.

I take most of my pictures with those disposable cameras even. I'm sure NASA had much better cameras than that even back then.

Yes, they used 70mm Hasselblads. Excellent cameras. But it doesn't matter how good your camera is. If your taking photos with daytime settings. Faint starlight isn't going to show up no matter what.

The photos with stars that betternot posted used the 2485 B&W film. It has an ASA rating of 6000. A very fast film. And even then they were still 10 second long exposures.

reply to post by jra


"Faint starlight isn't going to show up no matter what. "

Agreed. The astronauts had a hard time seeing stars with their own eyes on the moon. There was a reason for this. The nearest star washed them out with glare. The same reason you don't see stars in the day time on Earth.

I find it wondrous that people can't figure this out for themselves.

reply to post by jra


Good point on the camera setting, dunno why I didn't think of that.

To show that it is possible, this is the result of a more careful attempt at making a panorama with the same three photos from my previous attempt.


(click for full size)

Although it could be better (I am not a specialist with Photoshop), this was the result of maybe 30 minutes' work.

So, yes, they could have made a much better panorama, I wonder why they did not did it.

Originally posted by ArMaP
So, yes, they could have made a much better panorama, I wonder why they did not did it.

It all depends on the software used. I ran the same three photos through a program called Autostitch which is a program I like to use when I assemble my panoramic shots. I get some seams that show duplicated rocks from poor blending, but not as bad as the ones in the OP.

Also, I think the lens flare can cause confusion for the software, since the lens flare is changing position from frame to frame.

Even the Apollo panorama's at this site which were assembled by the people who run the site and not NASA, still have some issues with seams and some duplicated rocks and other glitches. There is simply no software out there that will do a perfect job.

reply to post by jra


Photoshop has an automatic way of making panoramas, but it does not work, it also repeats some areas.

My panorama above was hand-made, and I had to distort the images to make them fit.

Originally posted by shamus78
NASA are excellent at image manipulation, and I'm sure they don't use Photoshop, rather a private variant that would be running on high end workstations, which would be vastly superior (kinda like comparing Paint to Photoshop for us). Whatever they use would wipe the floor with Photoshop.

whilst that might true and photoshop is far from perfect, in good hands you can do basically anything if you are skilled enough which many people are. judging by some of the blur jobs on moon photos it looks more like they're using paint after all!

I don't think these images are altered and if they are NASA didn't do it. I can photoshop that and I really hope NASA has better people fixing photos than me.

Above and slightly to the left of both arrows are also the same image repeated twice.
Good catch.

Reminds me of the photo of "a crowd" pulling down a statue of Saddam in Iraq immediately after the illegal invasion, you could pick out the same face in five or six locations in "the crowd." Maybe NASA borrowed DOD's photo fakery program?

Or maybe NASA IS military: who is head of NASA now?

My Sony digital camera, just an everyday camera, was able to photo three planets aligning a few months ago in the night sky, and there are many bright lights near my home: are they much brighter than stars?

And how is this related to duplicate images in these photos? Just a thought: let's stay on topic.

They must have replicated those rocks and other meaningless attributes of the photo to distract attention from there being two light sources.
How is it that the sun is in the photo,but the arsetronaut's shadow is cast as if the light source is behind him?.
Hmmmm.

Also,wouldn't the radiation of space basically erase the film?,if they were using the old kind,or did they have digital media way back when?...
Just questions,questions deny ignorance you see?.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by chiponbothshoulders]