NASA "smoking gun" evidence for Moon photos hoaxing

reply to post by IX-777


I see the photo I posted had its use.

Yes, the astronaut was taking the photos to create a panorama, they did it in every "station", to show how things looked in that place.

But the way they did it was not good enough to create a panorama, taking photos for a panorama without a tripod is an almost impossible task, and to create the panoramas with those photos we have to do a lot of work, rotating some photos, cropping a lot to compensate for the lens' distortion, etc.

I know, I did it once, it's a difficult work that cannot be done automatically.

Enlightenup: Even if that is the explanation for the color issue we still have the lightening and background vs foreground issues - even in the original photos. For me these issues has not been properly explained in a way that could seem to be "natural", specially not considering we are dealing with 360+ degrees photos here in total that makes it even more easy to compare such features on the photos and estimate where the photos were taken and where the various objects should have been in the different photos.

-Maggador

Originally posted by IX-777
Enlightenup: Even if that is the explanation for the color issue we still have the lightening and background vs foreground issues - even in the original photos.

I'm not sure what they are to me any longer. It was interesting to think about though. In fact, the "problems" point more to authenticity than to hoax. You're comparing things to your internal presuppositions of the nature of a moon scene rather than how they are.

For me these issues has not been properly explained in a way that could seem to be "natural", specially not considering we are dealing with 360+ degrees photos here in total that makes it even more easy to compare such features on the photos and estimate where the photos were taken and where the various objects should have been in the different photos.

-Maggador

The ends of the second panorama don't appear to actually have been taken from the same position at all.



Really the full panoramic view looks to be an afterthought in order to create an better impression of what it might be like to stand on the moon without a spacesuit. It doesn't fit together that well if you really look closely.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by IX-777

 

I see the photo I posted had its use.

Yes, the astronaut was taking the photos to create a panorama, they did it in every "station", to show how things looked in that place.

But the way they did it was not good enough to create a panorama, taking photos for a panorama without a tripod is an almost impossible task, and to create the panoramas with those photos we have to do a lot of work, rotating some photos, cropping a lot to compensate for the lens' distortion, etc.

I know, I did it once, it's a difficult work that cannot be done automatically.

I did have a program call PhotoVista that could stitch and align photos automatically. It was kind of a big deal back in the 90's. There was also iPix which was a camera you could rent specifically for the task. The said program could assist greatly in compensating lense distortion and positioning. I managed to do a pretty good job without a tripod so long as I was doing it deliberately, paying very close attention to my position and stance.

[edit on 9/11/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Another interesting and odd thing is the fact that NASA were around in Hawaii before the Moon mission, among other things they happened to be with some mountains that look extremely familiar - Here is Buzz Aldrin in front of one of these mountains:
bp1.blogger.com...

Then check this, notice the mountaion to the right and also notice the landscape in general:
bp3.blogger.com...

And then the next, again notice mountain to the right, rest of surroundings and landscape:
bp1.blogger.com...

The mountain is the same as in my first two photos in this thread. How on Earth - or should I say Moon - can the foreground change so tremendously, suddenly there are rocks and holes all over the place, and then in the next moment all that is gone and suddenly the LM is in place instead?

Also whats the chance for happening to stumble upon a mountain on the moon shaped exactly the same as a mountain you were visiting on Earth?

Something is not quite right with the perspectives either:
bp3.blogger.com...

-Maggador

the most interesting thing about the moon photos are the foot of the hills. The hills consist of radically different material it seems. Very odd.


Other interesting stuff...
Here some apollo 16 pictures of the area around the lander...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

and then pop! a crater in the panorama
history.nasa.gov...

and then pop! a hill right behind the lander
www.hq.nasa.gov...

here is hill...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
here it is gone...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
still no hill...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 11-9-2009 by conar]

reply to post by conar


Hello? Those are different views taken at different angles relative to the lander.

reply to post by IX-777


The hills don't look the same to me at all. I think the best way is to overlay them in Photoshop. In the Buzz picture, there are actually two hills.

can see the "united states" on the lander to see its the same perspective...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

panning right trying to find the hill...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by IX-777


Could you point us to one source of that?

And why couldn't those photos be taken without artificial light? They were taken during the day.

reply to post by conar


It isn't the same view at all. It's a good 60 degrees counterclockwise (viewed from above) between the first and second. One has the banner in perspective and the other almost straight on.

Originally posted by IX-777
And yes I come from Norway so I have lived in the mountains all my life, I am pretty familiar with how distant mountains look in relation to closer objects.

There's one major difference with looking at mountains on Earth compared to mountains on the Moon. There is no atmospheric perspective to help judge distance.

For example, measuring from the LM to the base of North Massif is roughly 3km away. From the LM to the base of South Massif is roughly 6.5km.

Personally I think the LM in the photo where it is in distance seem to be much further away than only 150 metres, and much closer to the mountains in the back than the other image.

The 150m is approximate. It could be a bit more or a bit less, either way the ALSEP station wasn't very far from the LM. Also note that the photos were taken with a slightly wide angle lens, so that makes objects appear smaller than they really are.

Personally I do not feel the issues raised here have been debunked at all so far.

Are you serious? Your first two pieces of "evidence" wouldn't even be an issue if you just stuck to using the original source images to begin with. You have acknowledged that things like the sample bag are in colour in the original images. The same goes for your lens flare issues. I consider that debunked. These panoramic photos from the Lunar Planetary Institute are full of many graphical issues and shouldn't be used as a primary source for image analysis.

As a sidenote: Were these photos planned to be a panorama already when taken?

Yes, the camera pans were done with the idea of assembling them together later.

Regarding professional photographers, personally I think that the guy who was developing these cameras should be fitting into the professional part. HE himself have been skeptical towards the Moon photos saying that he do not understand how these photos can have been taken without artificial lightening. Doesnt that strike you as somewhat odd, he should be an expert on such things or not?

Do you have a link for this claim?

The mountain is the same as in my first two photos in this thread. How on Earth - or should I say Moon - can the foreground change so tremendously, suddenly there are rocks and holes all over the place, and then in the next moment all that is gone and suddenly the LM is in place instead?

That mountain is South Massif. And from Geology station 5 (the one with all the boulders) South Massif is roughly 5.4km away. So being a bit over 1km closer than the LM, isn't going to make much of a difference at all to the mountains in the background, but the foreground will of course change very noticeably.

reply to post by IX-777


Best evidence yet...

Anyone who does not believe this man's post is delusional and is hiding from the truth...

The lens flares are the BIGGEST give away........they would not just stop because of the mountains because they are not effected by the physical stuff in the picture......

One box has a slightly yellow color to it and the other clearly has the color taken out of it......those things in the ground are not even a metal color.....which they should be, but just white.....

If you think this pic is 100% perfect and legit then there is something wrong with you ..

I'm not trying to be mean, but sometimes it takes a jarring comment to get to somebody that is that out of touch with the truth.....

Thank you for posting this.........If this were allowed a 1 hour coverage on ABC,NBC,FOX Primetime our country would demand the truth within minutes of this airing...........

Wow I am really annoyed that we all have to live in such a douchey controlled country where maybe 500 hundred people control what 330,000,000 million get to do....

And we let them because most our country is pretty dumb...

People never look inwards for blame so nobody would ever come to the conclusion that it is them who is dumb and easily tricked.....they look outwards for blame and are the ones who believe everything.....

NOt bashing religion but the super religious nuts are not the brightest people either..

I respect anyone who wants to worship what they want to worship..........but have you ever tried to decipher and figure out the truth behind the things you are supposed to memorize and worship ?

Makes no sense...

Lots of things make no sense and we are starting to realize this...

I can't wait......well yes i can wait,,,,.....for my next life when we have been relieved of this mental control and can finally feel what it is like to live as we were meant to be...

Some control is necassary until everybody becomes intelligent enough to not need to be controlled......

reply to post by LucidDreamer85


Your retort is an ad hom diatribe and a PTB rant? Go look at the original set not yet processed into a panorama.

Lets see, I'm stupid for thinking for myself and suggesting ordinary possibilities for what is seen rather than reflexivly taking solace in the moon conspirary because I'm scared that the universe is too big and I have no significant place in it.

I think I'll go back to suckle on Baphomet's teat. (thanks go to good ATS friend for that line)

Sorry but I think you must be silly out of your hat if you actually believe those "mountains" on the photos are as far away as you say. If that was the case we would not see the LM and other objects seemingly so close to the foot of them in the first place - atmosphere or not. The moon is even smaller than Earth which means the horizon is closer than it would be on Earth, and hills that far away would disappear quicker in the horizon. Do you really think the ground is flat for 5-6 kms all the way to those conveniently placed mountains? All around them, wherever they take the photos, conveniently the ground is basically flat for several km in every direction?

And for the source of Jan Lundberg, the Hasselblad manager, you can see him in several documentaries about this topic. I can not remember exactly which video I saw him in but possibly the FOX documentary on the subject, or "What really happened on the Moon?" or "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon".

Also, you say that the mountain on the Hawaii photo are two mountains - yes indeed it is. But how do you think you would see that mountain if you moved a slight bit more to the left from where the Hawaii photo is taken? you would only see the mountain in front. Even the two hills to the right of it is visible in the moon photos! You seriously think they would really stumble upon a mountain on the moon, looking exactly like what they visited on Earth, even having the same small hills to the right of it? I certainly do not believe in such astronomical coincidences (pardon the pun!)

And the lights, how more unnatural can you make them look? You really believe that this is how the Sun looks like from the Moon?
www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Huge spotlight in the ceiling seems more like it to me

-Maggador

[edit on 11-9-2009 by IX-777]

This put me in mind of a movie made in the late 70’s called Capricorn One, which was about the US government faking a space mission. I remember when I was a child during the Apollo 11 mission, a man was claiming that is was not real because man has not built anything that could fly that high.

I dismissed him due to him being the neighborhood drunk,but look decades later the very claim he made seems to have some validity to it as far as the mission being a fake.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Eight]

There are also some rather funny things about the Lunar Module itself:
bp1.blogger.com...

bp2.blogger.com...

bp3.blogger.com...

And the "sun":
bp2.blogger.com...

Also other things, for example the infamous crosses disappearing behind objects, such as below:
library.thinkquest.org...

The above should not be possible because the camera itself put the crosses on the photos when they are taken and thus they should appear completely intact on top of the photo, more or less like stamping something upon it.

And the infamous "C" as well appearing on both rock and ground:
library.thinkquest.org...

Lately this has been removed from both rock and ground on NASA photos, but you will still find it in older originals. It took them almost 40 years to remove though.

And to really top it all off - the photo of Mr Collins "space walk" which turns out to really be a photo cut out from a training session in an airplane !
library.thinkquest.org...

Below is Armstrong practising before going to the Moon, inside NASAs place - remove the background, edit out the other people, and put in some nice Hawaiian mountains and you have a pretty standard Moon photo:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Notice the huge spotlights in the ceiling - could these have something to do with the mentioned "Sun" in the Moon photos?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Starting to get there! Background sucessfully removed:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

And finally, let the SUN shine!
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Armstrongs first photo after setting foot on the Moon:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Where did the mountains go??

You REALLY think the following photos can possibly show the same background yet still have such completely different foreground? Unless the background was edited in of course.
bp3.blogger.com...

bp1.blogger.com...

The Lunar Module is clearly closer to the mountain, even casting a shadow that goes up almost all the way to the foot of the mountain, and NO large rocks or holes are seen anywhere around it or behind it - but still these rocks and holes pop up all over the place in the photo without the Lunar Module. Oh and notice the "Sun" and compare it to the spotlights in the other photo above taken during training.

Please also compare "Armstrongs first photo after setting foot on the Moon" above with the two first photos in my first post in this thread - The 360 degrees panorama photos show clearly that there are mountains surrounding the astronauts all around, still there are NO mountains to see in this photo.

PS: Some of the following videos seem to have the video segment of Jan Lundgberg from Hasselblad as well as other interesting things:
video.google.com...#

-Maggador

[edit on 12-9-2009 by IX-777]

[edit on 12-9-2009 by IX-777]

Originally posted by IX-777
Sorry but I think you must be silly out of your hat if you actually believe those "mountains" on the photos are as far away as you say. If that was the case we would not see the LM and other objects seemingly so close to the foot of them in the first place ...

What photos show the LM being seemingly close to the foot of the mountains? Firstly, you wouldn't want to land near the foot of a mountain as that would be dangerous, you want to land in an area that's relatively flat, so landing in the middle of a group of mountains would be safer, just like they did with Apollo 17 (Traverse map)

Lets look at the other panoramas.

Here's an annotated version of the landing site panorama that you linked to in your opening post. You can see South Massif and North Massif in either direction.

Here is a panorama taken at Geology station 2 which is at the base of South Massif, roughly 7km from the landing site. You can see the top of North Massif in the distance, but unfortunately there's a small hill blocking part of the view. You can see that the slop of South Massif starts on the left and rises up out of frame and then comes down on the right side of the image. They're so close to it, that they can't even fit it all into frame, unlike the view from the landing site where it's much smaller.

This panorama taken at Geology station 6 at the base of North Massif which is a little over 3km from the landing site and a little over 9.5km from Geology station 2. You can clearly see South Massif in the distance. The slop of North Massif is on the left and right sides of the image.Which is obviously too big to fit into frame due to there close proximity.

The moon is even smaller than Earth which means the horizon is closer than it would be on Earth, and hills that far away would disappear quicker in the horizon.

Depending on the size of the hill or mountain, but yes they would disappear quicker than on Earth.

Do you really think the ground is flat for 5-6 kms all the way to those conveniently placed mountains? All around them, wherever they take the photos, conveniently the ground is basically flat for several km in every direction?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "conveniently placed mountains". In what way are they convenient? But no, obviously the ground isn't perfectly flat. There are many small hills and craters all over the place. But the ground in the Taurus-Littrow Valley is flat enough to see the surrounding mountains.

Anyway, it's getting late. So I'll leave it at that for now.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by jra]

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Anyone who does not believe this man's post is delusional and is hiding from the truth...

I believe in his posts, I can read them, so they are real.

As for what he says being true it's a different matter.

I don't like the way the posts are turning more about the people than about the photos, so this will be my last post on this thread.

reply to post by IX-777


I invite everyone to link back to IX-777's post, the one I am responding to, since it is a waste of time to thoroughly address every point in it.

To ATS member IX-777, as I said earlier -- despite your no-doubt earnest desire to think you've found something new and exciting, you are late to this game, once again.

EACH and EVERY one of the links and concerns you've posted have been well-discussed already. NOT only here at ATS, either.

Seems every few months someone stumbles across one of the myriad Moon "hoax" threads that still exist out in the EtherWebs, since they will never, ever go away. Unfortunately, the baloney and nonsense they spout gets a new "audience", people who fall for it, without really researching anywhere beyond.

I highly recommend a site called "BadAstronomy". Rather than make a link, you can search for it. Look for others in the same vein.

IX-777, I assume English is not your first language...I think you said you're originally Norweigian. It is a tribute to the countries of Scandanavia and their school systems. It is a shame that the excellent bi-lingual skills aren't taught in the USA. OK, rant over...

IX-777, not accusing you of this, but as a cautionary tale, there was a person who used to post here (in rather poor English) about how the Moon landings were "impossible" because no spacecraft could "land going backwards".

Many, many of us tried to help him, with plenty of arguments, videos, scientific and technical information to show just how incorrect he was. Yet, being banned, and returning at least a DOZEN times, with new screennames, he persisted. It was very frustrating.

We aren't here, trying to apologize for NASA --- since there's nothing to apologize for. It is simply (to me, at least) sad to see bad information, and outright lies, being disseminated without being called out, and corrected.