NASA "smoking gun" evidence for Moon photos hoaxing

jra: A couple quick examples from one of my previous posts showing mountains rather near the LM:
bp1.blogger.com...

bp3.blogger.com...

The shadow runs up almost all the way to the foot of the mountain as well indicating how close it is. Personally I think it is quite possibly a fake background which explains the issues raised much better than what I have heard so far of "rational" and "scientific" explanations. Not sure if it was you or someone else that suggested the mountain to be 5-6km away - it seems ludicrous to me for this mountain to be that far away with nice and smooth flat ground all the way. It looks pretty similar to the previously shown training photos to me with just the background replaced with these mountains. The "sun" also seems extremely alike the spotlights from the training photos - and in one photo I posted it seems that the spotlights themselves may even be visible.

And yes I am aware of landing close to a mountain not being a good idea, I am not suggesting they did land close to the mountain, I am suggesting that the background is rather false. I still like to point towards the extreme similarities between these mountains and hills and the Hawaiian mountains and hills with Buzz Aldrin and other NASA people on it. I cant say that it is impossible to find a mountain on the moon that is somewhat similar, but the chances of actually landing by such a mountain looking that identical, having the same curves and angles, and same small hills next to it, if not impossible it certainly is rather close to impossible and very improbable.

What I meant with "conveniently places mountains" is that they are surrounding the whole area in every direction the photos are taken yet it is supposed to be several kms in every direction around as well to all those mountains, with basically flat ground all the way up to the very foot of them.

I did also show a photo above, the first one taken by Armstrong, which do not show any mountains around, yet the panoramas and other photos show mountains in the same location - in fact it should be difficult to take photos NOT having mountains on them considering they are all around.

Weedwhacker: Yes I am rather aware of the in-depth explanations given by various skeptics and debunkers, official NASA stories and so on, in fact I have been looking into these things for many years but as of yet I have not seen any good enough explanations to all these issues discussed. For me the explanations given so far do not seem too probable and the evidence for the manipulation of the photos are still very strong and seem more probable. Too many inconsistencies in my opinion.

I have been reading BadAstronmy as well and its purpose seem to be only to debunk everything relating to the moon hoax from a believers point of view - meaning that it exists as a place for those who really believe all the moon photos are completely legitimate to explain in all different ways how they can be legitimate without even considering the possibility of hoaxing.

Of course I understand that you believe that the photos are completely unaltered and not hoaxed or manipulated, and that they all show legitimate scenery from the Moon - thus you are trying your best to give explanations fitting towards that, just as I am trying to give explanations towards the opposite. In other words, we are both working for the same goal which is to reveal the lies even though from two different viewpoints on what is lies and what is not.

And there are rather acclaimed scientists and other people in the know whom are questioning the official stories and photos - one of the best examples being the producer of the cameras used on the Moon to take the photos, as I have mentioned earlier. If scientists like that are skeptical and have problem understanding how such photos have been possible I hope you can excuse me for having the same problems

In either way, when I look at the photographical evidence I see many signs of hoaxing - if it was only one little thing, but there are so many things here.

I do not pretend to know everything, I am just expressing my own observations based on my own experience and knowledge and logical thinking - and I do admit I may be wrong on several things but I have yet to see any convincing evidence of such.

-Maggador

-doublepost-

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

reply to post by IX-777

The shadow runs up almost all the way to the foot of the mountain as well indicating how close it is. Personally I think it is quite possibly a fake background which explains the issues raised much better than what I have heard so far of "rational" and "scientific" explanations.

(Not sure which of your double posts you will delete, I responded to the first one)

Look at your 'blogger' photo links again.

The shadow you see in those still photos is being cast upon a small rise, which indeed IS near the LM. What jra and others are trying to say is, the OTHER "hill" in the background is many kilometers away.

You could take some time and find topographical maps of the region, and correlate the surrounding terrain from a top-down perspective, to the horizontal POV from the photos. If you cared to, that is.

Perhaps if you haven't already, visit the link provided by jra about distance and perspective, and how atmospheric hazing affects our perception of it, here on Earth.

Consider photos of landscapes on Earth, with mountains and hills in the background, and how the MORE distant a mountain or hill is, the different it appears. Softer, more shadows, dimmer...ALL what we grow accustomed to, because it is our experience on Earth, since we ALWAYS have an atmosphere to gaze through.

Distance perspective and judgement, on an alien surface and in the alien environment of the Moon are different. In the vacuum, there are no clues to distance, since there's no air in the way. ALSO, there are no recognizable features to use, to judge distance.

We do that subconsciously, all the time, on Earth. You see a house in the distance, or a car, or truck...you already know about how large they are, through experience, so they also help you in distance perspective.

A line of telephone poles, or power poles, stretching out into the distance. There are thousands of subtle cues, all around us. It makes the Moon APPEAR to be an optical illusion, or to some, appear to be "faked".

Haven't you ever been fooled, here on Earth?? Seen something very far away, but thought at first it was much closer??


But, again, you're trying to make your claims using ONLY still photos. There are many hours of videos as well. ALL of them, put together, and seen in context, show without a doubt the reality of the Lunar EVAs, NOT some faked production on Earth. It is simply beyond the capabilities of anyone to fake, then or now.

Originally posted by IX-777

The shadow runs up almost all the way to the foot of the mountain as well indicating how close it is.

Perhaps this photo of the Apollo 17 landing site will give you an idea of the distance between the Lunar Module and both the North and South Massif. Scale is indicated, and the white arrow points to the landing spot of the LM:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b9ef4d3d95c.gif[/atsimg]
More photos and information about the Apollo 17 landing site here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

It is also diffucult to judge distances on the moon. That is why a GPS-like system for the moon is being developed by Ron Li, a Ohio State University researcher who is also helping rovers navigate on Mars:

People are used to having certain visual cues to judge distances, such as the size of a building or another car on the horizon, Li explained. But the moon has no such cues. Getting lost, or misjudging a distant object's size and location would be easy, and extremely dangerous.

He described incidents during past lunar missions when astronauts were traveling to a target site such as a crater, and got within a few yards of it -- but couldn't see the crater because of difficult terrain.
"They were so close, but they had to turn back for safety's sake," he said.

Keeping astronauts safe will be a top priority for Li's team, which includes experts in psychology and human-computer interaction as well as engineering.
"We will help with navigation, but also with astronauts' health as well," Li said. "We want them to avoid the stress of getting lost, or getting frustrated with the equipment. Lunar navigation isn't just a technology problem, it's also biomedical."

Li explained how the system will work: images taken from orbit will combine with images from the surface to create maps of lunar terrain; motion sensors on lunar vehicles and on the astronauts themselves will allow computers to calculate their locations; signals from lunar beacons, the lunar lander, and base stations will give astronauts a picture of their surroundings similar to what drivers see when using a GPS device on Earth.

www.sciencedaily.com...

It's just too bad we lost the technology to go to the Moon.
Nasa says now they will focus on unmanned missions in the future.

Its strange they said they could not see the stars with the naked eye on the Moon, if they looked straight up for a bit, no way they should not be able to see stars.

Its also strange so few test flights they had before touching down on the Moon with manned spacecraft.

Its also strange nobody but NASA has tested the spacesuit. Was it tight in a vacuum with the needle and thread sttiches? Was it possible to move the fingers in a vacuum? Who knows? only NASA.

Neil's cryptic behavour and speeches...



The parrot dont fly very well? Is he talking about himself??

Remove truth's protective layers??

What the....

[edit on 12-9-2009 by conar]

look at 2:27, very strange how he gets up after the fall

Weedwhacker: Yes, but the problem is not only the background mountains but the foreground objects etc as well which appears and disappears even in the large panorama photos showing 360 degrees where they should have been visible, and for the mountains themselves these disappear too where they should have been visible as far I can tell from the panorama photos and the satellite photo of the area. And all the other mentioned issues regarding the photos as well. When it comes to the videos I have seen some good evidence there too supporting them being faked, from wires reflecting in the light to seemingly astronauts faking Earth shots using transparents in the space shuttle and other phenomenas. Even the astronauts themselves are contradicting eachother on how various things were during the travel, from one giving detailed descriptions on how the Van Allens belt caused various visual effects and how they were briefed by NASA on that to another one saying they never experienced anything at all with the same etc. Several astronauts themselves also directly claim that the governments and NASA are hiding the truth and that they know extraterrestrials exist and have been discovered something I find to be supporting the other claims of what they really discovered up there, even though they have not directly admitted to any hoaxing or coverups with the moon missions - yet.

Anyway, I will present more photos with disappearing mountains. The following photos are taken from the LM in Apollo 11 and show some of the very first photos taken after landing:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.apolloarchive.com...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The flag from one direction - notice NO mountains:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Flag from completely opposite direction - still NO mountains:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Notice that the above photos are ALL in different angles and directions, and according to the panoramas and photo supplied my Ziggy etc the mountains should be visible in all these photos as well. Sorry about the many photos but I feel they are needed to properly see what I am talking about here.

Please note the directions of shadows and lights etc, as well as the position of the LM itself, confirming that these photos are taken in many different directions - the ground details also confirm this. They are also taken in sequence around the same time etc

Again I will show the panorama to be able to get some context, notice that the mountains and hills are surrounding the LM in every direction, 360 degrees around:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

According to your story, and the official NASA story, these mountains must be rather huge too, so how can they suddenly disappear like that and then reappear in other photos taken near the LM?

Ziggy: Thanks for the photos and information.

-Maggador

reply to post by conar

It's just too bad we lost the technology to go to the Moon.

Untrue. That is completely misunderstood, from reports that surfaced about certain details and technical specifications of the OLD machines used in the Apollo era being no longer available. Who cares, but museums?

That is like saying, because we 'forgot' how to build a DC-6, then we can no longer build airplanes and fly around the World.

Nasa says now they will focus on unmanned missions in the future.

No, again you're taking that out of context. Is the Space Shuttle 'unmanned'???

NASA meant that, within budgetary constraints, MORE science could be conducted with unmanned units, at least as preliminary to sometime in the future when manned missions would be undertaken. Developing data sets, and infprmation for the future missions is vital to their success.

Its strange they said they could not see the stars with the naked eye on the Moon, if they looked straight up for a bit, no way they should not be able to see stars.

No, it is NOT strange at all. Understand the Human eye, and the term "night vision". It takes as long as 45 minutes for the Human eye to adapt from very bright lighting conditions, to dim viewing acuity. IF YOU were out in a desert, in the bright Sunlight, and walked into a cave, you would have a great deal of trouble seeing a very dim light.

Ever gone to the cinema during the matinee??? Walked in, and couldn't see a bloody seat in the auditorium??

Its also strange so few test flights they had before touching down on the Moon with manned spacecraft.

Please back up that claim. Do you have no idea of how many HOURS of testing they underwent??? Various machines, designed to simulate the actions of the LM, AND computerized simulators as well. Even today, when Boeing designs a new airplane model...it's still able t obe flown for the first time. How?? BECAUSE of the engineers who designed it, and their data that goes into the simulation programs...the test pilots train and train, and are ready for the real thing. This is the same with the Space Program.

Its also strange nobody but NASA has tested the spacesuit. Was it tight in a vacuum with the needle and thread sttiches? Was it possible to move the fingers in a vacuum? Who knows? only NASA.

Now that is just downright silly, I'm sorry. Where did you find that load of rubbish???

The USSR have EVA suits. The Chinese. Do you
think ALL OF THEM are fakes too??? AND, the suits used aboard the Space Shuttle and ISS???

Neil's cryptic behavour and speeches...

OK, that's officially 'round the bend, and headed straight for Crazy Town.

I'm sorry you feel a need to repeat the rantings of those who post such gibberish on the Web. The majority of rational people have no trouble interpreting things normally. Only the most rabid believers in the Moon "hoax" crap see something in those videos that isn't there.....

reply to post by IX-777

You think all of the Apollo missions landed at the same location? Brilliant.

The Apollo 11 landing area was a wide open, relatively flat region. There were no mountains nearby. It was specifically chosen for that reason.


[edit on 9/12/2009 by Phage]

But how far away were the nearest mountains supposed to be? None of those photos show any mountains or hills at all, its completely flat in all directions

Do you have any overview photos such as Ziggy posted above with km markers etc?

Edit: I just realized that I confued the missions in my above post, you are right, Apollo 11 seem to have been in a flat area with no visible mountains in either normal photos nor the panoramas. Sorry about the mixup

-Maggador

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

reply to post by IX-777

Yes. A very flat area.


[edit on 9/12/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by conar

look at 2:27, very strange how he gets up after the fall

Sorry, but I cannot believe anyone is still using clips from that old piece of garbage video!!!

Percy (the idiot with the goatee and blow-dried hair) is full of crap.

There are no wires!!! I know you're referring to the way the Astronaut gets up, I'll get to that in a second.

That same 'documentary' points to flashes, above the PLSS units (backpacks) of the suits as "proof" of wires...it's not, it is sunlight refecting off of the antennas. Thin, flat metal strips about 30 cm long. You can Google for drawings showing the suits' design.

NOW, the suits, and getting up.

The suits are only pressurized to about 3.5 to no more than 4.0 PSI. (Depends on specific suits).

Same with the Apollo spacecraft. In a 100% O2 environment, 3.5 PSI is enough, you don't need the full 14.7 PSI as felt at Earth's Sea Level.

The suits had limited flexibility. The knees especially, bent little. There was better mobility at the waist, and ankles. Enough so that they could sit in the Rover, but when yo look at the photos, you can see how their legs tended to stick out, not down as you would in a chair.

SO, to get up, the Astronaut used muscles not normally used...and the suits had a certain amount of 'springiness' in the legs. In that video, he's using the muscles mainly in his feet, and calves I would imagine. He is alsu using the weight of the PLSS on his back, by tipping back a little as he rises. The PLSS weighed about 120 pounds on Earth.
Here is info on the PLSS, you can also hunt for space suit data: history.nasa.gov...

I think a real-life example to how they used different muscles could be to compare it to skiing. Ever gone skiing and found that after the day was over you had muscles ache that you never even felt before???

That is just one example...they don't look normal because of the suit limitations. In skiing, the boots limit your ankle flexibility, so you use other muscles to compensate.

Bet if you could wear a suit like that for an hour you'd understand better than any number of words describing it.

Weedwacker, is it not true that we cant use the apollo spacecrafts any more, and it will be a very long time before we can go to the Moon again, especially with all the Ares rocket problems?
So we lost the ability to go to the Moon.

For the rest of your comments, your opinion is appreciated, but thats all it is, your opinion.

reply to post by IX-777


In this photo of the near side of the Moon you can see the locations of the Apollo missions landing sites:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0269893666d4.gif[/atsimg]
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The photo is taken from this site, where you can find photos (with scale indications) of ALL the landing sites, and also "traverse maps" with the locations of the EVAs during the six missions:
Apollo landing sites

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Untrue. That is completely misunderstood, from reports that surfaced about certain details and technical specifications of the OLD machines used in the Apollo era being no longer available. Who cares, but museums?

NASA cares




Full story and complete video here

www.pbs.org...

[edit on 12-9-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by ziggystar60



















LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites
www.nasa.gov...

And my favorite...

Object on Eros

reply to post by conar

...is it not true that we cant use the apollo spacecrafts any more...

We can't use the Apollo hardware because none exists that is space worthy, and the designs are decades old anyway. Time for NEW materials, and engineering.

...and it will be a very long time before we can go to the Moon again, especially with all the Ares rocket problems?

All it takes is money, Baby! And determination, and in this current climate -- the political backing to get the money in the first place.

As to the Ares rockets, teething problems, going to be the case in new designs...remember the early failures just trying to get a satellite into orbit before the USSR?

But, back to the money, that is indeed a problem. There is NO DOUBT that trillions and trillions go already to very deep, black holes...all for the sake of "National Security". Perhaps none of that is ever wasted? And, all if it is used appropriately?? Well, we shall probably never know...MY 'money' is on "No" to both questions, but that's just me.

Also just my opinion, but a determined financial commitment to the 'Constellation' program is just a minor blip compared to the other spending already in progress. But, people see the word 'Billion' in front of it, and all hell breaks loose. Context is lost.....

Anyways, IF the trillions and trillions are already going into deep, dark secret space endeavours, as suggested by certain individuals and groups, then the entire manned Space Program, at least publicly, is moot.

reply to post by zorgon


Yeah.

It IS sad. Sad that because of stingy budgets, the current engineers have to resort to trying to reverse-engineer old designs.

BUT, we (and the Japanese, and the Chinese, and the Europeans, and the Russians...and maybe India???) have quite reliable rockets, right??

What about the Russian launchers (Proton?) to re-supply the ISS in between STS visits?

I'm not a Rocket Scientist (oh, I've waited sooooo long to type that!) but there are decades of experience with the good ole' liquid rocketry designs. I guess, really, the biggest deal about the Saturn were its main engines, no? THEY were the real marvels of engineering, because it only required FIVE of them to lift the needed mass for the Lunar missions.

By comparison, the USSR was struggling with their heavy-lift launch vehicle, the 'N1', attempting to get THIRTY smaller engines to work in unison to achieve the thrust needed.

N1 test launches:

Feb. 21, 1969: The first test launch of the N1 rocket (Vehicle No. 3L) failed 68.7 seconds after liftoff.

July 3, 1969: The second test launch of the N1 rocket (Vehicle No. 5L) failed immediately after liftoff.

June 27, 1971: The third launch of the N1 rocket (Vehicle No. 6L) failed at 50.1 seconds after liftoff from the left pad of the Site 110 in Baikonur.

Nov. 23, 1972: The fourth launch of the N1 rocket (Vehicle No. 7L) failed about 107 seconds after liftoff.

www.russianspaceweb.com...

Another link, showing all thirty engines.

Videos: (In Russian)

February 21, 1969:


That's the one that failed just after a minute of flight. Note the date!!
The Soviets were well behind Apollo.

Another, showing explosion:



And just to accompany my other post, about early USA failures:


I believe every failure teaches a lesson.

The basics are known, it's the matter of lift capacity, now. With enough budget, even that wouldn't be as much an issue, spend the money and use
multiple vehicles, rendezvous on orbit is an idea......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It IS sad. Sad that because of stingy budgets, the current engineers have to resort to trying to reverse-engineer old designs.

I guess the other space program figures NASA isn't worth getting a share of the 9 TRILLION dollars that the Federal Reserve cannot account for FY 2008 But Americans are to apathetic to even let that bother them 2.3 Trillon missing FY2000 announced the day before 9/11 3.0 trillion missing FY 2006...

Who cares though eh? Lots more tax dollars where THAT came from...

Besides NASA is funding the Jesuit University... gave em 1 million dollars... and then people cry they get no funding PPFFTT Let em eat CAKE I say

BUT, we (and the Japanese, and the Chinese, and the Europeans, and the Russians...and maybe India???) have quite reliable rockets, right??

Yeah and ALL those moon ships have been smashed onto the Moon now, scattering debris all over the dang place... maybe if they would stop wasting all hat good stuff and send a shuttle to recover it they wouldn't need so much money...

What about the Russian launchers (Proton?) to re-supply the ISS in between STS visits?

Russia will do that ...NASA went to contract with them but changed their minds for some reason

I'm not a Rocket Scientist (oh, I've waited sooooo long to type that!) but there are decades of experience with the good ole' liquid rocketry designs. I guess, really, the biggest deal about the Saturn were its main engines, no? THEY were the real marvels of engineering, because it only required FIVE of them to lift the needed mass for the Lunar missions.

Will Buzz Aldrin is working with the Chinese on anti gravity and gravity waves... you know those things Bob Lazar spoke of? And according to him when the Chinese go back to the moon we be up the creek

Buzz Aldrin China Moon
revver.com...

But yer right youse no rocket scientist... youse Cessna flyer

By comparison, the USSR was struggling with their heavy-lift launch vehicle, the 'N1', attempting to get THIRTY smaller engines to work in unison to achieve the thrust needed.

RIGHT Good point for the Moon hoax crowd

But they have Energia which is a really great vehicle

Boeing is in Partners with Energia on the Sea Launch platform... the only cointdown in Russian and English

This is the Mars-Energia rocket Notice anything unusual in the decals?



They sold us out I tell ya

Even Robert Bigelow is launching his space station modules from Russia... a deal he made with the Defense contractor that built the Phoenix lander

I wonder when they will pull those two functioning shuttles out of storage

reply to post by zorgon

Will Buzz Aldrin is working with the Chinese on anti gravity and gravity waves...

Hey! There's an interesting thread just started, if you haven't seen it, does it connect with that??

Chinese Build 'Impossible' Space Drive
_________________________________________________________
I edit, because I can....or am....something like that.....


[edit on 12 September 2009 by weedwhacker]