Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm not even trying to be rude but, to me, those dots don't exactly match up and sometimes it looks like you're reaching. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert on this field. But the formations on the earth shot with the terminator line don't seem to match up with your other satellite images.

I am an expert in it, I've spent a lot of time researching it and gathering actual evidence together. Please feel free to demonstrate that they are wrong. My website is in my sig, you can read all about where the evidence came from and how it all ties together there. Or you can ignore it and just say that you don't believe it and that will somehow be enough for you.

The Earth's orientation, and terminator line, on both the photograph and TV broadcast match exactly what they should be showing. The cloud patterns on the infra red and visible spectrum images match what is visible on the Earth. It's right there in front of your eyes.

simple - your dots don't match up. A couple look "similar' but some, like I stated, aren't nearly the same formation and the overall pattern doesn't seem to be consistent.

originally posted by: cestrup
Rob, I've been staring at this for a while. I don't have an answer for this. I'm not afraid to admit that. You may have got me on this one...I can't explain it. That doesn't mean that it can't be done. And gosh darn it - that gif moved too fast. Do you have a side by side of the same two images? I have fun with this and it would be better for me to compare. Yes, I could tell the spatial difference but I want to wrap my head around this.

Glad to help.

Here is a version that switches only every 6 seconds:



And here are links to the two individual labelled frames so you can download them:
i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...

The original full-size frames are here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

(Edit: I've just noticed that in the second of those images you can make out the trail of footprints going all the way back to Boulder 2 - precisely where the first of the photos was taken. The more you look at these big scans the more you see!)

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Kronzon



We have weather experts, film experts and a scientist in this thread. Oh, then me

Buddy, I'm offering what I have that I find inconclusive. That combined with verifiable evidence (yes, we differ on this term) lead me to believe that it could be hoaxed. So much so, that I believe it was. You guys are smart but when it comes to the hard facts (nobody been close to moon or even in VAB since) you guys are merely left with your opinions as to why...

I know there's film experts on here. I'm one of them. I'm the one who disagrees with you. Any film expert would tell you that props, wires etc are always discarded from the final cut. Just to be clear, yes, movie mistakes happen, but you don't have to look for them. They're in plain sight and they happen frequently. Again, very easy to spot, no speculation needed. Number 2, the footage is awful, from a cinematographers point of view. No film person shot those scenes. Had to be astronauts or at least someone who sucks at filming. Not to mention the countless people you'd have to kill to keep something like this quite. A moon movie set. Hard to keep people silent on that one. Too much for too little. Sorry, just doesn't add up.

You're evidence is grainy photos with shadows and lens flares and hearsay, possible assumption. You, nor anyone else have produced concrete evidence of a hoax. You have used no true math equations to back your theory. Yet you still say we're not listening to facts. Come man. Really? I know you wan to be correct on this. Your writing screams it through words you post. But you're wrong. Dead wrong.

Also, didn't you say you're done here? But here you remain. Look fella, the math is obviously stacked against you. But you don't care. The weather patterns obviously match. But you don't care about that either. You don't even care that multiple pictures show that objects in the foreground and background are 3 dimensional (hence no back drop).

originally posted by: Kronzon
You don't even care that multiple pictures show that objects in the foreground and background are 3 dimensional (hence no back drop).

Well wait a minute, give him credit, he said that was an interesting point and asked me for more images. I've provided them now. Let's see what cestrup says.

I certainly think it's pretty good evidence of a large 3D landscape: I hadn't done that kind of analysis before today but saw that it should be possible and gave it a try. The results look conclusive to me, and that was just with a scene that cestrup happened to link to on another site. If I spent some time looking for specific examples I could probably find some even nicer illustrations.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Kronzon
You don't even care that multiple pictures show that objects in the foreground and background are 3 dimensional (hence no back drop).

Well wait a minute, give him credit, he said that was an interesting point and asked me for more images. I've provided them now. Let's see what cestrup says.

I certainly think it's pretty good evidence of a large 3D landscape: I hadn't done that kind of analysis before today but saw that it should be possible and gave it a try. The results look conclusive to me, and that was just with a scene that cestrup happened to link to on another site. If I spent some time looking for specific examples I could probably find some even nicer illustrations.

Very true. My apologizes. Honestly cestrup, you appear to be, as I already said, a very passionate person. Come on over to the dark side. We don't hate you. Rethink the evidence, please, rethink your position. Look at the indisputable facts. Despite what you might write, despite my harshness, I am interested to see what you put up.

a reply to: Kronzon

On a business trip, guys. I'll look at what Rob provided and see what I can come up with when I have the time. I have fun with this and I hope you all do too. Critical thinking caps on!

I just don't post many pics nor do I provide calculations. I'm pretty far removed from my physics classes at Purdue. But I appreciate a good conversation

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Kronzon

On a business trip, guys. I'll look at what Rob provided and see what I can come up with when I have the time. I have fun with this and I hope you all do too. Critical thinking caps on!

I just don't post many pics nor do I provide calculations. I'm pretty far removed from my physics classes at Purdue. But I appreciate a good conversation

Good luck and be safe out there!

originally posted by: cestrup
simple - your dots don't match up. A couple look "similar' but some, like I stated, aren't nearly the same formation and the overall pattern doesn't seem to be consistent.

Nope, sorry, not good enough. You need to be specific. SHow me which ones aren't the same. Tell me where it's wrong.

Let me start with the basics. At the time that photograph was taken they were at Station 2 on EVA 2. The mission transcripts, and bear in mind these are transcripts of TV and audio that was being fed live on TV to the press room at Houston as well as people's living rooms, tell us that they arrived at Station 2 at 01:34 GMT on December 13th and left at 02:40 GMT.

Go get yourself a copy of Stellarium (google it, it's free). Put yourself on the moon at the Apollo 17 landing site at that time and date and see how the Earth should look and what should be visible. When you've checked this for yourself you will find that what should be visible at that time is the Pacific Ocean. You can also check the transcripts to see which receiving station on Earth was getting the TV and comms, see if that matches up (guess what, it does).

The two satellite photographs were also taken on the 13th. I am the first to admit that the quality of the Apollo 17 satellite images is nowhere near as good as previous missions. However, in broad terms what both the photographs and TV image show are what is visible on the satellite images, including Tropical Storm Violet. The cyan and magenta arrows point to two long sweeps of cloud that converge in the centre of the northern hemisphere on all of them. The red arrow points to a large mass of cloud in the southern hemisphere on all the images. If you think otherwise you need to be specific. Show me where it's wrong. Do an image overlay and see how wrong I am. All the data and tools you need to make me look a complete idiot are out there. What's keeping you?

You can also read my website and place that image in context with all the other ones that feature Earth throughout Apollo 17's stay on and around the moon (and if you care to on the way there and back again), because you can see the weather systems move as the Earth rotates and develop as time passes, alweays matched by the satellite record.

You also need to bear in mind that this isn't NASA research I am presenting, this is my own. All I've done is take the data and look at it. The data are there for anyone to look at, I just happen to have spent a lot of time putting the effort in.

On a final note, I'm not claiming to be a weather expert. What I am is an expert in this particular subject: the satellite record and Apollo imagery. I have taught meteorology at a basic level and studied it at University, so I can read a weather chart (they also match what you can see). I have scientific training and both my degrees are in science based subjects. Why are you sceptical of expertise when you disagree with it but accepting of the claimed expertise of people who can so easily be proved wrong?

originally posted by: cestrup

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'm not even trying to be rude but, to me, those dots don't exactly match up and sometimes it looks like you're reaching. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert on this field. But the formations on the earth shot with the terminator line don't seem to match up with your other satellite images.

I am an expert in it, I've spent a lot of time researching it and gathering actual evidence together. Please feel free to demonstrate that they are wrong. My website is in my sig, you can read all about where the evidence came from and how it all ties together there. Or you can ignore it and just say that you don't believe it and that will somehow be enough for you.

The Earth's orientation, and terminator line, on both the photograph and TV broadcast match exactly what they should be showing. The cloud patterns on the infra red and visible spectrum images match what is visible on the Earth. It's right there in front of your eyes.

simple - your dots don't match up. A couple look "similar' but some, like I stated, aren't nearly the same formation and the overall pattern doesn't seem to be consistent.

admitting that a couple look similar.. not one but a couple??

these tv images, which were shown live, happen to match a couple of clouds that were on satellite imagery on the same day..

now given that the tv images, as some hoax believers would have us believe, was recorded several months or weeks in advance, are you suggesting NASA was extremely lucky with predicting cloud patterns several weeks/months in advance not once, but several times??

are you also suggesting that NASA was also able to predict natural phenomenon several weeks/months in advanced also??

Just popping back in this thread to post an image that I messed up yesterday and deleted. On the top, a crop from the bottom of the image taken from next to Boulder 2. At the bottom, a crop from the more distant view, from higher up the hill. The top of Boulder 2 is just visible peeking in the bottom of the frame in this crop.



In the limited time I had free to do this I have circled the same rocks in both.

Notice how in the distant view (bottom), these rocks are all a long way from the camera, so the change in distance to the camera between the nearest of them and the furthest of them is not that great.

In the close-up view (top), some of the rocks are much closer to the camera than others. In particular the green-circled rock appears rather large in this view, because it is so close to the camera, whereas the distant view shows that it is actually pretty small.

Similarly the relative spacing of the rocks changes. In the close-up view, the distance from the blue to the yellow ring, for instance is wider than that from the pink to orange, because they are much nearer the camera. In the distant view the distance to the camera is roughly the same for both pairs and you can see that the pink and orange pair are actually further apart than the blue and yellow pair.

One final point: you can now clearly see the reason for the "change in detail" along the line of the rocks. From the more elevated viewpoint of the distant view you can see that there is actually quite a pronounced change in the slope beyond that line of rocks: see how the pink and orange circled rocks are actually quite a way beyond that ridge, with more of the intervening ground visible in that bottom, distant photo. What it certainly is not is a studio wall, or the edge of a painted backdrop, or a cinematic "matte"!

Edit: in fact if you look at the communications transcript, the astronauts actually mention this "break in the slope". These pictures are looking up the rather steep slope towards the summit of the South Massif. Station 2 (where Boulder 2 was located) was evidently just at the base of this break.

143:08:33 Cernan: Okay, Bob, I'm at another boulder up the slope here [i.e. Boulder 2]. It looks quite similar to the one we just sampled, except there is a lot of flake fractures on it. Non-uniform, non-directional, but quite different, at least from that other rock, in terms of its fracture pattern. The texture looks to be quite similar. Boy, I'm glad I don't have to walk to the top of this thing (the South Massif).

143:09:05 Schmitt: Hey, look, Gene, on these rake samples, there is just no point in carrying a rake all the way up here...

143:09:11 Parker: Negative, Jack, as long as you're above the break...

143:09:12 Schmitt: ...because all we needed was a break in the slope.

143:09:16 Parker: As long as you're above the break in the slope; that's right.

...

143:09:30 Parker: Yeah, that's what we were saying. Don't go above just at the base of the break in the slope, Jack. Don't climb all the way up there with it.

You can right-click on the image and choose "open in new window/tab" for a bigger version.

Right, now I have to do some real work!

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Kronzon

Critical thinking caps on!

Obviously the IRONY of you saying that seems to be lost on you.

And a couple more pics showing without a doubt that these rocks are part of a three-dimensional landscape.

Yet another different, distant angle (compare to the ringed pics above)

Source: www.hq.nasa.gov...

And this 360 degree view from Boulder 2. The green-circled rock in the foreground of the original photo in my post above is visible at both the left and the right ends of this panorama, proving that it is a seamless three-dimensional landscape. Click for the full-size link.

In the middle of that panorama you can see the view back to the rover to the right of Boulder 2, which is the inverse viewpoint of the "distant view" I used before (this picture). Unfortunately when Gene was taking this series of images he screwed the focus up a bit (he still had it set for taking close-ups), but it still makes for a very nice illustration.

Or there's a pannable, zoomable version of that panorama here. Our favourite rocks are right in the centre, where the view defaults to.

Now, cestrup, do you begin to see why I called the argument about a projected backdrop on that website — based on taking a poor-quality version of just one of those photographs in isolation, with no context of its surroundings — "idiotic"?

originally posted by: Rob48
And a couple more pics showing without a doubt that these rocks are part of a three-dimensional landscape.

Yet another different, distant angle (compare to the ringed pics above)

Source: www.hq.nasa.gov...

And this 360 degree view from Boulder 2. The green-circled rock in the foreground of the original photo in my post above is visible at both the left and the right ends of this panorama, proving that it is a seamless three-dimensional landscape. Click for the full-size link.

In the middle of that panorama you can see the view back to the rover to the right of Boulder 2, which is the inverse viewpoint of the "distant view" I used before (this picture). Unfortunately when Gene was taking this series of images he screwed the focus up a bit (he still had it set for taking close-ups), but it still makes for a very nice illustration.

Or there's a pannable, zoomable version of that panorama here. Our favourite rocks are right in the centre, where the view defaults to.

Now, cestrup, do you begin to see why I called the argument about a projected backdrop on that website — based on taking a poor-quality version of just one of those photographs in isolation, with no context of its surroundings — "idiotic"?

Serendipity. I've used part of that panorama to show that there are rocks in it that are visible from the LRO. They aren't visible on any pre-Apollo photographs taken by Lunar Orbiter probes.





The blue arrow is the large boulder in the foreground

E2A - the panorama above is at Nansen crater.

.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

That's great. That was actually going to be my next job — I'd got as far as finding the spot on the LRO and I figured that some of these boulders must be visible. I was going to try to track them down but you've saved me the bother!

So there we have it:

1) Images of the same bit of landscape from several angles, showing that it is three-dimensional right the way to the horizon.

2) A 360-degree panorama, consistent with all of the above photographs and including the vantage points from which the distant photos were taken.

3) Identifiable features that can be correlated with recent photographs of the moon from orbit.

Oh and 4) Pieces of the big boulder in the photograph, documented before and after removal and brought back to earth for analysis.

If anyone can come up with ANY plausible way that these photos could have been faked, then I am all ears. This is a perfect example of why the hoaxer method of looking at one photograph and pointing out things that look odd (because they don't understand the wider picture — quite literally in this case!) is so ridiculous.

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Looks like Dave Scott is peddling some more of his smuggled goods to gullible space collectors:

Livingston says items which went to the Moon with the iconic Apollo missions are hard to come by, because many of them were abandoned by the crew, or even left on the lunar surface to cut down on weight when the Lunar Module lifted off to rejoin the Command Module. Source www.woai.com...

"...to cut down on weight..."

If weight was a serious problem then Dave Scott would have followed the plan e.g. by leaving his control stick and cameras on the moon. Why did Dave Scott decide to smuggle all these things? (Don't forget the stamps!) Was the USAF not good enough to him? Was NASA not treating him with respect? Did he feel that American's were bored of his space accomplishments? Was he displeased with all the "fringe benefits" of being a NASA space celebrity?

Did Dave Scott think it would be a hard transition to civilian life so he had to have a back-up plan for his financial future? Did he rationalize to himself that selling the controller would help his kids through college?

Well it's been 42 years Dave's had this controller in his garage and instead of giving it as a sincere gift to his children or his grandchildren, he decides to auction it off to the highest bidder.

College is way more expensive than the $10,000 he's asking for the controller. If that thing was real it would have a starting bid of $1 million dollars. You know why?

Moon rocks, priceless.
Apollo negatives, priceless.
Dave Scott's controller should also be priceless.

I think that there is a huge Nixonian bluff going on here. Dave Scott (and all the rest of them) have for decades sold out by peddling these artifacts. This is a massive, massive con game to get people to say "Oh Wow, Apollo must be real because Dave Scott is auctioning his controller and Buzz Aldrin is auctioning his glove."

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me speak clearly to you. Dave Scott could have that controller estimated to be worth $1,000,000 by any insurance agent or expert in space collectibles... yet he is willing to start the bidding at $10 grand.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dave Scott is a known space smuggler who was fired from his job (astronaut) because of his smuggling antics. Do you really trust a smuggler who low balls a priceless Apollo artifact?

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are walking down the street and Dave Scott offered you a 24 karat solid gold Rolex watch with 100 karats of diamonds & rubies for $100 dollars ---- would you actually buy the watch??

This is a con game, a Nixon bluff. 42 years and these guys are still pulling # out of the garage to peddle it out. I call BS.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
Nice tactics SJ. Completely ignoring the last several pages of detailed analysis of photographs that totally destroys the idea that they were faked and proves they MUST HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE MOON, and just jumping in with more totally vague accusations about Apollo memorabilia.

You sure know how to debate.

a reply to: Rob48

This is a perfect example of why the hoaxer method of looking at one photograph and pointing out things that look odd (because they don't understand the wider picture — quite literally in this case!) is so ridiculous.

Rob48, this thread is about Apollo Disclosures. If you want to make derogatory statements about Apollo Reviewers you can do that over on jref or baut.

originally posted by: Rob48

You sure know how to debate.

That's right bro. I offered 4 debates and had no takers. Eat that Apollo Defenders.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

This thread has become the de facto home for moon hoax discussion on ATS. An argument about the photos showing a projected backdrop was brought up, so I discussed it. I wasn't even attacking anyone on this thread by saying it was idiotic, because, as so often with hoaxers, it wasn't his own argument or his own evidence but something borrowed from another website. By contrast, the evidence I provided was put together by me, which took quite a lot of my time.

Therefore I think I am quite justified in pointing out the foolishness of the argument.

As for the debate, I believe DJW001 accepted your offer. For me, I certainly have no interest in a debate about Nixon. I'm sure you know a lot more about Nixon and Hughes than I do, as they seem to be a pet subject for you. But that doesn't change the fact that the moon landings were totally and demonstrably real.

a reply to: Rob48

But that doesn't change the fact that the moon landings were totally and demonstrably real.

Still waiting for that demonstration. December 19, 1972. The day that lives in infamy.