Was Apollo Fake One More Bit Of Evidence A Face In The Light

[dank]

Ok guys i know this is something that some people are 100% that NASA faked some are not sure and some the fools in us will say it is 100% real. Now i have read every story seen every picture and the evidence is not in NASAs favor, and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground. Any way back to why i am writting this post i was scaning the video clips agin then something hit me just seemed to make me rewind and pause over and over but in this video you can make out a face.

This is video clip http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Go down the page to the title One For The Sceptics, and it is the 3ed bigger picture view that video. and from the point of 1 min watch the light very closly, the face comes then seems to move out of sight.

Like to know what you all think.

Daniel Killick

P.S the video on this site is not meaning to point this out i just noticed it as i was watching it

[Musashi]

Try here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=26585bce0d7926a7a7603a8783f2 79fe).

Also, check out this site, it probably discusses every claim that you can make.

Link. (http://www.clavius.org/)

[AGN Fuel]

i have read every story seen every picture and the evidence is not in NASAs favor, and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground.

Which explanations are you doubting?

[Peter B]

This is video clip http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Go down the page to the title One For The Sceptics, and it is the 3ed bigger picture view that video. and from the point of 1 min watch the light very closly, the face comes then seems to move out of sight.

Like to know what you all think.

Daniel Killick

P.S the video on this site is not meaning to point this out i just noticed it as i was watching it

G'day Dan, and welcome to the BABB.

If the effect is the one I'm thinking of, then all that happened was that Buzz Aldrin inside the LM opened up the aperture on the camera to let more light in. He wasn't sure whether the camera would record Armstrong correctly, so he checked with Mission Control. They told him the correct settings, and Aldrin changed the settings on the camera in accordance with their instruction.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a record of all the activities of the astronauts on the Moon: http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/

If you go to Apollo 11, and read the section dealing with the first Moon walk, you can find this conversation as Neil Armstrong reached the base of the ladder (the numbers represent hours:minutes:seconds since lift-off):

109:22:28 Aldrin: Okay. Will you verify the position - the opening - I ought to have on the (16 mm movie) camera?

109:22:34 McCandless: Stand by. (Long Pause)

109:22:48 McCandless: Okay. Neil, we can see you (on the TV) coming down the ladder now. (Pause)

109:22:59 Armstrong: Okay. I just checked getting back up to that first step, Buzz. It's...The strut isn't collapsed too far, but it's adequate to get back up.

109:23:10 McCandless: Roger. We copy.

109:23:11 Armstrong: Takes a pretty good little jump (to get back up to the first rung). (Pause)

109:23:25 McCandless: Buzz, this is Houston. F/2 (and)...

109:23:28 Armstrong: Okay, I'm at the...(Listens)

109:23:29 McCandless: ...1/160th second for shadow photography on the sequence camera.

109:23:35 Aldrin: Okay.

{The ladder is mounted on the west strut and is, therefore, in the LM's shadow. The recorded image is fairly dark. Journal Contributor Markus Mehring notes that, as a result of the information from Bruce, Buzz changes settings on the DAC and the recorded scene brightens, "just in time to catch Neil and his historic step off the footpad."}

109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. (The) ground mass is very fine. (Pause)

{Just before Neil's next transmission, as a result of Buzz's changes to the 16-mm camera settings and Neil's position on the footpad, the film record shows the LEC attached to the front of Neil's suit. We can see reflections of what appear to be parts of Buzz's suit as he changes the camera settings and monitors Neil's activities out the window.}

109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now.

= = = =

Of course, I might have this wrong, so apologies in advance if you had something else in mind.

[Enzp]

Hi Dank, welcome. Did you notice a couple spaces lower on the menu there is a whole section here devoted to nothing but the lunar conspiracy issue?

I think you will find plenty discussion there. And while you are at it, I recommend you read our host's book, Bad Astronomy

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ok guys i know this is something that some people are 100% that NASA faked some are not sure and some the fools in us will say it is 100% real. Now i have read every story seen every picture and the evidence is not in NASAs favor, and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground.
Wow. Borderline flame-bait there, dank. Great way to make a first impression.

What is your background in photography, physics, etc. that allows to make the claim that "the evidence is not in NASAs favor" (sic)?

It's been my experience that the folks most likely to dismiss the words and knowledge of the ones responsible for, or knowledgeable of, such an impressive feat, are the ones who have zero, little, or even a mis-understanding of the science involved. The "no stars" claim is a particularly good example of this.

Basically, the ones who believe the moon landings were faked don't seem to know much about the moon landings to begin with, and generally have a pre-conceived notion that "the establishment" is the enemy.

Certainly such bias only works to hinder your understanding of the event. Who do you trust if you don't trust the people who pulled it off?

Others have offered a number of websites, and I had one to offer, too, but it seems to be down at the moment. Perhaps it's only temporary, so here's the link anyway:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

[jrkeller]

Dank,

Welcome,

I hate say this, but we've seen this link years ago. It was debunked primarily by Jay Windley as you can see here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1397) in this thread. As you'll see if you read the entire thread, he's good at dodging the questions put to him.


This should read CosmicDave is good at dodging the questions.

[kucharek]

Hi Dank,

I think, it's a great example how the conspiracists work. They ask "why does it get brighter?" and prove that they have done zero research because if they do, it is easy to find out what happened.
And yes, you see reflections of Aldrin in the window through which the camera is looking.
To give you an idea, here's a photo taken during the trans-lunar coast showing the window and the camera:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-36-5389.jpg
Recognize the reflection of the camera in the window.


Harald

[dank]

Well i work in 3D SGI so i can notice a lot of floors maybe i will write something on it, you can bring it down to buzz in the window, but he does not look to me as he has a suit on how long after armstrong would you say he came on to the floor of the moon. With out a dout light coming from no where just makes not sence. Also in the same video notice how at the start you see just the shadow of the LEM with the surface very blue, it is not this that a am flooring but notice how the shadow of the LEM seems to just go befor the the video itself has stoped just leaving a shadow to the left of the video for about 2-3 secs. Also notice the light behind LEM at the start of the video when it is blue, when armstrong is walking down the ladder later in the video it seems to have change to be coming from the leftside i dont think so. :) thanks for all the feedback i hope there is more hear for us to talk about.

[kucharek]

Dank, can you please better sturcture your posts? Makes it easier to read and answer. Thanks.

Let me say one thing first: If you really want to analyze the videos, don't use the low-res RealVideo crap from some websites. Go and buy the DVDs from SpacecraftFilms (www.spacecraftfilms.com). The footage is not continous and edited, so it is difficult to make any points.

The reflection isn't very clear, but Aldrin of course wore a spacesuit and bubble helmet as the LM was depressurized. He didn't had the reflective visor down.

Here some images from Apollo 17's LM aproaching the CSM. You can see Gene Cernan pretty well behind his window, despite he's wearing his suit and helmet.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-149-22859.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-149-22859mlh_sm.jpg

Blueish colours may be from the coating of the window. That it changes is just because the angle between camera and window changes when Aldrin repoints the camera.

Colour was basically a difficult thing on the moon. Pictures have all kinds of tints due to different types, but also astronauts described what they saw pretty differently. With regards to photography, read http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollocolor.html

Basically: When this stuff should be faked, why would the fakers release such crappy footage?

Harald

[dank]

In the time was it crappy??? if this was real then we would not be able to find one mistake. Also in movies if you want to find mistakes you will, all movies have mistakes in final cuts, and the movie studios are trained to find mistakes but they never find them all. Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes. Why because some of the work was done on Earth sorry to say.

[Maksutov]

In the time was it crappy???
As a witness to the events in July, 1969, I distinctly remember various commentators complaining about the low quality of the lunar video transmissions. In fact, as I sat there watching the live TV from the Moon, I thought to myself, "Darn. Why couldn't they have used better equipment, with less of an image decay rate? Those shots where you can see 'through' the astronauts due to image persistence will probably have some people crying 'fake!'"

Later I found out NASA had not even originally planned to have a video camera along on the flight.


if this was real then we would not be able to find one mistake.
Mistakes, no, since nothing was artificially generated. Artifacts, of course.


Also in movies if you want to find mistakes you will, all movies have mistakes in final cuts, and the movie studios are trained to find mistakes but they never find them all.
That's because movies are artificial depictions of reality. The Apollo videos and photos aren't.


Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes. Why because some of the work was done on Earth sorry to say.
Artifacts are not "mistakes". Misinterpretations of photographs and videos are not mistakes in the photographs and videos, they're mistakes made by the person doing the misinterpretations. Re your final "sentence", you've provided no information that would validate that conclusion.

Editorial aside: Why do I get the feeling I'm at a recycling center? :roll:

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Because, you're Covered in Garbage?

:wink:

[jrkeller]

In the time was it crappy??? if this was real then we would not be able to find one mistake. Also in movies if you want to find mistakes you will, all movies have mistakes in final cuts, and the movie studios are trained to find mistakes but they never find them all. Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes. Why because some of the work was done on Earth sorry to say.


I was only 7 1/2 when the first moon landing took place. I remember the footage being really bad. Looked like two ghosts jumping around on the screen.

If you think that are errors give us some specific examples and links.

[pghnative]

I hate say this, but we've seen this link years ago. It was debunked primarily by Jay Windley as you can see here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1397) in this thread. As you'll see if you read the entire thread, he's good at dodging the questions put to him.You should re-word this. Generally, "dodging questions" means avoiding the issues and not really answering the questions. I doubt if Jay has ever dodged a question in his life.*

(*except for that kindergarten cookie incident, but the statute of limitations has run out... :D)

[JayUtah]

Yes, the "he" in that sentence refers to "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette, the author of the site Dank refers to. "Cosmic" Dave is an artful dodger of questions.

[dank]

The evidence is there. Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first. Something to always be rembered of doing " The USA first to land a man on the moon" they love all that ****. (not to dig at anyone from the USA , this is just a point)

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The evidence is there. Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first. Something to always be rembered of doing " The USA first to land a man on the moon" they love all that [bad word deleted]. (not to dig at anyone from the USA , this is just a point)

Yeah, So We Went and DID It!

The Onus is on You, to Prove we Didn't ...

And, Please, No More Tired Old Arguements, Jay's Gettin' Bored ...

:^o

[JayUtah]

The evidence is there.

Such as?

Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first.

Correct. Why does that prove that the moon landings were fake. Wouldn't a genuine mission also satisfy the need to be first?

[robert_d]

some the fools in us will say it is 100% real.

Like to know what you all think.

Daniel Killick

Daniel, Are you sure you want to know what "fools", think?
You say you have looked at everything, but I wonder. Have you read some of the historical books about the Space program of the 1960's? It would put a lot of the so-called "evidence" into perspective. Have you visited Astronautix.com and reviewed the hundreds of pages of chronological activity, detailing many of the crucial decisions and milestones in the program? Realize please how BIG of a thing it would be to fake the moon landings. Asking questions is fine, but I think you should withhold making any assertions as to what one could conclude from the minimal data you have presented so far.

[sts60]

Now i have read every story seen every picture
Really? You've studied every one of the tens of thousands of still photographs of Apollo development, testing, operations, and lunar photographs? Including the Mercury and Gemini photographs - they were part of the Apollo development program, after all? You've read all the histories, accounts, and transcripts? I'm truly impressed.

and the evidence is not in NASAs favor,
Funny, I've seen flight hardware, photographs, film and video, read some of the history, seen some of the transcripts, and worked for and with people who actually worked on Apollo, people who designed and built the hardware. The evidence looks in NASA's favor to me - of course, I'm just an engineer who's been working in the space field for 15 years.

and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground.
Be specific. Handwaving doesn't support your point. I could just as well point out the the reasons the hoax believers give for some of their "evidence" is something you'd hear in an insane asylum.

Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes.
There may be things you don't understand, but that does not automatically make them "mistakes" (by which you mean evidence of a hoax). Please be specific, but I also strongly recommend you use the Search feature to see if a particular claim you wish to make has already been addressed.

You also should consider that, say, a shadow which cannot be explicitly traced to a certain object does not necessarily "prove" a fake. I can look at pictures of the D-Day landings and see things I can't explain. Does that mean the D-Day landings were fake? The burden of proof lies with you, the hoax claimant, and the bar is set quite high given the truly massive weight of physical, personal, documentary, and scientific evidence for Apollo.

BTW, welcome to the board.

[dank]

ok im am getting it left right and center hear, but still will not make be belive the landing was real.

Most Shocking
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8702/cshad3wt.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/1481/good3hv.gif

[AGN Fuel]

ok im am getting it left right and center hear, but still will not make be belive the landing was real.

Most Shocking
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8702/cshad3wt.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/1481/good3hv.gif

Shocking to whom? The C-Rock debacle has been debunked so many times I was genuinely surprised to see you bring it up. Refer Clavius (about half way down) (http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html).

What exactly has shocked you about the second image?

(edited to note: Dank, you would gain a great deal if you read Clavius from start to finish. It will answer any and all queries you may have and it will teach you an enormous amount about a wide range of topics. By the end, you should also have gained an appreciation of how a website can be set up with clarity, concisely and with a refreshing dearth of exclamation marks and words written entirely in capitals.)

[jt-3d]

ok im am getting it left right and center hear, but still will not make be belive the landing was real.

Most Shocking
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8702/cshad3wt.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/1481/good3hv.gif

Most shocking is that it's mostly likely a hair copied on a scan. At any rate, it doesn't apperar on the original.

I find nothing shocking about the second one. Surely you don't mean the wrinkled flag?

You are not putting up much of an argument here. I could deal with everything you've posted so far and I'm an idiot. Come on, get something for Jay to sink his teeth into.

I second the motion to send you to Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/).

[The Bad Astronomer]

dank, watch your language. There will not be a second warning.

[dank]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

[Humphrey]

They did know what was in the shot. They had hundreds, if not thousands of hours of practivce making picutres and framing them up on earth. They knew exactly where the camera lense would be and what it would take in after that much practice. Hell give me a day in that suit with a fixed camera on my chest and i can perfectly frame pictures just as well. And i can bet you will be able too. Its not hard.

Its only hard when the camera is not fixed to your chest.

[dank]

im sorry but the picture is far to pin pointed. You try use your body to point in the rough direction of a subject picture.


http://www.spr-consilio.com/campbellsmith3.htm
To view the footage click here

[Swift]

im sorry but the picture is far to pin pointed. You try use your body to point in the rough direction of a subject picture.
I've taken cameras, both SLR film cameras and digital, held them over my head with one hand, pointed them in the general direction I wanted, and got shots that were framed fine. Ok, my batting average is maybe 33%, but film is cheap and you can take lots of shots. As Humphrey pointed out, these guys were not doing anything nearly that hard and they had practiced it for a very long time.

[AGN Fuel]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

Don't jump to conclusions. The photo you show is actually the last of a series of 4 photos between AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866:

AS15-88-11863 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11863)
AS15-88-11864 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11864)
AS15-88-11865 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11865)
AS15-88-11866 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11866)

Of these 4, only the last has everything nicely grouped and your version of that image has clearly been cropped to enhance the effect! Have a bit of a look through the Apollo 70mm Archives (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/) and see just how many shots it took to get those 'perfect' images.

(edited for clarity)

[kucharek]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot.

Well, they took plenty of photos and of course, only the best one were widely published. If you look at the complete collection of images, you'd see that there are plenty of "wrong" shots.

Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money
In one of your first posts you claimed tha you do some §D work on SGI. Then you should understand the difference between specular and diffuse reflection. Also, just because you've made a good photo that is later used in many ways is proof that it is a fake?

Harald

[W.F. Tomba]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

Don't jump to conclusions. The photo you show is actually the last of a series of 4 photos between AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866:

AS15-88-11863 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11863)
AS15-88-11864 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11864)
AS15-88-11865 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11865)
AS15-88-11866 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11866)

Of these 4, only the last has everything nicely grouped and that image has clearly been cropped to enhance the effect! Have a bit of a look through the Apollo 70mm Archives (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/) and see just how many shots it took to get those 'perfect' images.
Note also that even in the supposedly perfect fourth shot, part of the rover's tire is cut off. So he took four tries and wound up with a pretty good, but not perfect, photograph. I think a well-trained man with a camera strapped to his chest should be able to achieve that.

[PhantomWolf]

Another thing to note that Image 4 (AS15-88-11866) is quite a bit brighter then the others so it is possible that they increased the f-stop to expose it longer, or that the image was "pushed" in the development process to bring out the front of the astronaut's suit and the flag decal. If you compare it to AS15-88-11864 you can see how both dark the front of the suit and flag on the LM are, as well as the change in colour of lunar surface itself.

[Kiwi]

..the image was "pushed" in the development process to bring out the front of the astronaut's suit and the flag decal

Considering that most of us darkroom workers continually burnt, dodged and otherwise manipulated our prints to enhance or minimise certain parts, I see nothing unusual in exactly the same being done to the print for illustrative or editorial purposes. This does not mean that there is anything fake about the original.

Dank, I don't understand your comment, "the picture is far to pin pointed." Could you elaborate? As has already pointed out, this particular picture was the best of four, and the ability of the astronauts to accurately point their cameras came down to one thing: practice, practice, practice. If you have indeed thoroughly investigated the Apollo missions (which I seriously doubt), you would have seen in the many films taken by the TV cameras on the rovers, plenty of shots of the astronauts taking photos by doing exactly what you claim they couldn't do: pointing the cameras by moving their bodies. In fact, when I viewed the Apollo 17 TV films I was intrigued to see that they often pointed the camera up or down by simply bending their knees. And we all know that they took excellent photos by doing this.

Do you seriously believe that the joke footage with the falling ladder that is linked on the Clive Campbell Smith site is actually the real thing?

Here are some very brief answers to many of the hoax-believers' arguments:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=105193#105193

I urge you to read them, and to also study fellow-contributor Bob B's site:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

plus, of course, JayUtah's brilliant site, Clavius:
http://www.clavius.org

[mathyou9]

Do you seriously believe that the joke footage with the falling ladder that is linked on the Clive Campbell Smith site is actually the real thing?
dank, if you did any deeper research you would know that the so-called "lost" footage with the falling light fixture was done in the last few years as a joke. Either Clive Campbell Smith is using a bit of satire or he is ignorant. Here is the link (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2665571) at iFILM. At the present moment, I have no audio, but IIRC, I believe there is a "Mr. Gorsky" reference towards the end of the clip is a giveaway that it is a joke. See this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18748&start=0&postdays=0&postorder =asc&highlight=gorsky) for a more in-depth look.

[AGN Fuel]

Don't jump to conclusions. The photo you show is actually the last of a series of 4 photos between AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866:

AS15-88-11863 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11863)
AS15-88-11864 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11864)
AS15-88-11865 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11865)
AS15-88-11866 (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-88-11866)

Of these 4, only the last has everything nicely grouped and your version of that image has clearly been cropped to enhance the effect!

Sorry folks, I need to make a slight mea culpa here - I have jumped to a conclusion myself! :oops:

88-11863 is actually taken by Jim Irwin of Dave Scott. Then they traded places and Scott took a sequence of 3 (not four) photos of Irwin.

From the ALSJ....


Fendell stops the pan to watch Jim take a picture of Dave, 11863. Compare the appearance of Silver Spur at the upper left with its appearance in AS15-87- 11748, which is a frame from Dave's SEVA color pan taken at 106:58:27.]

[

163:58:48 Allen: Good thinking, Jim. (Pause)
RealVideo Clip (3 min 36 sec)

163:59:01 Scott: He's always thinking.

163:59:05 Allen: Ain't he though. (Long Pause)

[Dave trades place with Jim and takes three photos, AS15-88- 11864, 11865, and 11866.]
[Few Apollo photographs have been reproduced more often than 11866, which shows Jim, the flag, the Rover, and the LM, with Mt. Hadley Delta in the background.]

This doesn't change the point of my original post, but my mistake needed to be corrected. Now, I'm just off to write 100 times, "I will check before posting".

[JayUtah]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot.

Hogwash. I've used an Apollo Hasselblad camera with the Biogon lens. With no practice at all I was able to take appropriately framed shots. You just sight along the top of the camera body.

Journalists take pictures all the time without using a viewfinder. It's not nearly as "impossible" as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be.

[JMV]

Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money
In one of your first posts you claimed tha you do some §D work on SGI. Then you should understand the difference between specular and diffuse reflection. Also, just because you've made a good photo that is later used in many ways is proof that it is a fake?


I've always doubted that specular vs. diffuse reflection -explanation with this particular photo. On later J-mission LMs the quadrant IV side was black, as can be seen in this Apollo 17 picture:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-134-20482.jpg
It was a bit more difficult finding a good close-up from Apollo 15 but with
as15-87-11796 (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/10100014.jpg)
you can compare the left and right sides. The MESA side looks black, unlike the quadrant where LRV was stored, which has the gold-foil-like Mylar.

[die Nullte]

im sorry but the picture is far to pin pointed. You try use your body to point in the rough direction of a subject picture.

Have you tried it? How can you be so sure that it can't be done? As Jay points out, photojournalists do it all the time. Haven't you ever seen them holding their cameras above the crowd and pointing it to where they think the subject is? These photos get published in newspapers.

[sts60]

This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

dank's image claims have already been finely diced, so I'll just pick on this.

NASA images may be used freely, as long as you don't try to imply an endorsement of your product. Hence, NASA doesn't make money on "postcards and advertising", except for relatively small sums from sales at NASA center gift shops. Not exactly a significant revenue source for the agency. You, however, could use the photographs for T-shirts, coffee mugs, postcards, whatever you want, and sell as many as people would buy.

You didn't study the subject at all before coming here, did you?

[ToSeek]

PBS had a show that interviewed the scientist responsible for the "Pillars of Creation" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/hubble.html) image. His wife is really ticked that he doesn't get a cut of all the t-shirts and postcards made from it.

[JayUtah]

...except for relatively small sums from sales at NASA center gift shops.

I believe NASA has subcontracted tourism at its centers to private companies.

[Daniel H.]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

So are you now accusing NASA of being a money making venture?

[Gillianren]

wow--wouldn't the budget people love to know that?

I'm going to second the call for improved clarity of your posts, dank. I'm really having a hard time reading them.

now that that's out of the way . . . .

I'll admit that most of my research on this particular subject is, well, here and Clavius. (thanks, Phil and Jay!) however, I have never seen a question that couldn't be answered using simple physics. could I have answered them, given how little I know about physics?

in many cases, yes. like the shadows thing. or the "waving" flag. or the lack of stars. frankly, even using basic common sense ought to tell you that it's far, far harder to fake such a massive government program than it is to just do it. (notice no one ever suggests that, say, the WPA was faked? it's because people know how many people were involved. they seem not to have the same awareness of Apollo.)

in short, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Apollo was real.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Somethin' Tells me, he Ain't Comin' Back ...

Score One, for The Good Guys?

Or ...

Just the Bull-Headed?

[Chip]

Journalists take pictures all the time without using a viewfinder. It's not nearly as "impossible" as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be.

A reporter friend of ours has sometimes held a camera high over his head if a crowd is in the way, and took pictures in the approximate direction of the action. They come out remarkably well.

In pre-digital Apollo era days reporters lugged around old Rolleiflex cameras or "Rolleis" which had viewfinders on top. They'd hold these up-side-down to snap pictures over their heads. They'd also simply shoot without even opening the view finder. Everything could be cropped in the darkroom. Photographers (who are not reporters) sometimes forget that one can take a picture with a camera in any angle. The finished photo can always be rotated. The Astronauts were not as rushed and they simply aimed in the right direction.

[Eta C]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

So are you now accusing NASA of being a money making venture?

You know, I'm reminded of Leon Lederman's (Nobel winner in physics and former director of the Fermi National Accelerator Lab) comment that went something like this.

"Science is not a religion. If it were, we'd have an easier time raising money."

[jrkeller]

In pre-digital Apollo era days reporters lugged around old Rolleiflex cameras or "Rolleis" which had viewfinders on top. They'd hold these up-side-down to snap pictures over their heads. They'd also simply shoot without even opening the view finder. Everything could be cropped in the darkroom. Photographers (who are not reporters) sometimes forget that one can take a picture with a camera in any angle. The finished photo can always be rotated.

As someone who has darkroom experience, black and white only, I can attest to that. I've done all kinds of enhancing and most of it is pretty easy to do as well as cropping.

If you what to see how bad the originals are check out the Apollo Image Library. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/) Apollo 16 is especially poor. About 40% are taken from the LRV, because you can see the LRV camera.

[twinstead]

Good thing you folks write for the lurkers, because of course you realize that the OP has days ago returned to whatever fringe site he came from claiming victory over the "government shills" at BABB?

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Somethin' Tells me, he Ain't Comin' Back ...

Score One, for The Good Guys?

Or ...

Just the Bull-Headed?

Called it ...

\:D/

[infocusinc]

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot.

Hogwash. I've used an Apollo Hasselblad camera with the Biogon lens. With no practice at all I was able to take appropriately framed shots. You just sight along the top of the camera body.

Journalists take pictures all the time without using a viewfinder. It's not nearly as "impossible" as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be.

I'm watching a vintage Ali fight right now on ESPN Classic and low and behold what do I see? A photographer at the side of the ring leaning in taking photos with a Hasselblad. No viewfinder and hes holding it at arms length, away from his head and into the ring. He blasts away by simply pointing the camera in the direction he wants it, cranking like crazy with his manual advance camera. Funny!

[JayUtah]

I think a lot of misconception is bred at the hands of conspiracists who claim expertise in photography. They are invariably studio photographers. Now there's nothing wrong with studio photographers, so Craig doesn't have to humph in indignation. But my point is simply that studio photographers approach the art very differently than journalistic or other opportunistic photographers. Often we see the rules and conventions of studio photography applied to Apollo photography, which is more closely aligned -- in my opinion -- with photo journalism.

[infocusinc]

I think a lot of misconception is bred at the hands of conspiracists who claim expertise in photography. They are invariably studio photographers. Now there's nothing wrong with studio photographers, so Craig doesn't have to humph in indignation. But my point is simply that studio photographers approach the art very differently than journalistic or other opportunistic photographers. Often we see the rules and conventions of studio photography applied to Apollo photography, which is more closely aligned -- in my opinion -- with photo journalism.

You are exactly right in my opinion. I have a lot of respect for those who capture images on the fly as it were and the Apollo astronauts were no exception.

I came to one other realization as I watched the fight and then did a web search to find the photographer, Neil Leifer. Neil, like the Apollo astronauts shot a hasselblad, which is a square format camera. Having shot the blad for years before moving to the 35mm format Canon 1Ds and 1Dsmkii in the last few years, I find find the rectangular 35mm format much harder to work with than the square of the blad. You have to move the camera horizontal or vertical whereas with the square its always right no matter what. I have to think this would make framing without a viewfinder much easier. Not a lot of people shoot square so their first hand experience is limited, unlike a 35mm style format which many have experience...mostly cutting off the heads and feet of their subject :)

[JayUtah]

I shot the Hasselblad MK70 with the viewfinder removed, and had no problem. I do have some difficulty with my 35mm shooting without the viewfinder, but that's because I have a predilection for long lenses.

Most of my photography is of the opportunistic variety. As such I get used to taking 20-30 shots for each one I keep. Yesterday I was at the zoo shooting pictures of butterflies with a 300mm lens on a Canon 20D. Since the depth of field for that lens at f/5.6 is about an inch at a range of 6 feet, a lot of shots simply drifted out of focus as my head moved. Disappointing, but worth it for the 4 or 5 shots that come out stunning.

When I hire a portrait photographer to do family portraits, each of the shots is properly exposed, framed, and lit. That's because the photographer controls each frame carefully. He can take all the time in the world to set up what he wants. I apprenticed with a portrait photographer, and the art really does seem to be in the setup. The clicking of the shutter is merely the end of a lengthy process of composing the shot and adjusting the technical parameters. The photographer is pretty sure of obtaining a technically acceptable shot each time.

There is, of course, a concession to empirical methods such as bracketing for exposure when using film whose exposure characteristics cannot be easily determined from instruments. But that is still a method; and it is still employed under controlled circumstances. At that point the photographer simply accepts that his instruments and his intuition together are not enough to ensure proper exposure.

You can't tell a butterfly to stand still. You either get the shot or you don't. You can recriminate forever about how great a shot it would have been if the butterfly had just been turned slightly differently, or if you had underexposed it by half a stop, or if you had stepped to the left to get a better background. That's more in line with "field" photography, and that's the photography that the astronauts practiced. More specifically, when you read about their training you understand that's what they were told to practice. And so I get very fed up with David Percy's pontifications about how photographers will want to work and why the Apollo photography is unacceptable.

http://www.clavius.org/img/sm-butterfly-1.jpg

[Peter B]

I've had similar experiences with photography.

My (then) fiance and I went into a studio for some photos. The photographer and her assistant spent a fair bit of time setting us up with props, adjusting the lighting, the background panels and the camera settings. Most of the photos were quite acceptable, though neither of us were terribly thrilled with the outcomes.

Then there were the wedding photos. The wedding was outdoors on a sunny autumn afternoon, the official photos were later in the afternoon, and the reception was indoors in the evening. The official photos were the most posed, though even there we used a bit of improvisation. Some of the reception photos were posed, while others were a bit opportunistic.

The result is that our proof album has only about 80% of the photos taken, judging by the numbers under the photos. Presumably the rest were unacceptable in some way to the photographer.

Now compare this to Apollo.

Our photographer is a professional, and takes these sorts of photos as her job. The Apollo astronauts did this as one aspect of their job, on top of everything else they had to learn. Our photographer had a lot of control over what she photographed and how she did so. The Apollo astronauts had to work in the environment they were in. They couldn't move rocks to better locations to photograph them. And so on...

[Donnie B.]

No wonder the Apollo photos include so few good pictures of butterflies.

[Lance]

http://www.clavius.org/img/sm-butterfly-1.jpg

Absolutely beautiful!

[infocusinc]

I shot the Hasselblad MK70 with the viewfinder removed, and had no problem. I do have some difficulty with my 35mm shooting without the viewfinder, but that's because I have a predilection for long lenses.

Most of my photography is of the opportunistic variety. As such I get used to taking 20-30 shots for each one I keep. Yesterday I was at the zoo shooting pictures of butterflies with a 300mm lens on a Canon 20D. Since the depth of field for that lens at f/5.6 is about an inch at a range of 6 feet, a lot of shots simply drifted out of focus as my head moved. Disappointing, but worth it for the 4 or 5 shots that come out stunning.

When I hire a portrait photographer to do family portraits, each of the shots is properly exposed, framed, and lit. That's because the photographer controls each frame carefully. He can take all the time in the world to set up what he wants. I apprenticed with a portrait photographer, and the art really does seem to be in the setup. The clicking of the shutter is merely the end of a lengthy process of composing the shot and adjusting the technical parameters. The photographer is pretty sure of obtaining a technically acceptable shot each time.

There is, of course, a concession to empirical methods such as bracketing for exposure when using film whose exposure characteristics cannot be easily determined from instruments. But that is still a method; and it is still employed under controlled circumstances. At that point the photographer simply accepts that his instruments and his intuition together are not enough to ensure proper exposure.

You can't tell a butterfly to stand still. You either get the shot or you don't. You can recriminate forever about how great a shot it would have been if the butterfly had just been turned slightly differently, or if you had underexposed it by half a stop, or if you had stepped to the left to get a better background. That's more in line with "field" photography, and that's the photography that the astronauts practiced. More specifically, when you read about their training you understand that's what they were told to practice. And so I get very fed up with David Percy's pontifications about how photographers will want to work and why the Apollo photography is unacceptable.

http://www.clavius.org/img/sm-butterfly-1.jpg

I can tell you with some degree of certainty that the actual act of making the exposure in a studio setting is the anticlimax. I have spent days preparing a single image, from concept, building the set, prepping the product, creating a lighting scheme, making test exposures and adjusting 10-20 lights oftem making a move as small as 1/4 inch to a given light. When the moment comes to expose the film ( or charge the sensor as it happens now) its a huge letdown. Days of hard work and toil are over, and you just tear it all down and put the gear away. Sure the resulting image has its own rewards, but for me (and most other studio product photographers I know) the real thrill is the chase, and finding solutions to the problems that product poses.

OT...is your 300mm the the F4 is L version? If not you should really give it a try. The IS is a wonderful addition and it make handholding pretty easy. I bought it for my wife to shoot birds with her 10D and its reaally great for that application.

[V-GER]

The evidence is there. Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first. Something to always be rembered of doing " The USA first to land a man on the moon" they love all that [bad word deleted]. (not to dig at anyone from the USA , this is just a point)

Don't you think the Soviets would have detected if the transmission didn't come from the Moon? and milk it for all the propaganda it would have been worth?

[Kesh]

Don't you think the Soviets would have detected if the transmission didn't come from the Moon? and milk it for all the propaganda it would have been worth?

Oh, but don't you know? The USA had bribed the Soviets to keep quiet, by sending them all that grain right around that time! 8)

(Yes, I've been reading these theories far, far too long. I know many of the rebuttals by heart. 8-[ )

[V-GER]

Kesh wrote:

Oh, but don't you know? The USA had bribed the Soviets to keep quiet, by sending them all that grain right around that time!

Like "miracle on ice", eh?

[PhantomWolf]

Don't you think the Soviets would have detected if the transmission didn't come from the Moon? and milk it for all the propaganda it would have been worth?

Oh, but don't you know? The USA had bribed the Soviets to keep quiet, by sending them all that grain right around that time! 8)

(Yes, I've been reading these theories far, far too long. I know many of the rebuttals by heart. 8-[ )

I always love this claim, can you just imagine the conversation.

Nixon - Morning, Mr Premire.

Brezhnev - Morning, Mr President.

N - Ummm... Look I'm not sure how to put this.

B - You're fired a nuclear weapon at us by accident?

N - No, No, nothing that serious, it's this race for the moon thing.

B - Oh that. How can we help?

N - Well you see, I've been talking to my guys at NASA and they tell me it just can't be done, but because we don't want to look like losers, we're going to fake it to make it look like we beat you.

B - Ummm... Let me get this right. You want to pretend to beat us, rather then actually beat us?

N - Exactly.

B - You want to fake it and us to just go along with it?

N - Exactly

B - Why?

N - Because we are fooling you into thinking we beat you.

B - But you just told me that you weren't going to really beat us. You know that we have our own space progrm to the moon, I'm assured that the troubles with the N-1 will be sorted out soon.

N - Well yeah. Still at lest we can fool all those silly commoners into thinking we went. And well, we want you to can your project too.

B - You want us to end our attempt to land manned missions to the moon?

N - Well yeah because if you do it after we had to fake it we'd look pretty stupid, so better you don't try and just tell everyone you never were interested in going.

B - So what you're asking us to do is to pretend that you beat us and that we were never going? And the reason for this is that you can then make everyone, including us, believe that you actually did make it?

N - Exactly

B - Why exactly should we agree to this after all we could just carry on and beat you like we have in everything else in space.

N - Um.... Well how about some grain?

B - Grain?

N - yeah Grain. I'll sent you a heap of grain in say... 5 years? How about that?

B - So you give us a heap of grain in 5 years and we keep quiet and scrap our moon project, claiming there wasn't really a race?

N - Exactly.

B - Well, I can't think of a reason why not, you've got yourself a deal, Mr President.

[mathyou9]

PhantomWolf, that is too funny. LOL!

[TheGalaxyTrio]

You guys have to realize when you are being trolled. The trolls are organized these days, and have web sites where they rate one another's trolling. Yahoo message boards are almost entirely trolls. Dank was a troll, plain and simple.

[Gillianren]

maybe so, but the conversation between (presumably) Nixon and (I guess) Brezhnev made it all worthwhile. like the cheese thread. we have to let off steam somehow.

[frenat]

It was obvious from his second or third post that he was just trolling. It was also obvious that he wasn't very good at it.

[Enzp]

Just because a troll started it, it doesn't mean we can't have an engaging discussion.

[Bob B.]

Just because a troll started it, it doesn't mean we can't have an engaging discussion.
I agree. Sometimes the trolls get us thinking about things or digging for information we might not have done otherwise. Anytime I learn something new about Apollo I consider it time well spent and a rewarding experience.

[pzkpfw]

One thing I'd have to point out is that apart from the basic themes of this site, I learn a lot about critical thinking, logic and analysis by watching the exchanges between the "trolls" and the many who respond.

Cheers,

[W.F. Tomba]

One thing I'd have to point out is that apart from the basic themes of this site, I learn a lot about critical thinking, logic and analysis by watching the exchanges between the "trolls" and the many who respond.
I second that, but boy, that learning is a double-edged sword. Today I picked up the Des Moines Register, looked at a column by a well-known syndicated columnist, and was just appalled at the poor quality of his critical thinking, logic, and analysis (not to mention his writing skills). It was the kind of stuff that would easily get you called a troll here, and yet this guy gets paid to do it, and people read it and probably feel really intellectual for doing so.

Depressing.

[dgavin]

Dank,

I find your trivilizing of one of the major miles stones in mankind history, reather insulting.

As i've pointed out many times before, there is one thaing that could not be faked and that was that just about every directional radio attena at the time was point as the source of the video and voice tranmissions.

They were all aimed at one spot in space. The moon. Simple telemetry and triangualtion verified that many time over.

Even the USSR attenta's were monitoring the entire afair, and they would have been the very -first- to cry foul if we had tried to fake it.

So lets hear you explaination for the known fact that the voice and data signals you say are faken, originated on the moon and not some close near earth sattalite.

[mihulka3]

Why don't you all discuss the numerous "documented" wierd UFO sightings by astronauts both in space and on earth. These are really interesting and there is even some good footage of these so called UFO's including some from the Shuttle. Some of these these are tough to explain. I don't know what they are but I'll be arrogant and say only a fool could believe we are alone the universe. Maybe NASA started all these conspiracies themselves, what better way to stay in the spotlight and on peoples minds.

[PhantomWolf]

Why don't you all discuss the numerous "documented" wierd UFO sightings by astronauts both in space and on earth. These are really interesting and there is even some good footage of these so called UFO's including some from the Shuttle. Some of these these are tough to explain. I don't know what they are but I'll be arrogant and say only a fool could believe we are alone the universe. Maybe NASA started all these conspiracies themselves, what better way to stay in the spotlight and on peoples minds.

While I don't know which "documented" sightings you mean because your comment is so vauge, all the ones I have seen are easily identified as sun lit debries or ice particles, reflections on windows, or parts of the actual craft themselves. We might not be alone in the universe, but then the universe is extremely big. We might be alone in the galaxy, but then it's pretty big too. The real question is are we alone in our solar system and as of yet there is no solid evidience of anyone else, even just visiting.

Edited to add, no NASA didn't start them.

[JayUtah]

Why don't you all discuss the numerous "documented" wierd UFO sightings by astronauts both in space and on earth.

We do. You'll have to be more specific if you want specific answers. Many of the "documented sightings" from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo are simply statements that various laymen misunderstand or choose to misrepresent. There are even some wholly fabricated "documented" sightings from Apollo 11 in which "Neil Armstrong" says implausible things like, "those babies are huge!" etc.

There are also statements from Gordo Cooper etc. that are frequently passed about in UFO enthusiast circles but turn out to be far less documented than originally thought.

Some of these these are tough to explain.

Only if you disregard the prosaic possibilities.

...I'll be arrogant and say only a fool could believe we are alone the universe.

It is unlikely we are alone in the universe. Unfortunately the same mathematics that virtually guarantee intelligent life elsewhere in the universe by the same token dictate that it is highly unlikely that any such intelligence has contacted us. One does not have to believe in the claims of alien sightings and visitations in order to believe that aliens exist.

Maybe NASA started all these conspiracies themselves, what better way to stay in the spotlight and on peoples minds.

Interesting.