NASA "smoking gun" evidence for Moon photos hoaxing

Thanks to all for the last posts, been both informative and interesting. Will have to look more into the information and links supplied.

Zorgon: What is that Eros object supposed to be? I was unable to recognize it from the photo.

EDIT: Ok I did a brief search and found the object and more information, it does look pretty artificial. Do you know what resolution these photos are in, estimated size of the object etc? Also, do they have any better images available? I found some on NASA but they are extremely small. The object does look rather unnatural though. I found another image that seem to have an object located down in the left corner. Circular, it does not seem like a crater as it seems to be above the ground casting a shadow. Unfortunately the quality of this image is also too bad to give much thought to what this object is.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

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

Yea, we went to the moon...30 years ago technology was no where near where it is today, yet today we can not even get the space shuttle to orbit the earth without problems, yet suppossedly we went to the moon, walked on it and flew back to earth in one piece over 30 yrs agao...uh, yea, right...

Originally posted by IX-777
jra: A couple quick examples from one of my previous posts showing mountains rather near the LM:
bp1.blogger.com...

bp3.blogger.com...

You really need to start using higher resolution photos...

For the first image you linked to:
AS17-147-22517 Which shows the LM and part of the shadow
AS17-147-22518 which shows the rest of the shadow.

For the second image:
AS17-147-22527

Now those are much nicer and clearer to look at than those tiny thumbnail images you had. Like we both agreed that the surface of the Moon isn't perfectly flat. There are many rises and depressions along the surface and in these photos I see a slight rise in elevation of the surface towards South Massif, where the LM's shadow is. You can clearly see that this small rise is cutting off our view of the base of South Massif.

Take a look at photo 22518 that I linked to above and take note of the small cluster of 3 rocks in the middle of the image at the top of the small rise and of the other rock (named "Geophone Rock") on the right, near the edge of the frame. Now compare that to a photo taken from higher up, inside the LM looking in the same direction. AS17-147-22481. You can see that the Lunar surface actually continues behind those rocks and that we still can't quite see the base of South Massif.

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.

Clearly the ground isn't smooth or perfectly flat as I have shown in the above photos. And that you can't even see the base of the mountain due to the uneven surface cutting off our view of it. Things are a lot further away then they appear. Heck, even the astronauts themselves had trouble judging distances while on the Moon. For example, remember that rock I called "Geophone rock"? It's that rock on the very right edge of photos 22518 and 22481. Well it's actually about 180m away from the LM. Here's a close up.

AS17-147-22543

It's actually quite a large boulder. You should also take note that South Massif in the background hasn't changed much in size or appearance even though they've moved closer to it and the uneven surface is still making it difficult to see the base of the mountain. And here's a photo (AS17-147-22554) taken near "Geophone rock", looking back towards the LM. Note that you can't even see the very bottom of the LM, due to the uneven surface.

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.

Were the backgrounds false, then how do you explain the parallax when you flip back and forth between two or more images, taken in different spots, looking at the same location? Here's one example made by ngchunter from Apollo 15. link. The rapid flipping between two images is a bit hard on the eyes, but try to focus on the mountains in the background and you'll see a 3d like effect created. If the backgrounds were fake, you would not get this effect at all.

Originally posted by zorgon
But they have Energia which is a really great vehicle

NPO Energia is still around, but the heavy-lift Energia rocket is no longer produced. Only two were made and launched.

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

They sold us out I tell ya

Umm... that image is from this site and it was made by a guy in Australia named Krzys Kotwicki. It is not an official Energia or NASA image in any way shape or form.

Even Robert Bigelow is launching his space station modules from Russia...

Because it's cheaper and he didn't need a large rocket to launch Genesis 1 and 2. However Bigelow aerospace plans to launch the Sundancer space habitat module on a Falcon 9 and possibly launching there Orion lite capsule on either a Falcon 9 or Atlas V.

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

The Russian Shuttles you mean? Buran (the only function shuttle) was destroyed in a hanger collapse and Ptichka is now the property of Kazakhstan, and sits in the MIK Building at the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Believe me, I wish the Russian shuttle program was never cancelled and were still operational, as I really like them. They had the potential to be a really good space craft, but sadly we'll never know.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by jra]

Thanks for taking the time making that gif animation, I see what you mean. But that does not mean I agree - as far I can see the background may very well simply be somewhat off to the side between those images rather than different angles. More comparisions between images of the same background would be needed to properly determine this.

For me it still looks like they used the same background and changed the foreground. The image you link to with the large rock just strengthen this for me as this rock is so large that it should have been visible on the other photos as well having that background, even if just the tip was sticking up from one of those mounds you claim are there. For me it looks like the foreground is the only thing changing, and it is also somewhat convenient that they are located on top of a mound that hides all other details in all other directions from where the photos are taken so that background and foregrounnd change so much in between these different locations - a bit too convenient for me.

Also, why do you think scientific experts such as the designer of the Hasselblad camera used on the moon to take these photos are skeptical towards these photos? I would certainly believe he should know better than most people how the photos should have looked, after all he did produce the cameras and he should have enough understanding of how such photos would be even on the moon since he was hired for this specific job in the first place.

For now I will still have to be on his side, sorry.

-Maggador

reply to post by jra

Shuttle Buran & Antonov AN225 Mriya




Space Shuttle BURAN 1988, USSR



So which ones are landing at the beginning?



I like the little mini shuttle too...

Path of Buran



The Black Spaceship Polyus




[edit on 13-9-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by IX-777
For me it looks like the foreground is the only thing changing, and it is also somewhat convenient that they are located on top of a mound that hides all other details in all other directions from where the photos are taken so that background and foregrounnd change so much in between these different locations - a bit too convenient for me.

Well there are still 5 other landing sites, some with mountains, others in flatter areas. Not all of them have "convenient mounds" to hide things.

And why would you not expect the foregrounds to change? If I take a photo out in the country side and then drive a bit further down the road and take another photo. The foreground will be completely different.

Also, why do you think scientific experts such as the designer of the Hasselblad camera used on the moon to take these photos are skeptical towards these photos?

Jan Lundberg was an engineer, not a photographic analysis expert. Those are two completely different professions requiring very different skill sets. Asking a photographer would be better and more than one just to be more thorough. It's odd that people like Mary Bennett and David Percy didn't try to interview more people from Hasselblad (at least not to my knowledge anyway).

Have you ever visited Clavius.org at all? They talk about Jan Lundberg here

@Zorgon:

Lets not get too off topic and highjack this thread. But I'll just say that there were a number of aero and static testers. Here's a list None of them were space worthy.

jra: Yes the foreground would change, but if you also had photos taken towards the direction you were driving you would be able to make out some of the details there before driving towards it. The other photos you mention are even more convenient as they do not even contain any background reference to measure anything from so those would be even easier to hoax.

And yes Jan Lundberg may not be a photographic analysis expert, but I think we could call him an expert in photographic engineering - and I would assume he should have rather in-depth knowledge regarding the moon and photographic conditions etc there considering he was hired to develop the cameras they used there. Since he is directly working with developing cameras I would also assume that he would be considered a photographic expert as well. I agree that more Hasselblad employees should been interviewed though.