Faked images from our trip to the moon?

reply to post by Seibei


Not every shot taken were good shots, NASA selected the best of them to release. All of the Hasselblad images are square, 70mm, the astronauts had no view finder, they were specially trained to point and shoot from the chest mounted cameras, they didn't always hit the best framing but had surprisingly great success due to the intensive training and fact sharing after each mission, NASA still uses these basic Hasselblad cameras today, though probably digital now. When you don't see a square shot, dead space was cropped out.

I have serious problem with these conspiracy scenarios.

The problem of scale.
At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.

Disgruntled employees.
Loyalties change. Nobody fired during the Apollo project tried to retaliate against his former employer by revealing the dirty little secret.

No evidence of reward.
The hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the Apollo project are scattered across the country now, most of them enjoying retirement. Where is the evidence of the fantastic wealth resulting from their payoffs? Where are the mansions, the sports cars? In order for a payoff to be an incentive, it must be considerably more than what the payee would otherwise receive. It has to be appealing enough to squelch hundreds of thousands of consciences. And you have to be able to spend your reward, otherwise it's no incentive.

No evidence of threat.
Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.

No posthumous revelations.
Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.

No Boy Scouts.
Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.

Clearly the idea of keeping half a million or so people quiet for thirty years and counting is a very tall order.

THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM SCENARIO

At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.

This has two advantages. First, it is well known that the probability of keeping a secret diminishes rapidly as the number of people who know the secret increases even slightly. So by keeping this number to an absolute minimum you'll reduce the number of people who can spill the beans. Second, the NASA employees and contractors will go to their graves staunchly asserting that NASA did what it said it did.

The big disadvantage is that the contractors now believe they must actually build the space hardware. Grumman must actually believe it is building a lunar lander, North American must actually build a command module, Boeing and others must actually believe they are building a moon-capable rocket. Integration teams from all these companies must make the products work together. Quality control officers from NASA must meticulously inspect the work.

These engineers are not dummies. The whole reason NASA hires them to build its spaceships is because they have the expertise to do it. And so when NASA tells Grumman to build a lunar lander, it knows that Grumman engineers are going to go out and discover for themselves just what problems are involved in landing on the moon, and then proceed to solve them. If NASA executives are bent on fooling everyone then they couldn't care less if Grumman succeeds. But Grumman would care. And the NASA quality control people would care. If Grumman falls short, Grumman will know it, and so will the NASA employees who inspect the work.

In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.

I had covered the Apollo flag movement in another thread awhile ago.
I found 4 cases of the flag being moved, and NASA's explanations to be poor excuses:

Originally posted by FoosM
Apollo 14

First EVA February 5 09:42:13 am 113:39:11
Second EVA February 6 03:11:15 am 131:08:13
Lunar liftoff 01:48:42 pm 141:45:40

Flag Position 1
www.hq.nasa.gov...

114:44:02
Down-Sun Al at the U.S. flag. S-Band antenna shadow, Ed's shadow, the LM shadow. Al's OPS antenna is up.
Before taking this series, they turned the flag so that it was face on to the 16-mm DAC mounted on the MET ( This is the orientation seen in the tourist pictures, AS14-66-9231, 9232, and 9233).

www.hq.nasa.gov...

114:45:46 Down-Sun portrait of Ed at the U.S. flag.

Flag Position 2

After they finished taking these three tourist pictures, they turned the flag so it was face on to the TV camera (Photo AS14-66-9324). See a discussion following 131:09:18.

Flag Position 3

During the current depressurization, at about 131:10:26, the flag suddenly moves out of the TV field-of-view and, as can be seen after 135:02:45 when Al gets back to the LM at the end of the traverse and re-aims the TV, it ends up pointing at the TV on an azimuth of about 045. A frame from Ed's Station H pan, AS14-68-9486 provides additional evidence.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Flag Position 4

Finally, we note that AS14-66-9338, a picture taken out Ed's window after the PLSS jettison, shows that the flag has moved again, undoubtedly as a result of the pre-jettison depressurization; ending up pointing at an azimuth of about 335

As for the timing of the first flag motion - which is clearly a result of the EVA-2 depressurization - we note that the dump valve in the forward hatch was first opened at about 131:07:09. The interval from the second valve opening to the corresponding arrival at the CCIG - 190 meters from the LM - is about 30 seconds. The time at which the flag moves, 131:10:26. What seems to be required to explain the movement of the flag is that Shepard 'cracked' the hatch open - but without fully opening it - about 30 seconds before the third CCIG peak about 131:10:01; and that the resultant oxygen flow was far less directional than the flow out the valve, arrived at the flag before arriving at the CCIG, and imparted sufficient force on the flag to move it. The limited availability of Apollo 14 data does not allow us to be very precise; and what is required to sort out what actually happened is a detailed numerical simulation and/or carefully designed laboratory demonstration Thanks to Journal Contributors Ian Regan, Harald Kucharek, Ken Glover and to members of the Bad Astronomy bulletin board for raising the issue of the orientation of the Apollo 14 flag and for helpful input...

Hmmm... what did Bad Astronomy, and they do mean bad, say about the lack of crater on the moon?

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

www.badastronomy.com...


"In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure."

So how much pressure did it take to spin that Flag around? Why did it not continue to spin or flap? And why didnt it just fall over? It simply doenst make sense.

Check out the lift off.





What did they do, superglue the flag pole into the ground?

And look at the first picture.
That flag looks like its flat on the ground!
I mean what the hell

Does US propaganda have no shame?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TKDRL


You don't think the astronauts moved the flag so you can see it better with the lunar lander in backgound? Bumped it, replanted it, maybe the launch off the moon turned it.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleIf you studied it,then you would know that not all radiation is alike. The people who do study radiation have no issues with the abilities of the Apollo spacecraft and spacesuits to protect the astronauts enough during the short Apollo missions.

What is your specific evidence that contradicts this scientific knowledge about radiation and the Apollo missions? Could you show me the investigations and calculations you have done that proves all of the other scientists wrong?

...(By the way, Dr. Van Allen himself said that the astronauts were not on the van Allen belts long enough to be subjected to very dangerous doses of radiation. Are you now doubting Dr. Van Allen himself?

You must have missed the post in this thread with the link where reporters with Media Bypass tracked Van Allen down in '97. He did not have a prepared spiel and cracked out of turn badly. Regarding how at first he said it was deadly, then it was okey dokey. "It's not rocket surgery." - Lexx
Look it up yourself. I'm just sayin.
I do understand the different types of radiation.

The flag shadow would be your first clue the flag is not on the ground in the top photo, you are having a problem with adjusting to the perspective of the viewpoint.

What Phil Plait explains makes perfect sense. Which leads us to the fact that the surface temperatures on the moon would be insurmountable to protect against, here's where the lack of atmosphere being in a virtual vacuum comes back in to play. Those temperatures are of the moons surface, the dirt and rocks, not the ambient (air), all the air has to be heated from are direct sun rays, which is why the extravehicular operations on the surface were conducted in the morning when the sun was low, and note a moon's day is a moon's year, around the earth, which is a bit less than an earth month, a moon phase. This holds the same in the moon's shadow temperatures.

It was said that the camera film inside the reflective coated Hasselblad cameras enjoyed relatively comfortable 'room temperatures'.

Interesting side note, the astronauts only returned the Hasselblad film and left all of the cameras back on the moon where they are today, a nice little bonus find for the next crew to walk the moon!

The crossbar holding the flag out was not a rigid mount, it could rotate. All of this information is accessible on the internet today, verified by the people who designed the equipment and not always an official NASA site. You see because designing something that went to the moon is sort of a highly prized project for the people involved in the designing, so they want people to know for their own advertising.

Personally, I think the trip to the moon was all fake. I've seen Michael Jackson Moonwalk and thousand times and NONE of the images from the moon are even remotely close to the Moonwalk!

Two question for the smartest 14yr old on this blog..
.
1) Since we can see a nats ass at two light years away can anyone on earth, given the exact location of the landing, see evidence of a landing?

2) Over the last 30 years of the space shuttle why did they never bother to take an orbit or two of the moon just to show off?

reply to post by MissingRonnieR


Yeah, more than 30 years ago we had satellites that could read newsprint on the ground on earth, but nothing devoted to getting clear pics of the moon landing sites?

reply to post by grizzle2


That's not true, and it isn't true today. Closeup Google map images comes from airplanes, not satellites.

reply to post by MissingRonnieR


I believe the Apollo missions required orbiting the moon quite a lot.

reply to post by weedwhacker


NO, there is no "C" on the ground!!! And, that image is the one with the flaw.....happened when copies were made!!!
got a link for that weed?......also what are you doing out of the 911 threads?
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by cushycrux

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
reply to post by cushycrux

 

Oh sorry i thought you were some sort of expert or astronaut....my mistake

I dont need to read a load of threads to know it was faked, these are just a few of my questions that cannot be explained.

"...I dont need to read a load of threads to know it was faked..."

edit on 4-4-2011 by cushycrux because: (no reason given)

haha so im a troll now....because i dont agree with you that makes me a troll...of course it does young man haha.
You say you have explained it a 1000 times....unfortunately i cant spend my week looking through your posts. You believe as you will and il believe as i will. The evidence to support there was no manned mission is evidence enough for myself. Unless you are an expert or have been to the moon then i cant take you seriously.

Originally posted by IllustronicThat's not true, and it isn't true today. Closeup Google map images comes from airplanes, not satellites.

You're wrong.

www.wired.com...

"Since around the late 70s, the military has used high-resolution spy satellites capable of reading newspaper headlines in Red Square."


note - I do not make embarrassing mistakes all that often.

I think we all know that the moon landings were faked. I think we know what's on the moon but are afraid to go up there. Some kind of B.O.P or something perhaps?

This debate will rage forever the allegation that the ***FLAG WAS THE WRONG WAY ROUND^^^
anyway ..I recon all the footage was fake and armstrong and santa had a bad seven hour stand off that was palmed off on the audience as preparation mean while bad # was going down and santa wanted them off his death star...

Actually a few years ago (1998) or something some wit revealed that the images were
composites is some there is light rubble others sand and some the astronaught was 20km tall
ridiculous , I have had a lot of fun with many different editors proving that with armstrong landing
photo's which were real moon real photo composites and the lunar surface was at least 20 kn if not 50kms away
so yea no wonder many problems will be pointed out with the so called moon landing and who niel is "santa" thats code for aliens I bet !!!! my research om the moon revealed this...
www.1minpages.com...
www.1minpages.com...

The thing is there are reflectors on the moon that we point lasers at and measure it's distance from the earth. One of the observatories that do these measurements is in Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. How could these reflectors get placed accurately with out us physically landing on the moon at least once?

Lets ask them about it or better yet is there any ATS members any where near Sunspot, New Mexico that can go visit them and ask?

reply to post by grizzle2


I can't see a gnat's ass in that image and it is not from light years away.

reply to post by TKDRL


Hi everyone...I own a business and a good friend and customer of mine worked as an Engineer for NASA for 40 yrs. We have discussed the moon landings many times and he admitted to me after a few discussions that the landings are faked. They took place in a remote desert, and he has shown me pictures of people setting up the place like a movie set. I know that some of you will say lets see the pictures, but he will not allow me to get copies. He was a famous guy in NASA whom I have googled and he thinks if I show the pictures that could be traced back to him. I also would like to post them on here but he will not allow me.

Sorry folks your just gonna have to take my word for it. For me the whole thing is mind blowing because the entire program was built on a lie.