Originally posted by harrisjohns
Shai, what's the NASA URL for the last pics you posted?
I can't tell whether the photos you posted (earlier) of the helmet reflections are 'photoshopped' fakes or not but, like Howard, I strongly suspect
that they are considering the page is clearly intended for graphic doodlers and photoshoppers to have a bit of fun. However, whether they are or they
aren't, it still looks to me as if the astronaut pictured in the foreground of the helmet reflection is probably taking the photo with his
chest-mounted camera so a mysterious fourth cameraman would not be required.
Remember that the helmets are convex and so the reflected image would look artificially much further away.
Regarding the dust ...
" ... dust does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves
exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow
around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.
Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an
atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth." (from
I do accept your assertion that there are inconsistencies in the records, but, as I've said before, this is only to be expected in such a massive,
complex mission involving so many people.
It is therefore illogical to jump to the conclusion that small inconsistencies must mean a massive cover-up and falsification of evidence.
[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]
[edit on 3-2-2005 by harrisjohns]
Go here for a real good chuckle...: www.hq.nasa.gov...
As for the gravity experiment..that was duplicated on cosmic apollo..didn't you see it?
As for the dust argument....hmmm.yes..I get it..BUT..here's a quote from Armstrong talking to david brinkley of NBC news veru shortly after the
Apollo 11 mission:
"ARMSTRONG: I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure—I can't recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the
horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me
that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and
when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust.
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all
the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just
like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the
way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised. "
To me it seems contradictory to say in one breath that you were surprised at the trajectory of the dust you kicked up and to say there was no dust
kicked up.....this is a real confusion here..
But I'm not the only one confused..
In an official NASA debriefing Armstrong and Aldrin are asked who took photos of what..who held the camera...
"Armstrong/Aldrin debriefed about photos/NASA transcript:AS11-40-5886
Aldrin - (Looking through the Apollo 11 photo catalog) "Now, where's the picture from the rear (of the spacecraft) that we tried to get the Earth?
That was much later, wasn't it?"
Armstrong - "That's later. I took that. (Looking through the picture book) There."
Jones - "5923 (**)."
Aldrin - "Now, where the camera went and how you (Neil) got it to be able to go here (to get 5923), I'm not sure. Did we set it down somewhere? Did
we ever do that, in transferring it? Set it down and pick it up? Or did we actually hand it, one to the other."
Armstrong - "I don't remember. Your recollection is essentially the same as my own."
Two paragraphs later in that same doicument we read:
Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong. Finally George Low or Bob Gilruth suggested that Duff call Armstrong to ask him. Duff clearly
remembers the conversation with Armstrong who was sleeping in the LRL. It went like this."
"Duff: 'Neil, this is Brian. When did you give the camera to Buzz?'"
"Armstrong: 'I never did.'"
But when David Brinkley asked Armstrong the very same question here was the response:
"BRINKLEY: When you were on the Moon, there are not that many photographs or you on the Moon. There seem to be much more of Buzz Aldrin. That's
because you were taking more of the photographs?
ARMSTRONG: He's a lot more photogenic than I am. [Laughter] I had the job of taking a lot of the pictures. That was part of my assigned
responsibility. There was a short time in the middle where I transferred the camera to Buzz and he took some pictures, and we each had assigned
objectives that we were supposed to catch. I think we probably caught a fair share of the things we were supposed to take pictures of, and not too
many really bad shots. [Laughter]
So we go from..I never handed Buzz the camera.....to I might have set it down and he picked it up..to I transferred the camera and he took
Anyone in the military who has ever been debriefed by people with a lower sedcurity clearance than you have will understand the coded phrase 'your
recollection is the same as mine' for what it is.."stick to the script" or we are both reading from the same sheet here so whatever he says goes
But that's my inference and doesn't have to be yours.
As for inconsistencies in the records, etc....sure humans make errors and get their facts wrong..and this was a complicated project...so of course
s*** was bound to happen..that's the first rule of any operation...one of the constants.
So it defied all logic that with such primitive tools and training, and with a history of major training accidents up to the time of launch that our
guys made it without a hitch....
I can still accept that they made it...but what I find difficult to this day is reconciling glaring anomalies with the official story....like the
footage seen in Australia..and the sabotage of their transmitter on the day of the launch so that all feeds had to go through Houston
Australian transmitter problems:
Quantum: The pictures were received by the NASA Tracking Station at Honeysuckle Creek in the ACT, and from there they were relayed to Houston. The
Honeysuckle Creek Station was one of a dozen or so tracking stations around the globe. In Australia, it was supported by dishes at nearby Tidbinbilla
and Parkes. Tidbinbilla had been planned as the major link. But at the 11th hour, things went wrong.
Australian Engineer: The transmitter supplied to Tidbinbilla blew up before the mission started, and despite the fact that the engineers repaired it
very quickly, the managers at Houston decided to switch the support of the lunar module from Tidbinbilla to Honeysuckle.
So what the australians saw was different that what Houstaon was feeding the press from their monitors..and that would explain the flurry of news
reports the day after about seeing astronauts kick a coke bottle on the lunar surface. I will post that article from the west australian as soon as I
can get the ciopy..but it doesn't explain the coke bottle.
One theory is that NASA was filming or using film of ground-based doubles at Edwards who mimicked the actions of their colleagues on the moon..and
that once NASA engineers saw the unexplainable on the lunar surface they swithced to the ground feed.
Again, no one has explained that back flap on the astronauts PLSS that isn't there on the video..
Whatsmore..the arguments tend to switch between what makes sense on earth and what makes sense on the moon.
For instance...the explanation for the anamolous lunar mountain pictures ..in which hoaxers claim it is impossible to have the same background from
two seperate landing sites kilometers apart..that with mountains so high it wouldn't make a difference:
That's an earthly argument and is inconsistent with what we see on so many other lunar pics..the dramatic closeness of the horizon line, due to the
much more profound curvature of a smaller orb....meaning just a few hundred feet should already make a difference..let alone several kilometrs.
Rememebr what Armstrong said about what surprised him on the moon..
" I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon."
So look at those mountain photos again....
Or go here and see the photgraphic evidence through different eyes.
And here's another helmet pic with two astronauts visible in the background.AGAIN..the official record says only 2 astronauts were ever on the
surface at any one time with the other in the LM..so we DO have an extra astronaut on a lunar walk who shouldn't be there.
As for phot0-shop techniques in the 60's...again this is mixing things somewhat....on the one hand we have the tools to take national geographic like
fotos of the moon while on the moon..and we have NASA's own assurance that they composited some photos at the time..and that later they played even
more with the pics...so how can one turn around and say that since there was no photo shop in the 60's splicing and composing pics like this was
Look at the photos and visit the links and decide
And get back to me with your thoughts.