Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

Originally posted by jraThe extra mountain on the cover is what I was referring to as "artistic license". It's really not a big deal. The original photo is available.

You can call adding an extra mountain to the cover of SP-368 "artistic license" but to me it represents the mark of a whistleblower.

According to your theory someone at NASA specifically selected THAT photo A15-86-11603 and then made the conscious decision to add an extra mountain to it? For "artistic" reasons? Are you kidding me?

I believe that my theory has equal merit: A whistleblower could have added the extra mountain as a way to draw our attention to the contents of SP-368 "Bio-medical results of Apollo" because the contents of SP-368 could be partially or totally made up.

“Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon…The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn’t believe it for a minute, that ‘them television fellers’ could make things look real that weren’t. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn’t ahead of his time.” – President Bill Clinton

...there's my 2 cents!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by jraThe extra mountain on the cover is what I was referring to as "artistic license". It's really not a big deal. The original photo is available.

You can call adding an extra mountain to the cover of SP-368 "artistic license" but to me it represents the mark of a whistleblower.

And the "evidence" you have for this being a "whistleblower" rather than for artistic purposes is available to you? You intend to share your source with us?

See how by placing the word, "whistleblower" and "evidence" in quotes I can cast suspicion onto the legitimacy of the claim?

Clever, huh? Oh... wait... you already knew that!

According to your theory someone at NASA specifically selected THAT photo A15-86-11603 and then made the conscious decision to add an extra mountain to it? For "artistic" reasons? Are you kidding me?

So your position is that the blackened left portion of the cover is a "mountain" and you hold that position SO THAT you can then claim that it was the work of a disgruntled cover art designer to hint that it was a hoax?

Or, to use your idiom: Are you kidding me?!

Let us walk through this scenario together:

So, tens of thousands of NASA personnel were in the dark regarding the hoax, but a cover art designer was let in on the secret?

And his only means of divulging the entire Moon landing Apollo program as a hoax was to add a black portion to the cover of a report?

Am I getting this right?

So this cover art designer was one of the handful of NASA people on a "need to know" list; and in all of the years since designing that cover, he has remained quiet-- said not a word-- but just lets that "mountain" which you see speak volumes-- the clear and certain "proof" that the Moon landings were a hoax.

I see.

A bunch of medical professionals and particle physicists sitting in a conference room going over the report, and one of them begins, "Gentlemen. I want to draw your attention to the black mountain on the left side of this report cover. Clearly, the information contained within this report is not to be trusted."

You think the world works that way, do you?

I believe that my theory has equal merit: A whistleblower could have added the extra mountain as a way to draw our attention to the contents of SP-368 "Bio-medical results of Apollo" because the contents of SP-368 could be partially or totally made up.

Equal merit?

Please define the word, "merit."

We can discuss the word "equal" in any follow-up as necessary.

reply to post by Frira


Well Frira, SP-368 is going into my "unanswered questions" folder. You haven't provided any substantive argument concerning the Magic Mountain. I have heard others argue to me that it costs too much to print in black and I have heard others argue that the Magic Mountain represents some kind of artistic license. These are the desperate excuses of the Apollo Cheerleading Cult.

Yes, I am calling it the Magic Mountain now because of you and your associated cult members can't explain how it got there! Try Harder, Dig Deeper

We will all need to abide by ATS motto "Deny Ignorance". I liked the scenarios that you wrote out but they are quite useless. My scenario is equally plausible.

We are at an impasse. Neither of us can find any evidence about Magic Mountain. Does anybody out there have any clues?

Could start by looking at the document itself:

SP-368 Managing Editors

Richard S. Johnston, Lawrence F. Dietlein, M.D., and Charles A. Berry, M.D.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Scientific and Technical Information Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C., 1975

history.nasa.gov...

Do you have any half decent picture of that? I don't wanna say anything about that stamp sized one. Also a picture of the rear cover would be nice too.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Typical offset printing, no, EVERY kind of offset printing used black ink, what do you think CYMK stands for? Cyan (blue base) Magenta, (red base) Yellow, and K, BLACK!

There is no color printing today or in the 60's that didn't include black base ink, powder, or dye. That person is not familiar at all with the printing industry.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Sayanara, would you please stop beating that poor dead horse for a moment and share your theory about this publication? Did someone at the Government Printing Office accidentally get a copy of an "unprocessed" photograph and use it? Did someone deliberately alter a photo to convey a secret message? If an amateurish cover on a book is your big smoking gun, you must at least have a theory of your own to explain it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I believe that my theory has equal merit: A whistleblower could have added the extra mountain as a way to draw our attention to the contents of SP-368 "Bio-medical results of Apollo" because the contents of SP-368 could be partially or totally made up.

Sorry, I forgot that you do have a theory; your theory is that an apprentice graphic designer at the GPO read the entire contents of a NASA technical publication and, based on his extensive medical knowledge, concluded that the data was fabricated. In order to communicate this to the world, he chose a random photograph, cropped it, added a mountain and changed the color of the sky. Brilliant. My theory is that when the GPO got the document, the cover looked like this:



www.hq.nasa.gov...

This is unusually boring, even by NASA standards, so they let someone come up with something "jazzier" for the consumer market. Using the tools available in 1975, the designer selected a photo, seemingly at random, cut along the horizon with a razor blade, cropped it along one edge with a paper cutter, glued it to a piece of black construction paper, transferred the title onto a piece of acetate using vinyl stick-on letters, placed the acetate over the assembled collage and didn't like the way it looked. He then peeled the cropped photo off the black construction paper and glued it to a different photo. He still didn't like the way it looked, but the extra mountain helped balance out the frame. He then used a razor to cut out the sky from this stage of the collage and realized what he didn't like about the image: the sky was too dark. It was depressing.... so, he glued the whole mess to a piece of white construction paper, transferred the title onto acetate in black vinyl letters, stuck the acetate on top of the collage, put the whole mess on a special stand to be photographed and didn't light it properly. Although it was a shambles, I'm sure his or her supervisor just shrugged and used it anyway, muttering the ancient benediction: "Close enough for government work."

From a composition point of view, the extra mountain adds balance and is more pleasing to the eye, especially considering the location of the title. The original photo along with the title text location would have been a bit unbalanced and not as pleasing.

I think that is the more likely reason that the graphic artist added the extra mountain, rather than he or she somehow being privy to the moon hoax conspiracy and telling the world about it through a book cover. Sorry, but that latter idea is quite a stretch.

Black based color in pigments is the most stable of all colors, it is carbon based, how more basal can a pigment of color be?
Would you like me to explore how other colors than black are derived from, like cobalts, cadmiums, prussians, oxides and dioxazines, and so on, in short they come from chemicals, black being carbon based is the most table of all of them. look it up

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Frira

 

Well Frira, SP-368 is going into my "unanswered questions" folder. You haven't provided any substantive argument concerning the Magic Mountain.

The burden of proof is upon you- so you can take back that monkey.

...Apollo Cheerleading Cult.

Name calling? Really?

Yes, I am calling it the Magic Mountain now because of you and your associated cult members can't explain how it got there! Try Harder, Dig Deeper

The burden of proof is upon YOU.

We will all need to abide by ATS motto "Deny Ignorance". I liked the scenarios that you wrote out

but they are quite useless. My scenario is equally plausible.

We are at an impasse. Neither of us can find any evidence about Magic Mountain. Does anybody out there have any clues?

Could start by looking at the document itself:

SP-368 Managing Editors

Richard S. Johnston, Lawrence F. Dietlein, M.D., and Charles A. Berry, M.D.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Scientific and Technical Information Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C., 1975

history.nasa.gov...

edit on 12/17/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Let me help you with the burden of proof concept:

* You could start by reading the document. I have.
* You could then look up the authors on Google "Books" feature and see what else they have authored. I have.
* You could look up to see what other non-NASA documents have been published making reference to material in this document. I have.

THEN, come back and tell me that the data has been held to be invalid by any biomedical professionals-- or discarded as irrelevant by such persons.

I could do this for you-- but if I haven't mentioned it before-- the burden of proof is upon you.

Even so, if you do that work for yourself you will find that I can easily shoulder the burden of proof-- and have done so-- but now it is time for you to see what I carry.

Finally:



There.

Someone who has actually read the document has now created a new cover for it. The cover designer is obviously giving us all a hint-- trying to subtly let us know that man walked on the Moon.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And, by the way...

I suspect you will respond to the above by stating that you have read the document.

No. You have NOT read the document. I know you have not read the document. The complexity of the material and its presentation is professional-- and leaves no room for comment on the cover art as a valid means of questioning its authenticity.

The reason I had already looked up references to the document-- as I suggested you do-- is because after reading it, I had questions, and went to research further. I found other texts using the data in the report, read them and resolved my question.

So I have not only read the document-- but had understanding and interest enough in its contents to not only research further-- but to know how to do that research. The new material gained from the experience of the cosmonauts in the Mir space station was very convincing. Just a tease... if you are really interested.

I am reading a novel by a Pulitzer Prize winning author. He is one of the best and most experienced. In his narration and dialogue, in places, the idiom is not quite right. It bothers me. I mention this because it draws to attention the difficulty in fabricating a work of fiction to appear as true.

(If anyone cares, the book is Herman Wouk's A Hole in Texas, and I refer to the words placed in Peter Jennings mouth by the author to carry the storyline. The idiom is just wrong for a newscaster-- and is clearly not that of the late Peter Jennings. In defense of Wouk, I believe the narrative is intended to spoof.)

The point is, the report is authentic-- the data and the manner in which it is presented attest to its authenticity. The subsequent reception and use of the data in the report further attests to the authenticity of its contents.

Therefore, to create a hoax theory based upon the cover art is so shallow as to be in the realm of the absurd.

reply to post by Frira


Aren't all Apollo moon hoax theories based on what people misinterpret in photos? They believe they should or not see something they way they can comprehend and when they don't understand what they are looking at they deem the whole mission(s) a hoax. They follow up their misunderstanding by researching all kinds of photographic references without looking at the flight data or any other scientific reports of data collected from the Apollo missions. They want us to believe their depiction of images is far superior than actual data verification, because to counter the data available would require more than a pedestrian amount of applied mathematics and physics to make such a presentation. Therefore one is correct to label most Apollo moon hoax theories as shallow logic.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Frira

 

Aren't all Apollo moon hoax theories based on what people misinterpret in photos? They believe they should or not see something they way they can comprehend and when they don't understand what they are looking at they deem the whole mission(s) a hoax. They follow up their misunderstanding by researching all kinds of photographic references without looking at the flight data or any other scientific reports of data collected from the Apollo missions. They want us to believe their depiction of images is far superior than actual data verification, because to counter the data available would require more than a pedestrian amount of applied mathematics and physics to make such a presentation. Therefore one is correct to label most Apollo moon hoax theories as shallow logic.

Yes, I suppose that is the most common hoax theory.

A shallowness not mentioned and which bothers me is that of assumptions of human behavior. People I know are not prone to take part in a lie.

False, manufactured data is constantly being exposed by peers, and yet that has not happened with the Apollo program, nor with the geologists studying the Moon rocks.

And of course they do not read the technical data-- because they start with a presumption that it is meaningless-- but because they do not engage the material, they are unaware of the enormity of the implications of what they claim.

Just try and create a false scientific report. Just try an create hours of false dialogue. Mountains of made up data-- and above all-- tens of thousands of "shills" who embracing a lie, none-the-less honor the lie-- forty years after the fact, have not said a word.

People do not work that way. Institutions do not work that way. Disgruntled ex-employees talk.

Originally posted by BeholdAPaleHorse
“Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon…The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn’t believe it for a minute, that ‘them television fellers’ could make things look real that weren’t. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn’t ahead of his time.” – President Bill Clinton

...there's my 2 cents!

The Wizard of Oz was made in 1939 in colour with effects, Forbidden planet was made in 1956 with effects that still stand proud today, do you honestly believe that Bill Clinton was naive about special effects, I don't think so. On the other hand, the old man was obviously not a crank, but his rationale was flawed in bias.

ok , so long story short ....... they tried , they failed , they faked it . One small fib for man , one giant lie to mankind.

Quite frankly, the book cover is a botch, it is not artistic in the least, and a waste of time. Having said that, most of the pictures that have been altered, usually backgrounds are even worse, I think it was Armap who gave examples in contrast. The biggest irony is that someone is offering the altered picture as proof that the Moon landings were faked, when every other conspiracy theorist has offered that the reason for the alterations, was because they HAD been to the Moon, and that there were alien craft, little aliens, buildings, towers, and mines, all of which had to be blacked out...the 'real' elephant in the room. Just shows how crazy it all gets, and yeah, the guy that stuck in the extra mountain was a dick.

reply to post by smurfy


Early Apollo moon photos were photographs of printed negatives done by a third party. The botches you see in the black sky are handling smears and bad light reflections, and then when it was digitized for the internet lossy interpolation was added to further add image artifacts to what you see even from some of the sources. Anything with a .jpg extension will have lossy image artifacts and value averaging its called digital image compression. Jpeg image compression works to compress image files by storing one such binary pixel description for every pixel of the same value throughout the image, the more compressed the image is the more lossy averaging occurs and edge distortion artifacts, (those scattered pixels that seem to be out of place with the surrounding area).

You need a raw Tiff, PNG, or EPS file to avoid any compression artifact. There are a couple of other image file extensions that will not have compression, but you will not get those from the internet.

There was also a bit of noise transmission data in the early transmitted Apollo images, mostly the live TV images that had to be re-articulated before they could be printed or retransmitted to TV, before they were archaically photographed, not very well cleaned, before they were compressed to the digitized internet. The early Hasselblad film the astronauts brought home before being developed suffered early 3rd party printing of the raw negatives.

The cameras of Apollo

Photography during Apollo

Hasselbald cameras of Apollo

Westinghouse Cameras of Apollo

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by smurfy

 

Early Apollo moon photos were photographs of printed negatives done by a third party. The botches you see in the black sky are handling smears and bad light reflections, and then when it was digitized for the internet lossy interpolation was added to further add image artifacts to what you see even from some of the sources. Anything with a .jpg extension will have lossy image artifacts and value averaging its called digital image compression. Jpeg image compression works to compress image files by storing one such binary pixel description for every pixel of the same value throughout the image, the more compressed the image is the more lossy averaging occurs and edge distortion artifacts, (those scattered pixels that seem to be out of place with the surrounding area).

You need a raw Tiff, PNG, or EPS file to avoid any compression artifact. There are a couple of other image file extensions that will not have compression, but you will not get those from the internet.

There was also a bit of noise transmission data in the early transmitted Apollo images, mostly the live TV images that had to be re-articulated before they could be printed or retransmitted to TV, before they were archaically photographed, not very well cleaned, before they were compressed to the digitized internet. The early Hasselblad film the astronauts brought home before being developed suffered early 3rd party printing of the raw negatives.

The cameras of Apollo

Photography during Apollo

Hasselbald cameras of Apollo

Westinghouse Cameras of Apollo

I wasn't referring to the merits or otherwise of altered pictures, just that they have been altered in some way, and that includes manually as is the case here, and there are other manual examples. It's just not good enough to add onto that technical aberrations, valid as they may be, I already know about that. I was pointing out in my post the irony of interpretations, so I think you may have missed the point of my post. The live TV pictures that I saw, and at the time were second-hand by a tv camera viewing a monitor as most people saw them. I have no knowledge of the original slow scan pictures being seen later at the time.

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

And, by the way...

I suspect you will respond to the above by stating that you have read the document.

No. You have NOT read the document. I know you have not read the document. The complexity of the material and its presentation is professional-- and leaves no room for comment on the cover art as a valid means of questioning its authenticity.

Look here, Frira. Are you trying to tell us that you have psychic abilities? I kind of admire that you were willing to put your NASA belief system on the line and I'm impressed that you spent 33 pages defending it. But now you have absolutely crossed that line.

ATS is a forum for discussion. ATS is not your personal blog. There are many many free blogs out there if you want to blog about your personal pictures, your personal recollections about what your Daddy told you about Apollo.

I'm sorry to have to break the news to you in this way : you are wrong, Frira. I have read SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo so that I may deny my own ignorance. The first time I encountered it was in the Aussie Genius thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

SP-368 is akin to a scriptural text for the Apollo faithful in that the orthodox believers may not deviate from it. I did read the entire book because I am open minded skeptic. The book contains 567 pages of tables & summaries written in 1975. Fecal matter and urine testing, mice killing, etc. Pages and pages of food menus, medical tablet intake regimens, etc.

You are correct. SP-368 is an important document in the Apollo mythology. Take for instance the possibility that certain astronauts were fearful of disclosing certain ailments that, if reported, might knock them off the program.

SP-368 doesn't come out and say "Michael Collins lied to his flight surgeons" but the report says what it says :

One interesting medical event that occurred on this flight was reported by the Command
Module Pilot in his account of the Apollo Program. _ He revealed that he had experienced
dysbarism (bends) on his first space flight (Gemini 10) as well as on his second
(Apollo 11). He described symptoms involving the left knee as a sharp, throbbing ache
which gradually worsened and leveled off at a moderate, but very uncomfortable level of
pain. The symptomatology was less painful on Apollo 11 than it had been on Gemini 10.
Unfortunately this information was not made available to the medical team during either
the Gemini or Apollo Programs. Source Page 73 of the pdf www.hq.nasa.gov...

So Frira I have read this book quite extensively. I know this book well enough to discuss it. That is what ATS is about Discussion is it not?