Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


They did?

The Reseau plate was engraved with a 5 x 5 grid of crosses . The intersections of the crosses were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the double-sized central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide. The crosses (also known as 'fiducials') were recorded on every exposed frame and provided a means of determining angular distances between objects in the field-of-view.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's a NASA site there that refers to them as fiducials not as reticles.

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
I dont know if any of you guys, no matter if you believe they went to the Moon or not, are any good at reading body language or have studied Psychology at all, even at a basic level? Whatever, I thought I should show you all an interview that took place with all three Apollo 11 Astronauts, in front of the press, after the Apollo 11 Moon landing:

www.youtube.com...

[...]
As someone who has studied Psychology all I see is three men struggling as best they can to contain a guilty secret. This secret is so great, and weighs so heavily on their shoulders that despite being extremely brave and intelligent men, they look more like frightened Rabbits caught in someones headlights...Their facial expressions, their body language they way they stumble over getting their words out, their obvious shame.
What could a guilty secret of such magnitude be? You know where I stand on the matter!

Again with this non-sense.
Do you only see what seems to corroborate your beliefs ? You never tried to imagine what else could be causing these behaviors ?

Here is a quoted post I made on page 7 of this thread :

I was reading the comments about the astronauts attitudes during press conference, and it reminded me a book that I have, called "Rocket Men" by Craig Nelson.

This book tells the stories of astronauts in a way that no video of youtube can actually retell. I can't quote the book exactly since its been almost a year that I read it and is now collecting dust in my bookshelf, but what they said essentially is that the astronauts thought that the worst part of their missions where the press conference.

Before and after their mission. They felt like some physics professors trying to explain quantum mechanics to pre-schoolers, citing that journalists have a very narrow grasp of all the implications and technicalities surrounding their missions.
It think that can explain their weird or uncomfortable attitudes during press conference.

Wouldn't that make sense too ?
Wait, no need to reply Mr. Professor. You studied psychology. So nothing we say can make a dent in your thoroughly constructed straw-mans.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
No, the actual moon rocks are in the possession of the Nederlands museum of natural history. Those rocks are real.

Go back and read the link to the news source, it even says that.

You need to start being careful around here on ATS.......being mistaken is fine. Lying is not.

For the sake of accuracy, I would like to quote portions of the BBC article:

"It (the moon rock in question) was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969."

"When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum."

"At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article."

""It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency."

***

So in summary:

-A moon rock was given to the Prime Minister personally by Apollo astronauts.
-After the Prime Minister's death, the rock was put on display in a museum.
-Tests have proven that this rock given to the Prime Minister by the Apollo astronauts was not a genuine moon rock.

This is exactly what the article says, it is very brief and to the point.

No one who is honest can say that this article wouldn't potentially arouse suspicion in a person.

Now, people can come up with a rational explanation for this seemingly suspicious occurrence. And I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that.

The problem is that there are a large number of these sort of elements which arouse suspicion about the Apollo program.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - my motivation is to try to get the pro-Apollo people to understand the point of view of the people who are suspicious of the official story, in the interest of finding some sort of common ground.

Frankly, the majority of the pro-Apollo people have responded to my inquiries in this fashion:

"I am rational and you are not. No rational person would think the way that you think, therefore you are an idiot."

Even though I can demonstrate, as in this article, how a normal rational non-idiot might have perfectly reasonable suspicions.

Suspicions, by the way, are not conclusions by any stretch of the imagination, and those who draw definitive conclusions of a conspiracy would be equally guilty, IMO.

I think if both sides were able to see, at least partially, the point of view of the "opposition", we could reach some sort of common ground more easily instead of this constant back n forth.

Originally posted by BrandonD

So in summary:

-A moon rock was given to the Prime Minister personally by Apollo astronauts.
-After the Prime Minister's death, the rock was put on display in a museum.
-Tests have proven that this rock given to the Prime Minister by the Apollo astronauts was not a genuine moon rock.

This is exactly what the article says, it is very brief and to the point.

No one who is honest can say that this article wouldn't potentially arouse suspicion in a person.

Now, people can come up with a rational explanation for this seemingly suspicious occurrence. And I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that.

The problem is that there are a large number of these sort of elements which arouse suspicion about the Apollo program.

From the exact same article: "Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors."

So, which would be more likely? The original rock was sold on the black market and was replaced with a piece of petrified wood, or there never was a real moon rock since the Apollo missions were a big hoax on the world?

I read nothing in that entire article that would make me suspicious of whether we really went to the moon or not. Further, I have provided not only a rational explanation as to what might have happened to the real rock, but what I feel is the first and most logical conclusion almost anyone reading the article would arrive at.

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?

Because it's been cropped, rotated, and had black airbrushed in to improve the composition? If it was a hoax, why didn't they just set up the shot perfectly in the first place?

Its had black airbrushed in???...What nonsense!

1) NASA states that the only light source available to the Astronauts was the Sun and we can clearly see that the "Sunlight" comes from above and behind him. Note the darkness of his shadow but unbelievably, none of him is in silhoette as we would expect...Fill lighting MUST have been used, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
2) Sunlight is not a focussed beam, it should give uniform right across the Lunar surface as far as the visible horizon, but he is obviously lit by some kind of focussed beam because the brightness of the "Sunlight" deminishes the further away from him it gets...Overhead studio lighting must have been used to try and replicate light from the Sun, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown, would have blasted a crater under the LM and sprayed both Lunar rock and dust ejectate all over the LM's undercarriage, and up to 150 metres (400 feet) in all directions around it, unbelievably it is completely pristine and there are no signs of disturbance to the Lunar soil at all as far as we can see, except for Astronaut footprints!...Proving that it was in fact shot in a Earthbound Studio and the LM had been carefully craned into position on a fake Lunar set, as it also consistent with the lighting mentioned in point 2.
4) The reflection in the visor had been doctored...Given Aldrin is standing, at the most, 3-4 feet below the elevation of Aldrin the position of the horizon reflected in the visor should be higher than is shown. Note how it has been placed dead in line with actual horizon in the background. With a little trigonomertry you can work out that from their relative positions and elevations Armstrongs camera would have had to be about 12 feet higher that Aldrin to account for the visor reflection and this is obviously not the case! So why would they doctor the reflection in the visor? Simple, to hide the fact that it was shot in a studio!

Here is your picture
www.flightglobal.com...

Here is the ORIGINAL
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Now look at both pictures open them side by side can you not see how some black sky was AIRBRUSHED into your picture

In fact I will give you a clue as photography is NOT your strong point look above his head!!!

The ENGINE was cut off before touchdown that's what the probe underneath the pad was for when that touched a hard surface a light in the cabin lit the engine was cut off

So none of your crap re 5 seconds and dust blasted 400ft is true

How can the underlined above be true

You really don't have a clue

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
From the exact same article: "Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors."

So, which would be more likely? The original rock was sold on the black market and was replaced with a piece of petrified wood, or there never was a real moon rock since the Apollo missions were a big hoax on the world?

I read nothing in that entire article that would make me suspicious of whether we really went to the moon or not. Further, I have provided not only a rational explanation as to what might have happened to the real rock, but what I feel is the first and most logical conclusion almost anyone reading the article would arrive at.

You are once again making assumptions, which is always the problem with people who have a foregone conclusion.

Genuine lunar rocks existed on the earth prior to manned moon missions.

Therefore, manned moon missions are not required in order for genuine lunar rocks to exist on the earth.

I am not stating that this is evidence of a conspiracy, I am only stating a fact.

(edit: to circumvent unnecessary argument on this point: meteorites.wustl.edu...)

Originally posted by SolidGoal

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
I dont know if any of you guys, no matter if you believe they went to the Moon or not, are any good at reading body language or have studied Psychology at all, even at a basic level? Whatever, I thought I should show you all an interview that took place with all three Apollo 11 Astronauts, in front of the press, after the Apollo 11 Moon landing:

www.youtube.com...

[...]
As someone who has studied Psychology all I see is three men struggling as best they can to contain a guilty secret. This secret is so great, and weighs so heavily on their shoulders that despite being extremely brave and intelligent men, they look more like frightened Rabbits caught in someones headlights...Their facial expressions, their body language they way they stumble over getting their words out, their obvious shame.
What could a guilty secret of such magnitude be? You know where I stand on the matter!

Again with this non-sense.
Do you only see what seems to corroborate your beliefs ? You never tried to imagine what else could be causing these behaviors ?

Here is a quoted post I made on page 7 of this thread :

I was reading the comments about the astronauts attitudes during press conference, and it reminded me a book that I have, called "Rocket Men" by Craig Nelson.

This book tells the stories of astronauts in a way that no video of youtube can actually retell. I can't quote the book exactly since its been almost a year that I read it and is now collecting dust in my bookshelf, but what they said essentially is that the astronauts thought that the worst part of their missions where the press conference.

Before and after their mission. They felt like some physics professors trying to explain quantum mechanics to pre-schoolers, citing that journalists have a very narrow grasp of all the implications and technicalities surrounding their missions.
It think that can explain their weird or uncomfortable attitudes during press conference.

Wouldn't that make sense too ?

No, it simply hearsay from someone who can't even be bothered to quote from a book which he owns and is collecting dust on his bookshelf for almost a year!
Besides, The Astronauts were all drawn from a pool of highly experienced USAF fighter pilots and test pilots...Sure they were smart men, but they weren't rocket scientists! By implying that they were all highly smug geniuses that looked down on journalists like they were "as Moondust under their feet", he has lost any credibility in my book.

Wait, no need to reply Mr. Professor. You studied psychology. So nothing we say can make a dent in your thoroughly constructed straw-mans.

What I don't understand is, if you are so vehemently certain that there was no hoax, why you would even care what anyone else thinks?
If all the hoax supporters are simply deluded fools, why does it bother you so much?
Why not simply ignore them?
Is it possible your faith in the validity of the Apollo story is starting to waiver a little under the constant barrage of virtually incontrovertible evidence offered by the hoax supporters?
For obvious reasons I can't trust any photographic or videographic evidence that is published by NASA that attempts to support their position that the Apollo missions actually took place and therefore I wont change my position on the matter until I see hard evidence that cannot be refuted.
However, that may come sooner than you think...China may launch a manned mission to the Moon within a decade from now...If they do go back to the Apollo landing sites and they manage to find what is left of the LM's and their photographic and videographic evidence stands up to intensive scrutiny, not just by paid NASA stooges, then that probably would change my position, but that would only be if I can trust that the Chinese would be 100% honest in reporting and documenting what they see.
Problem is, the Chinese are known as easily bribable people and the USA has a lot of money...The two would cause trust problems.

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
For obvious reasons I can't trust any photographic or videographic evidence that is published by NASA that attempts to support their position that the Apollo missions actually took place and therefore I wont change my position on the matter until I see hard evidence that cannot be refuted.

All the photographic and video evidence "cannot be refuted" as you say. You've tried and failed. A retard from australia tried and failed. A whole bunch of "experts" and whatnot have tried and all failed miserably.
So try again?

reply to post by BrandonD


Let us take a look at the history of moon rocks being given in the Netherlands:

While other "goodwill moon rocks" commemorative plaque displays were reported lost or missing by many recipient countries,[1][2][3] both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 "goodwill moon rocks" commemorative plaque displays are in the country and accounted for.[1][2][4] However, in 2009 the Rijksmuseum of the Netherlands declared that the "goodwill moon rock" it had received in 1992 from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees was bogus. This "moon rock", which had been exhibited for more than decade on a gold-colored piece of cardboard, weighs 89 grams (3.1 ounces) – far larger than the 1 gram piece of lunar basalt 70017 affixed to the Netherlands Apollo 17 lunar sample display. Testing of the Rijksmuseum "moon rock" in 2009 showed it to be a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona. The Rijksmuseum had insured this "moon rock" for ƒ100,000 (€50,000 [$85,000] in 2012 currency) upon its receipt.[4][5][6][7][8] An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees' "moon rock" was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus "moon rock" at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them.[4][5][6][7] According to moon rocks researcher Robert Pearlman, both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 lunar sample displays are in the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, Netherlands

Source

To sum up:

There are 2 displays in the Netherlands, one from Apollo 11 and one from Apollo 17.

The display from Apollo 11 is 4 moon rocks massing at 0.05 grams, mounted on a wooden board.

The display from Apollo 17 is one rock, massing at 1 gram, and also mounted on a wooden board.

The "moon rock" received by the Rijksmuseum from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees was a rock, mounted on cardboard and massed at 89 grams.

let me repeat that: a rock mounted on cardboard, and massed 89 grams. Not 0.05 and not 1.0, but 89 grams.

An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission.

So yes, there was a museum that had received what they thought was a moon rock, but was not. However, the actual moon rocks that were official given to the Netherlands are accounted for and on display and are not mounted to cardboard, nor are they petrified wood.

The 89 gram piece of petrified wood, mounted on a piece of gold cardboard, was not one of the original 135, nor was it the official moon rocks that were given to the Netherlands.

The research into this was easy to find, and minimal reading at best. Anyone can google the words: "Apollo Moon Rocks Dutch" and it's one of the first 3 links going to the wikipedia, where from there anyone can look at the sources cited there and read the news stories.

Which, as I've shown, plainly state that THIS 89 gram piece of petrified wood was never one of the official 135 given out.

It's not a mater of "Apollo Landing Believers Not Willing To Blah Blah Blah".

It's a case of "Moon Hoaxers NOT Vetting Their Claims".

Originally posted by eriktheawful

An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission.

I'm glad you posted this. As you can see, the word "speculates" is clearly in this article. What "speculates" means is that they don't actually know how a fake rock came to be passed off as a genuine moon rock.

And surely you can't be serious about the "vetting" thing. It is a BBC article, a totally non-controversial information source, it's not like I grabbed it from the Alex Jones show or something.

If the article is spreading false information then they are spreading false information. TOTALLY fine. I'm telling you what is being said from a totally mainstream, non-controversial information source.

And you have a mainstream information source that says something different.

Originally posted by BrandonD


You are once again making assumptions, which is always the problem with people who have a foregone conclusion.

Genuine lunar rocks existed on the earth prior to manned moon missions.

Therefore, manned moon missions are not required in order for genuine lunar rocks to exist on the earth.

I am not stating that this is evidence of a conspiracy, I am only stating a fact.

(edit: to circumvent unnecessary argument on this point: meteorites.wustl.edu...)

edit on 31-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.

First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful

An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the "moon rock" on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees' grandson speculates that his grandfather formed the mistaken impression that the "moon rock" he received was from the Apollo 11 mission.

I'm glad you posted this. As you can see, the word "speculates" is clearly in this article. What "speculates" means is that they don't actually know how a fake rock came to be passed off as a genuine moon rock.

And surely you can't be serious about the "vetting" thing. It is a BBC article, a totally non-controversial information source, it's not like I grabbed it from the Alex Jones show or something.

If the article is spreading false information then they are spreading false information. TOTALLY fine. I'm telling you what is being said from a totally mainstream, non-controversial information source.

And you have a mainstream information source that says something different.

Speculating is fine.

That's not what this poster is doing.

Read it your self, from his post:

In 1969 when the Apollo 11 Astronauts visited Holland they gave the Dutch Priminister a sample of "Moon Rock". In 2009 it was analysed at the Dutch National Museum and to their shock it was found to be Petrified Wood!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So yes, vetting one's information, and stating what is known. Not stating something that is actually highly speculative as fact, when it's not.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.

First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972

Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
So yes, vetting one's information, and stating what is known. Not stating something that is actually highly speculative as fact, when it's not.

In my personal opinion, the BBC article is stating in very simple terms that a rock given to the Dutch Prime Minister by Apollo astronauts, and presented as a moon rock, was discovered to be fake.

If this information is false (which it may be, though I am not convinced), then the BBC article certainly takes a great deal of the responsibility in the situation.

Considering that if a BBC article came out with information that supported the pro-Apollo point of view, it's highly unlikely that Apollo-supporters would go to any trouble to "vet" it. It would be on the forums within seconds.

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.

First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972

Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.

Very relevant actually.

Apollo Historians: There are rocks brought back from the moon.

Apollo Hoaxers: Those rocks are from the moon, but they were here on the Earth already.

Apollo Historians: meteorites that are from the moon were not discovered until 1982, well after the moon landings.

Apollo Hoaxers: TPTB knew that they were from the moon, but kept the information secret so as to be able to have evidence of a moon landing.

Apollo Historians: They were able to tell they were moon rocks but only because they were able to compare to samples that had been brought back that could verify them.

Apollo Hoaxers: They had sent robot missions to the moon's surface and collected the rocks so that they could compare them before the moon landings......


You see?

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.

First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972

Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.

Very relevant actually.

Apollo Historians: There are rocks brought back from the moon.

Apollo Hoaxers: Those rocks are from the moon, but they were here on the Earth already.

Apollo Historians: meteorites that are from the moon were not discovered until 1982, well after the moon landings.

Apollo Hoaxers: TPTB knew that they were from the moon, but kept the information secret so as to be able to have evidence of a moon landing.

Apollo Historians: They were able to tell they were moon rocks but only because they were able to compare to samples that had been brought back that could verify them.

Apollo Hoaxers: They had sent robot missions to the moon's surface and collected the rocks so that they could compare them before the moon landings......

You see?

You are aware that unmanned lunar missions collected rocks from the moon right?

reply to post by BrandonD

You are aware that unmanned lunar missions collected rocks from the moon right?

False. No automated lunar mission returned rocks from the Moon. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.

First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972

Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.

Very relevant actually.

Apollo Historians: There are rocks brought back from the moon.

Apollo Hoaxers: Those rocks are from the moon, but they were here on the Earth already.

Apollo Historians: meteorites that are from the moon were not discovered until 1982, well after the moon landings.

Apollo Hoaxers: TPTB knew that they were from the moon, but kept the information secret so as to be able to have evidence of a moon landing.

Apollo Historians: They were able to tell they were moon rocks but only because they were able to compare to samples that had been brought back that could verify them.

Apollo Hoaxers: They had sent robot missions to the moon's surface and collected the rocks so that they could compare them before the moon landings......

You see?

From my point of view, you are unaware of some pretty enormous assumptions that you are holding.

Totally fine, think what you like.

If not holding and defending a hard-lined position like a rabid zealot means I'm nuts, then I guess I'm nuts.

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

No, it simply hearsay from someone who can't even be bothered to quote from a book which he owns and is collecting dust on his bookshelf for almost a year!

I can't bother to quote the book exactly because its not right beside me right now (i.e. I am not home at this moment.)
Its as much hearsay as your psychological explanation. Moreover I think the explanation of the book makes more sense.

Problem is, the Chinese are known as easily bribable people and the USA has a lot of money...The two would cause trust problems.

So basically what you are saying is that you will never be convinced.
Its ok, I guess.
I just chimed in because I'm interested in discussing the matter with strangers on the net.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Its also one of the best bits of photographic evidence of a hoax!
I know why, but do you?

Because it's been cropped, rotated, and had black airbrushed in to improve the composition? If it was a hoax, why didn't they just set up the shot perfectly in the first place?

Its had black airbrushed in???...What nonsense!

1) NASA states that the only light source available to the Astronauts was the Sun and we can clearly see that the "Sunlight" comes from above and behind him. Note the darkness of his shadow but unbelievably, none of him is in silhoette as we would expect...Fill lighting MUST have been used, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
2) Sunlight is not a focussed beam, it should give uniform right across the Lunar surface as far as the visible horizon, but he is obviously lit by some kind of focussed beam because the brightness of the "Sunlight" deminishes the further away from him it gets...Overhead studio lighting must have been used to try and replicate light from the Sun, proving it could not have been taken on the Moon.
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown, would have blasted a crater under the LM and sprayed both Lunar rock and dust ejectate all over the LM's undercarriage, and up to 150 metres (400 feet) in all directions around it, unbelievably it is completely pristine and there are no signs of disturbance to the Lunar soil at all as far as we can see, except for Astronaut footprints!...Proving that it was in fact shot in a Earthbound Studio and the LM had been carefully craned into position on a fake Lunar set, as it also consistent with the lighting mentioned in point 2.
4) The reflection in the visor had been doctored...Given Aldrin is standing, at the most, 3-4 feet below the elevation of Aldrin the position of the horizon reflected in the visor should be higher than is shown. Note how it has been placed dead in line with actual horizon in the background. With a little trigonomertry you can work out that from their relative positions and elevations Armstrongs camera would have had to be about 12 feet higher that Aldrin to account for the visor reflection and this is obviously not the case! So why would they doctor the reflection in the visor? Simple, to hide the fact that it was shot in a studio!

Here is your picture
www.flightglobal.com...

Here is the ORIGINAL
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Now look at both pictures open them side by side can you not see how some black sky was AIRBRUSHED into your picture

In fact I will give you a clue as photography is NOT your strong point look above his head!!!

So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?
A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!
It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.

The ENGINE was cut off before touchdown that's what the probe underneath the pad was for when that touched a hard surface a light in the cabin lit the engine was cut off

So none of your crap re 5 seconds and dust blasted 400ft is true

You really don't have a clue

edit on 31-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Actually all it proves is that YOU don't have a clue what your talking about!
Watch this video of the Apollo 15 landing and use a stopwatch to count from when he says "contact" to when he says "engine shutdown"...Even without a stopwatch I can still count about 5 seconds!

www.youtube.com...