Apollo Fakery? What's your opinion?

Though I firmly believe that we did go to the Moon, but perhaps we're not being told the entire truth of what was really out there. Did NASA fudge some photographs to hide something?

That said, I was browsing a website on the Apollo missions and found one image that seemed pretty intriguing which the author suggests is fake. I tend to agree as I couldn't find anything wrong in what he says.

Check out the images of the so called flag salutes in the Apollo 15 images taken during EVA 2 and EVA 3. The following doesn't add up in the two images taken from almost the same spot:

> The background hill.
> The foreground LRV tracks.
> Different bootprints.

The details are in the second image below the first one. So now the question is: Fake or real? Looks pretty fake to me! Something sure seems amiss. What do you think?





So, if it's a fake, the question is: Why?

More here....

Okay.

There should be at least two objects in those pictures which did not move, if fake or not: the hill and the lander (being too big, why move it?).

If you compare the point where the silhouette of the hill meets the lander, you can see that the point is different on both pictures, indicating a movement in the location of the photographer.

Therefore, the changes in perspective are irrelevant, as the photos were not taken from the same place.


Next: Moondust and traces in the dust.
The dust of the moon will be caused to raise by walking on it.
It will not be blown away, as there is no atmosphere, therefore no wind on the moon.
Therefore it will settle around the steps of the walking person, the radius of its settlement depending on the force with which is was raised. The heavier parts will stay closer to the footstep, the lighter particles will be thrown away for a greater distance, leaving a smudged area around each footstep.
It is of no doubt for me that these dust-particles could cover the tracks of the moon-rover.

You will have your answer, when you view Jay Wiedner's documentary "Kubrick's Odyssey". It can be obtained as a torrent. No need to guess.

Even the pictures say they were different days

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Hmm...
The color picture was taken from a higher angle.
And a bit closer than the first picture.
And with a wider angle lens.

If not...
It's a fake.

Eventually we'll be able to see the flag on the moon which will settle this dispute, until then I do believe we went to the moon.

What strikes me as odd, given this particular photograph, is the fact that the boot imprints appear to be much deeper than the rover tracks.

Especially because the rover drove with an astronaut on top ...

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
What strikes me as odd, given this particular photograph, is the fact that the boot imprints appear to be much deeper than the rover tracks.

Especially because the rover drove with an astronaut on top ...

The rover wasn't bouncing though.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


looking at the thumbnails alone you can see that the two pictures are taken from two different locations, the camera angle is different, slightly, for the color one, enough to remove the foreground tracks because of the angle.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

looking at the thumbnails alone you can see that the two pictures are taken from two different locations, the camera angle is different, slightly, for the color one, enough to remove the foreground tracks because of the angle.

A fake by any other name is still a fake - In other words common sense says - A FAKE - IS A FAKE - IS A FAKE

As for the OP's opening remark "Though I firmly believe that we did go to the Moon, but perhaps we're not being told the entire truth of what was really out there. Did NASA fudge some photographs to hide something? "

Any belief that we actually went to the moon will taint all further research and he/she will never get to the truth..........

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

looking at the thumbnails alone you can see that the two pictures are taken from two different locations, the camera angle is different, slightly, for the color one, enough to remove the foreground tracks because of the angle.

I agree. They are two different pictures taken from two different locations, it patently obvious.

So whats the problem?

Actually both these pics are from the same EVA. On The 'Apollo Project Image Gallery' they are both listed as being taken from the second EVA. In these pictures you can see rover tracks in the two shots, indicating fakery by the hoax proponents sourced in the OP. It's not the first time the hoax crowd has been shown to doctor images to further their claims.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


ok - the first error that you and the creator of the graphic you link to make is the assumption that :

AS15-92-12447HR was the last action of EVA2 , and that AS15-88-11866HR was the very first action of EVA3

this is simply false - as a review of the film cassettes will demonstrate :

further - a review of the 2 HR links i give you above shows that the lunar rover has been moved inbetween the 2 shots

lastly - reviewing the images imediatly preceeding and following each image shows that the astronauts moved back and forward - taking duplicate pictures - with each other in shot

thus - the change in foreground is not only to be expected - it would actually be suspicious if the foreground was the same

reply to post by Vitruvian

Any belief that we actually went to the moon will taint all further research and he/she will never get to the truth..........

Then wouldn't the opposite also be true? Any belief they didn't go to the moon will also taint further research. Objectivity requires an openness to all evidence for and against.

My bad, Ignorant_ape, I was mistaken. You are correct. My apologies.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


if you believe that the rover has not been moved - go to spec-savers

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Next: Moondust and traces in the dust.
The dust of the moon will be caused to raise by walking on it.
It will not be blown away, as there is no atmosphere, therefore no wind on the moon.
Therefore it will settle around the steps of the walking person, the radius of its settlement depending on the force with which is was raised. The heavier parts will stay closer to the footstep, the lighter particles will be thrown away for a greater distance, leaving a smudged area around each footstep.
It is of no doubt for me that these dust-particles could cover the tracks of the moon-rover.

Then what do you say about this image? Where are the tire marks of the rover on the surface? But the footprints around are clearly visible? The rover is much heavier and therefore all the more reason for its tracks to be clearly etched on the surface. (Or was the rover lowered by crane? )


Hackaday.com

reply to post by SpearMint


That's like telling me my car doesn't leave imprints as deep as my boots when driving through a mud field, because my car didn't bounce. That hardly makes any sense, don't you agree ? Of course it will leave far deeper trails than my boots.

Originally posted by ColonelSF

Hackaday.com

Does anyone notice how the dirt forms a convenient little ramp infront of the wheel ? Just right so it won't roll off stage .. err into a moon crater I mean.

reply to post by ColonelSF


it was std practice to simply pick the rover up and re-align it by hand in another direction

reply to post by H1ght3chHippie


do you understand the concept of ground pressure ?