Proof the NASA Apollo Moon Pics are Fakes ?

I came across this interesting video series.

This man, Marcus Allen is a photographer that has used the same Hasselblad camera that was claimed to have been used on the Moon. Mr. Allen knows of the difficulties in using this camera and how hard it would have been for the astronauts to get the pictures they claimed to have gotten.

Mr Allen examines the photo evidence for inconsistencies and believes at least some of the official photos are faked.

Mr. Allen is not coming out and saying we did not go to the Moon. rather he is asking NASA and other experts to give him satisfactory answers for the problems with the photos. No one has answered his questions so far.

This is a 12 part series on You Tube starting with this the first of the series.

www.youtube.com...

What is interesting about this gentleman to me is that he is not jumping all over every hoax claim but sticks mainly to the photos. He does not seem to be a 'Nut Job' but asks serious questions about the photos that do seem reasonable.

Have a look and tell us what you think.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


John, I'm not sure exactly what in that video is evidence of a hoax.

Although he does make a silly statement that after Gagarin's flight "America was suddenly aware that they couldn't do what the Russians had done". That is patently false considering Glenn was in orbit 10 months later. Obviously, the US was well along in developing their spaceflight capabilities at the time. They were just much more careful with their astronauts.

However, the speaker does do a good job of undermining any future hoax claim when he brings up the Judica-Cordiglia brothers. They were allegedly able to track and record the telemetry from the first Russian spaceflights. If they could penetrate the secret Soviet space program, it would be fairly easy for Ham radio operators around the world to do the same with Apollo.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


In video 2 the speaker (eventually, my GOD is he verbose) discusses the "flying bedstead", the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) . Here he states that no astronaut successfully landed it. That is categorically wrong. The astronauts made many flights in them.

LLRV

He also states that no independent verification of the flights occurred after liftoff. That is also categorically false. Here is just one of MANY:

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Missions

John, this guy is a hack. He's getting even the most basic stuff wrong. I'd move on if I were you.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I came across this interesting video series.

Oh, great. We desperately need another person who can't argue in his own words, but simply posts links to Youtube.

If you find these videos CONVINCING, and you feel sufficiently informed to comment, then please feel free to elaborate.

This man, Marcus Allen is a photographer that has used the same Hasselblad camera that was claimed to have been used on the Moon.

Can you point to some examples of his work?

Mr. Allen knows of the difficulties in using this camera

Which difficulties? Please use your OWN WORDS. The Hasselblad is a very good but rather simple camera, actually (yes, I've used one commercially back in the late 70's). The Apollo ones were fitted with paddles on the controls for gloved use, and just 3 recommended aperture settings (the shutter speed was left at 1/250 for most shots) and a few focus settings. All WRITTEN on the camera...

And a motor drive with a large capacity film cartridge. Press the button, it winds on ready for the next shot.

...how hard it would have been for the astronauts to get the pictures they claimed to have gotten.

Be specific, which is the best example of that? YOUR WORDS. have you actually examined the entire Apollo Hassleblad record? I have. There are plenty of bad shots. Start here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Mr. Allen is not coming out and saying we did not go to the Moon.

WOAH.. Hold it right there!!! THIS Marcus Allen???? (audio link)
news.bbc.co.uk...

Oh No.. he isn't trying to push his barrow and sell more of his NEXUS magazine, heavens's above - that would never happen.
(note, his 'Nexus' is a CONSPIRACY THEORY magazine, *not* the 'sciency' one.)

And you gotta love him - he even shows his complete lack of knowledge by trying on the old high/low temperature business. That's just tragic. Thankfully the physics prof put him straight. For him to not even understand the difference between heat and temperature, and not realise what happens in a vacuum (why do ya think vacuum flasks are so good at keeping things cold or hot???), reflects on his science knowledge - ie ZILCH. The guy is a joke. And he has a VERY CLEAR BIAS.

No one has answered his questions so far.

Perhaps that is because his 'questions' have all been answered and deBUNKed in the past.

But you feel free to throw up a new one - like we always say - PICK THE BEST ONE in your opinion, and tell us why *you* are convinced.


PS - I stopped watching the video after a minute or so, when I just couldn't stand the SPAM.

[edit on 24-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Just to give you an example in no 4 he talks about Buzz Aldrin leaving the lander he claims because the heel of his boot shows a highlight a flash was used PMSL WHY becuase look at the amount of metalwork and reflective material around him if a flash had been used it would have lit up like a christmas tree.

He also talks about the chest mounted cameras and how if lower down than eye level the horizon will be lower mayde on a flat level surface but
how often was that and also we all know they could remove the camera to take pictures.

In 5 he nit picks about composition saying a photographer would take pictures like the sequence he shows HE'S right but the dumb ass seems to forget they were ASTRONAUTS not PHOTOGRAPHERS.

He also moans about shots with the shadow side of the lander lit and correctly exposed STRANGE for a photographer he's not heard of fill in light which the bright surface would have provided.

Sorry but thats enough of his BS for me.

If you have watched all these pick out anything you think is new because I am losing the will to live listening to this guy.



[edit on 24-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 24-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

I was up all morning actually watching thwe videos you posted. For the record I have seen all Jack Whites stuff years ago, it is anything but new.Actually finding this material lead me to research Apollo more in depth.

Marcus Allen: Now did he just copy Jack Whites AULS.COM site material?

This isn't his work, it was all Jack's, everything he had about images was copied.

BTW MARCUS ALLEN HAS NEVER USED A HASSELBLAD!

He stated clearly that he TOOK pictures of it!

Allbeit there are MANY NASA Photo's with anamolies, this guy has no understanding of heat transfer in a vacuum. Nor does he have much understanding of how we actually got to the moon.

All in all if I had to write down all the things I disagree about these videos, it would be quite alot!

Originally posted by theability
I was up all morning actually watching thwe videos you posted. For the record I have seen all Jack Whites stuff years ago, it is anything but new.Actually finding this material lead me to research Apollo more in depth.

Marcus Allen: Now did he just copy Jack Whites AULS.COM site material?

This isn't his work, it was all Jack's, everything he had about images was copied.

BTW MARCUS ALLEN HAS NEVER USED A HASSELBLAD!

He stated clearly that he TOOK pictures of it!

Allbeit there are MANY NASA Photo's with anamolies, this guy has no understanding of heat transfer in a vacuum. Nor does he have much understanding of how we actually got to the moon.

All in all if I had to write down all the things I disagree about these videos, it would be quite alot!

I seem to remember Mr. Allen saying he both had used that camera in the beginning of the video and also later he said he took pictures of the replica used for the Moon trips.

As far as him copying Jack Whites work, I have no knowledge of that, I have never seen jacks material. I do think he says in the video that he had met jack and discussed these things with him.

But I also think it is entirely possible, for many people to reach these same conclusions on their own when looking at the photos. I see that all the time here on ATS. There is no proof he copied Jack White.

Er.. My browser didn't seem to want to refresh for some reason so I didn't see any posts.. so i changed the name of the thread to try to get some people to view it.. that's when I noticed there were posts.. sorry folks.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I came across this interesting video series.

Oh, great. We desperately need another person who can't argue in his own words, but simply posts links to Youtube.

If you find these videos CONVINCING, and you feel sufficiently informed to comment, then please feel free to elaborate.

This man, Marcus Allen is a photographer that has used the same Hasselblad camera that was claimed to have been used on the Moon.

Can you point to some examples of his work?

Mr. Allen knows of the difficulties in using this camera

Which difficulties? Please use your OWN WORDS. The Hasselblad is a very good but rather simple camera, actually (yes, I've used one commercially back in the late 70's). The Apollo ones were fitted with paddles on the controls for gloved use, and just 3 recommended aperture settings (the shutter speed was left at 1/250 for most shots) and a few focus settings. All WRITTEN on the camera...

And a motor drive with a large capacity film cartridge. Press the button, it winds on ready for the next shot.

...how hard it would have been for the astronauts to get the pictures they claimed to have gotten.

Be specific, which is the best example of that? YOUR WORDS.

I am not going to reply to your request accept to say I have no reason to argue his points in my own words. I do not want to debate his findings. That is not the reason for this thread, As I have suggested. I simply asked what others thought of his work because I found his view interesting.

I find it interesting for someone so willing to have a debate that he cannot comprehend what is written that my stated reason for the thread was not to debate from my point of view in my own words but only to present this mans video's for your consideration.



[edit on 24-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

I find it interesting for someone so willing to have a debate that he cannot comprehend what is written that my stated reason for the thread was not to debate from my point of view in my own words but only to present this mans video's for your consideration.

And as I've shown. The first few "facts" he gets to are completely inaccurate.

There is no reason for me to continue wasting my time when he can make such basic mistakes, and then not correct them. You may want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it would be wasted.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Now the best one of the bunch of his Videos that is definitely an issue:

The side the Lunar Rover is suppose to be on is wrong in the images of the LM.

Now what would you think, is the best of what he offers in the video?

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

Now the best one of the bunch of his Videos that is definitely an issue:

The side the Lunar Rover is suppose to be on is wrong in the images of the LM.

Now what would you think, is the best of what he offers in the video?

If I remember correctly, this photo was the one where the sun was behind the LM and the front middle of it was lit up like a Christmas tree while the ground and top stayed in deep shadow..

Yes.. I found that very odd. Unless there was another light source, I do not believe that the sun behind the module could have had that effect. That middle portion should have been in shadow too.. unless there is some strange quirk of photography I do not know about... but am sure someone will correct me on that shortly.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Actually I am going to search for the image, but what Allen and White bring up is that on schematics the Lunar rover LR is on and attached to the wrong side of the LM.

Now we both know that this isn't possible to have it change in flight, so what happened?

Ohh BTW have you traversed Jack Whites archive? I have gone through the images a few times. I do say this, there are alot of image issues related to Apollo Missions, without fail. But do remember we were in a race to get top the moon and look good doing it!

I am going to located that image.

AS16-118-18894 This is the image that has the LR on the wrong side of the LM in lunar orbit.

As for Jack Whites Material is here AULIS

You will no doubt recognize the material. Alot easier to see actually.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Watch the myth buster episode

www.youtube.com...

This explains what is happening have you ever seen a photo shoot on tv when the photographer uses white or silver reflectors to fill in shadow detail well thats what the Moon surface does.

Any photographer would realise that well except Marcus OH and idiots like JW

reply to post by theability


Thanks for the cool links. I apologize .. I am not really following this thread..I just check it now and then.. I am absorbed watching the live video feed underwater of the oil spill.

It's here if you wanna check it out. - www.bp.com...

Originally posted by theability
AS16-118-18894 This is the image that has the LR on the wrong side of the LM in lunar orbit.

Nice to see folks who ARE willing to debate, using their own words..!

theability, can you clarify this for me - are you saying that the undeployed LR in that image is on the wrong side of the LM?

Is that the issue, and is it you, or Marcus Allen/Jack White making the claim?

I'd just like it clarified before dealing with it..

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by theability
AS16-118-18894 This is the image that has the LR on the wrong side of the LM in lunar orbit.

Nice to see folks who ARE willing to debate, using their own words..!

theability, can you clarify this for me - are you saying that the undeployed LR in that image is on the wrong side of the LM?

Is that the issue, and is it you, or Marcus Allen/Jack White making the claim?

I'd just like it clarified before dealing with it..

I didn't debate anything because admittedly I know nothing about photography. ( I do know what my eyes tell me everyday) He asked which ones I liked and why and I told him.. that's not the type of debating you were looking for... I could not understand why you were so insistent that I partake in serious debating when I never claimed I was posting for that reason.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Great find! These people put up good arguments because they bothered to do their homework. It makes you question things, which is the best result.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I didn't debate anything because admittedly I know nothing about photography.

And *I* know very little about quantum physics. That's why *I* don't presume to post other people's videos about that topic, with subjects like "Proof that Quantum Physics is bunk?"

Further, you claimed that:
- Allen was a Hasseblad user
- he wasn't an Apollo denier.
- no-one had answered his questions.
The second two are absolutely FALSE, and the first is also very questionable. You failed to mention that Marcus Allen was promoting his conspiracy magazine. You said he "he asks serious questions about the photos that do seem reasonable", but you follow that up with:
"I know nothing about photography"..

Do you not see problems with any of that?


Anyway, I have a strong dislike for false information, so as that type of information is revealed from these videos, I'll be deBUNKing it.

You may dislike that behavior. Too bad.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I didn't debate anything because admittedly I know nothing about photography.

And *I* know very little about quantum physics. That's why *I* don't presume to post other people's videos about that topic, with subjects like "Proof that Quantum Physics is bunk?"

Further, you claimed that:
- Allen was a Hasseblad user
- he wasn't an Apollo denier.
- no-one had answered his questions.
The second two are absolutely FALSE, and the first is also very questionable. You failed to mention that Marcus Allen was promoting his conspiracy magazine. You said he "he asks serious questions about the photos that do seem reasonable", but you follow that up with:
"I know nothing about photography"..

Do you not see problems with any of that?

Anyway, I have a strong dislike for false information, so as that type of information is revealed from these videos, I'll be deBUNKing it.

You may dislike that behavior. Too bad.

Well of course I wrote those things because that was what HE was claiming. That's gist I got from the video.. I never said I knew if it were true or not.. I never said I was personally in agreement with his claims.

You just fail to understand the spirit in which my introduction post was written.

To me numbers 2 and 3 were not lies but that's what he was claiming..

Didn't you watch all 12 videos?? if you had, you would have seen he did talk like that.

The video's did not come across to me as he was pushing his magazine. Of course every person who writes a book or dvd and does a lecture is going to mention their stuff.

No.. I don't see any problem with what I wrote in my intro post - none at all.

Also, notice the question mark at the end of my title.. don't that tell you something??

Er.. so you don't post videos about subjects you know nothing or little about.. wow. How do you tell others about things you find interesting?

You say, " Anyway, I have a strong dislike for false information, so as that type of information is revealed from these videos, I'll be deBUNKing it.

You may dislike that behavior. Too bad. "

Suit yourself. I don't care what you do. It won't effect me at all. My job was to present the videos and to say I found them interesting.. I have done that.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]