|
Post by laurel on Oct 31, 2009 22:36:22 GMT -4
Why were pictures and footage of Apollo 11 faked?The 4 main reasons in my eyes are, considering that there was no experience in making pictures on the Moon and transmitting videos from there: 1. Best quality pictures – without any risk. 2. There was most probably not enough time for such a picture series - besides all the experiments and the accommodation to the new environment. The duration of the two EVA’s was only 2 hours and a half. 3. Pictures and video taken in the same studio fit perfectly together. Discovering the fake gets difficult. 4. No risk of interrupts in the “live” broadcast. Excuse me, but Apollo 11 had a single EVA lasting 2 and a half hours. Where do you get "two EVA's" from? The "not enough time for such a picture series" claim has been dealt with here before and the consensus seems to be that they did in fact have enough time to take all the photographs they took. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=983&page=2#27903apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=apollo&thread=2574&page=1#73986apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2092&page=4If they faked the Apollo 11 photographs to get "the best quality pictures," they did a very poor job of it. Why release pictures like AS11-40-5894 and AS11-40-5970? www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?40As for "accomodation to the new environment," the Apollo 11 astronauts didn't seem to have too much of a problem with that. From the ALSJ: 109:25:45 Armstrong: There seems to be no difficulty in moving around - as we suspected. It's even perhaps easier than the simulations of one-sixth g that we performed in the various simulations on the ground. It's absolutely no trouble to walk around.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 31, 2009 23:20:12 GMT -4
Excuse me, but Apollo 11 had a single EVA lasting 2 and a half hours. Where do you get "two EVA's" from? Technically speaking Apollo 11 did have two EVA's, but the second one was just the astronauts throwing excess junk out the door before they left the Moon. It was considered an EVA because they were using their spacesuits and the inside of the LM was open to the vacuum of space, but they didn't leave the LM or take any photographs during the second EVA.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 1, 2009 2:26:39 GMT -4
Is the landing site flat or inclined?The fact that the landing site is (almost) horizontal can well be seen in the overview on the photo given by theteacher on reply #71 Really? Now the animation below is a comparison of "your" photo AS11-40-5928 and a cropped and magnified version of www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5961. I suppose it is obvious, that the photographer has been standing at different levels, right? So the question could be how different? Note how the line of sight to the horizon in 5928 aligns with the bottom of the descent stage, and the line of sight to the horizon in 5961 aligns with the top of the descent stage. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_11_photo_map.gif 5928 is taken at a distance from the LM of approximately 10 m (30 feet) and 5961 is taken from a distance of approximately 50 m (150 feet). According to nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C the descent stage is 1,7 meters high, and the landing legs are meant to keep the underside 1,5 meters above the surface. So if the camera in 5928 is held at a height of 1,5 m and the bottom of the descent stage is also approximately 1,5 m or a little less above the surface (which seems reasonable in comparison to Aldrin) it seems reasonable to conclude, that the two astronauts are standing at approximately the same level with the photographer probably a little lower than the LM. Now if we then move 40 meters backwards to the point, from where 5961 is taken, the line of sight to the horizon is aligned with the top of the descent stage. As the descent stage is 1,7 m high, the photographer is standing at least 1,7 m higher assuming that the vanishing point is at an "infinite" distance (ideally 2,4 km) behind the LM. That would yield a slope of at least 4.25%. So the area is absolutely anything but level. In the first frame you can actually see the ridge that blocks the horizon in the second frame, I have marked it for those that don't want to see it. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 1, 2009 6:17:57 GMT -4
On the photos the area looks flat with no general preference for any inclination. How have you deduced this? Again we are asking for your methods. You said earlier you used the astronauts and the LM for reference, but we explained why you can't do this. Now you're just saying 'it looks level'? Different from what? Different from other reference areas, that's what. Different because most areas with such slopes here on Earth have other references. I don't accpet that you have sensibly excluded anything. You have simply said 'well it doesn't look that inclined so I'll assume it isn't'. The evidence of the pictures says something else entirely. You're just starting from the assumption that it's flat and level and working backwards, noting anomalies in the pictures that don't fit with that assumption. That's backwards reasoning. Most people would look at the photos and deduce the terrain from that. The pictures don't fit with a flat level region because they're not taken on a flat level region. Apollo 11 had the worst quality video off all the landing missions. By the time they went to the Moon they had experience of using cameras outside the spacecraft, so please tell us what would be so problematic about producing good quality photos on the Moon. There are about 117 photos taken during the EVA. How long would that take? The camera wound on automatically. They could snap that many pictures in that many seconds. Furthermore you can see them taking many of the pictures in the video footage. This 'no time' argument is utterly absurd. What has this to do with anything? If they went to the Moon then of course the pictures and video were shot in the same place. If they faked it then only an idiot would suggest any other method of producing these two sets of imagery. Argument rejected as nonsensical. There were numerous communication interruptions during the descent. There is always risk of interruption of live broadcasts. You really are clutching at straws here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 1, 2009 11:55:07 GMT -4
On the photos the area looks flat with no general preference for any inclination.Except, of course, for your "anomalies." In real photographic interpretation, that evidence would challenge the interpretation that the ground is flat. You're simply begging the question. With such a 15° sun inclination the shadow would be 40% longer compared to my estimation...I asked you how you derived your estimation. Please provide an answer. Otherwise it's just more question-begging. ...considering that there was no experience in making pictures on the Moon and transmitting videos from there:Apollo 8 send live television from lunar orbit. Explain why this is not relevant experience. 1. Best quality pictures – without any risk.But under the purported circumstances low quality images would be expected. You cannot say simultaneously that there was no experience and that there was the expectation of high quality. Your argument is a non sequitur. 2. There was most probably not enough time for such a picture series...Why not? 3. Pictures and video taken in the same studio fit perfectly together.Pictures and video taken together on the Moon fit together too. 4. No risk of interrupts in the “live” broadcast.Again, under the purported circumstances an interruption in television coverage would not be unexpected. You are proposing that steps were taken that would have resulted in an inappropriately high level of quality given your initial presumption.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 1, 2009 13:50:29 GMT -4
Excuse me, but Apollo 11 had a single EVA lasting 2 and a half hours. Where do you get "two EVA's" from? Technically speaking Apollo 11 did have two EVA's, but the second one was just the astronauts throwing excess junk out the door before they left the Moon. It was considered an EVA because they were using their spacesuits and the inside of the LM was open to the vacuum of space, but they didn't leave the LM or take any photographs during the second EVA. Sorry about that. I knew that the Apollo astronauts jettisoned unnecessary stuff before leaving the Moon but I didn't think of it as an EVA.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 1, 2009 14:12:03 GMT -4
Sorry about that. I knew that the Apollo astronauts jettisoned unnecessary stuff before leaving the Moon but I didn't think of it as an EVA. No need to apologize, Laurel. When I was researching Apollo 11 for my website I was confused by the references to two EVAs, I didn't consider just opening the door an EVA either.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 1, 2009 18:41:10 GMT -4
2. There was most probably not enough time for such a picture series - besides all the experiments and the accommodation to the new environment. The duration of the two EVA’s was only 2 hours and a half. 3. Pictures and video taken in the same studio fit perfectly together. Discovering the fake gets difficult. Wait, what? First you say there are too many photographs to be taken in the time frame of the video. Then you say that even though it's faked, the video and pictures were taken together. Your speculation on how it's faked doesn't deal with your assertion that there were too many pictures taken in too little time. That just doesn't add up, andreas.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 2, 2009 9:05:05 GMT -4
In the first frame you can actually see the ridge that blocks the horizon in the second frame, I have marked it for those that don't want to see it. And here: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5853is the crater that is actually causing that ridge. This was taken by Armstrong from just beside the LM. You can also see it in a few of the pictures taken from inside the LM. [Edited to add] And on the LRO images you can clearly see the crater in question. www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Apollo-11-close-up.jpgIt is the prominent crater just to the left of the descent stage in this image. Furthermore, in the first LRO image of the Apollo 11 landing site ( www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Apoll-11-lro.jpg), the pattern of shading on the surface clearly indicates that the patch of ground is sloping. The LM was facing to the left in that image, so pictures taken from beind the LM looking past it are indeed being taken up a slope. A slope that, incidentally, happens to end around about in line with that crater mentioned earlier.....
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 4, 2009 3:49:52 GMT -4
I have set up a detailed argumentation in a paper which can be found under www.apollophotos.ch, then click to the English Version. Andreas, welcome to ApolloHoax. In the English version of your paper you say, "On picture 3 the height of the camera is about 2 m, and the distance to the horizon about 20 m." Picture 3 is a still from the video camera when it was stored upside-down and on a slant on the MESA, so there is no way that it was two metres above the ground. I don't know the exact figure, but the training photo S69-31060 shows it peeking out from the thermal blanket at no more Armstrong's mid-chest height. And how can you possibly claim the horizon is 20 metres away? It seems to me that you haven't even studied a range of Apollo 11 photos. How about the assembled panoramas? How about AS11-37-5437HR? It shows the landing site from orbit and shows that the Sea of Tranquility is certainly not flat. AS11-37-5447 is another view from orbit which includes the landing site. If you use the following link, you can use this photo to identify West Crater, which Neil Armstrong overflew. It is only a few pixels across, and is at about 11 o'clock from the centre of Columbia. www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.htmlAS11-37-5454 has another view of the LM's shadow. There are more that apply to your argument, such as AS11-37-5468, AS11-37-5498 and 5499 showing the experiments left on the lunar surface 15 meters or more from the LM, AS11-40-5854, AS11-40-5949, and others. Have you studied the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal's Apollo 11 Image Library (link at the bottom of every page here) to find the times that many of the photos were taken during the EVA? I have no difficulty at all in believing the photos were taken as claimed during the EVA. You also say, regarding the video image, "one would have to stay on an isolated mountain on an altitude of more than 8'600 m." How do you arrive at that conclusion? You appear to be merely guessing about the visible horizon.
|
|
|
Post by andreas on Nov 6, 2009 16:01:53 GMT -4
Note how the line of sight to the horizon in 5928 aligns with the bottom of the descent stage, ... Your estimation of the horizon (in the height of the camera) fits well with the one I did. If you drew the horizon on the picture by elongating an imaginary line from the bottom of the descent stage to the left then this horizon line would end in the dark sky on the left side of the picture 5928. This confirms that the camera is looking downwards into the sky. With such a 15° sun inclination the shadow would be 40% longer compared to my estimation...I asked you how you derived your estimation. Please provide an answer. Otherwise it's just more question-begging. The reference to the 15° sun inclination is indicated just on the left of my statement. The 15° are interpolated between the sun inclination at landing (10°) and launch (25°). The photo is assumed to be taken 7 hours after landing. The total time on the Moon was 22h. The calculation is therefore 10°+(25°-10°)*7h/22h which yields 15°. The 15° fit also with the statement of gonetoplaid (reply #72). I do not comment the possible reasons for the faking of the pictures. These are subjective statements. I have added them on request of gillianren (reply #67). Picture 3 is a still from the video camera ... there is no way that it was two metres above the ground. ... And how can you possibly claim the horizon is 20 metres away? You also say, regarding the video image, "one would have to stay on an isolated mountain on an altitude of more than 8'600 m." How do you arrive at that conclusion? You appear to be merely guessing about the visible horizon. The height of the camera is based on the fact that the camera is approximately on the height of the top of Aldrins helmet. The top is visible and the astronaut is upright. On the training photo the position of the camera is different. In fact I do not see much similarity of this training photo with the video – specifically not concerning the position of the camera and ladder. The distance to the ridge is estimated according to the length of the shadow of the LM as already discussed. The 20 m are based on the estimation described in my paper. With a 15° sun inclination angle as calculated above the length of the shadow would be a bit longer, i.e. 24m. The highest estimation for the length of the shadow comes from Jason Thompson (reply #66) with 33-36m, but he calculated with a sun inclination of 10-11°, which is too small according to the addressed references. The 8600m altitude is the result if one looks with an angle of 1:10 down to the sky (space). In my paper I made a similar calculation but applying margin to cover all ifs and buts (see www.apollophotos.ch – English Version – Paper). I used basic geometry only. Flat area (final attempt to demonstrate the flatness between the LM and the ridge)We had several discussions about flatness: overall flatness and local flatness. Specifically the general statements of flatness were difficult to quantify. So let us focus on the area between the LM and the ridge: the final and crucial point is this video, specifically the scene with Aldrin on the ladder (see attached picture, I have marked the ridge with arrows). For the down-sloping line-of-sight the discussion about inclined or flat terrain can therefore be reduced to the area between the LM and the ridge, i.e. to a distance of about 20 to 30 meters. According to my argumentation the picture with the flag ( www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875.jpg) and the video sequence (see link & picture on reply #73) give evidence that the there is no or only little inclination between the LM and the ridge. Both, picture of the flag and video are made more or less perpendicular to the scene with Aldrin on the ladder, and in this direction the inclination can be estimated well, because there are several reference points (flag, astronaut or even 2 astronauts walking around). I might not have gone public with my findings with the coloured pictures alone, i.e. if I hadn’t found this video. But here the descent of the line of sight is extraordinary. Looking downwards is obvious not only with respect to the ridge. The camera, which is about on the same height as the top of Aldrins head, is also looking down to his chest and from there directly to space. So the 1:10 down-slope of the line of sight can additionally be calculated on a very short distance with approximate 0.4m:4m (vertical distance from the top of Aldrin to his chest : horizontal distance of the camera to Aldrin). Applying margin, the 1:10 (or 2m:20m) slope can be reduced to 1.5m : 30m as I have done it in my paper with the result of a 2000m high platform on a 87km-neighbouring ground. As already stated in my previous post (#73), the margin covers a 1° up-slope of the terrain from the LM to the ridge. Looking down to the sky (space) in a direction where the terrain is sloping upwards 10 to 20m per km (according to maps) is the contradiction which gives evidence that the video and consequently also the pictures must have been taken somewhere else. This closes the loop to the initial post of this thread where the following statement was made: And he said that all the photos were taken in this facility while these guys were training. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 6, 2009 20:22:47 GMT -4
Andreas. If the Moon landing was faked, how was it faked? Why was it faked? If these errors are so obvious, why have people from around the world fallen for the hoax?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 7, 2009 4:25:51 GMT -4
The calculation is therefore... No, that's not what I was asking. You compute the theoretical shadow length that would occur if the ground were perfectly flat and level. That's fine, albeit fairly meaningless in any real world analysis that must accommodate surface contour. But what I was asking was how you estimated the length of the actual shadow in the photograph. You seem to compare the shadow in the photograph with what you compute would have to be the shadow length. Please explain how you estimated the actual shadow length.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 7, 2009 6:14:32 GMT -4
If you drew the horizon on the picture by elongating an imaginary line from the bottom of the descent stage to the left then this horizon line would end in the dark sky on the left side of the picture 5928. But why would you do this? How do you know that the horizon should be a horizontal line across the picture? The camera is held by an astronaut and there is NO reliable reference for true vertical or horizontal in that picture, as we have already explained. Again, please will you tell us how upright the astronaut is? ALL the astronauts were leaning forward to a significant degree because of the need to balance with a large backpack on. The top of the helmet would come into view from considerably below the height you describe. No no no. Right, let's try to get this sorted out regarding vertical references, shall we? The LM has crushable struts. Even if they all compressed equally upon landing that would still make the LM stand perpendicular to the ground, whatever slope it sits on. The LM is therefore not a good vertial reference. The astronauts have a heavy backpack on their backs and must always lean forward to counter it. When walking they sway from side to side. The astronauts are therefore not a good true vertical reference. The flag was stuck in the ground by two humans without any kind of guide, therefore is not necessarily truly vertical. Not a good vertical reference. The still camera is held by an astronaut, and therefore cannot be set up truly such that the horizon always cuts the image horizontally. The photographic horizon, even if the entire place was flat and level and there were no obstructions to a horizon miles away, is not a good reference. The TV camera was on a sprung arm for the ladder descent, and was most definitely not upright with respect to the ground. Even if it had been arranged to be upright with respect to the LM then that still isn't a guarantee of being truly level. It was then placed on a tripod which was stood on the ground. If the ground was inclined the tripod was inclined. The TV camera may therefore not be level. So I will ask again, exactly how have you determined where the true horizon should lie without a single reliable piece of evidence that provides you with a true horizontal/vertical baseline in any of the images? I will also ask you how you know that the ground must be sloping steadily up to the horizon, especially since I already pointed out that the ridge that the LM shadow just reaches is in fact the rim of a crater, which likely has a much steeper slope than the surrounding terrain anyway? The map covers the altitude of the ground over a large distance. It has not the resolution to determine local variations in slope and altitude over a few tens of metres surrounding the landing site. Countours are included every 600 feet in altitude on the maps. That does not mean that there is no undulation in the ground on the way up to that 600 feet increase. Indeed, with a heavily crratered area that isn't possible anyway. There could be a 200 foot rise followed by a 150 foot fall along the way and that wouldn't be included.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 7, 2009 15:55:11 GMT -4
Must have been one heck of a vacuum chamber. How big are they now?
|
|