Photos of Armstrong

[tskaze]

Alright first let me say i dont believe the apollo mission was a hoax for one moment, but i didnt see this on the site so im worried someone will bring it up as an attempt to convince me.

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

My initial guess would be these are photos from the movie capricorn 1.

[JayUtah]

Welcome!

The NASAScam web site is notorious. Its webmaster has a habit of making wild, unsupported accusations and responding to criticism only with name-calling and dismissal.

His claims that "Tuttle" altered photographs to make them more acceptable as a cover story is pure hogwash, and he knows it. He's been shown where Michael Tuttle himself disavows the claims made on NASAScam, yet he maintains the claim.

The photos on the page you link are genuine, but are being interpreted by the NASAScame author according to his own fantasy. The Langley crane was indeed used to train the astronauts for landing. NASA wasn't sure which simulation method would be the most faithful to an actual lunar landing, so they used everything they could think of. It shouldn't be suspicious that NASA would devise training and simulation scenarios that were as realistic as could be devised. To go on and say that these were used instead for fakery is just wishful thinking. Accurate simulation is reasonable, and the mere existence of the paraphernalia of accurate simulation does not support some othe farfetched claim.

[unknown]

Faked scenarios were made in some desert place ;D ;D ;D

Let me see the movie of astronauts jumping on the moon. Where can I see it? It's much time I haven't seen that film.

[JayUtah]

Faked scenarios were made in some desert place

Exactly which desert place? Your claim requires you to show photographs etc. of the place on Earth where you argue the fakes were made, and show by comparison that they are identical to the Apollo photos. Can you do this? If you cannot, all you have is an unproven hypothesis. Conjectural hypotheses do not have any value in challenging authenticity, only provable ones.

Let me see the movie of astronauts jumping on the moon. Where can I see it?

In the Apollo 11 EVA Armstrong can be seen leaping approximately five feet up to the ladder. Other examples can be seen in nearly any of the EVA downlinks. They can all be ordered from Spacecraft Films in complete, unedited form.

For brief clips consult the Apollo Lunar Suface Journal or the Apollo archive (apolloarchive.com).

[echnaton]

tskaze said:

Alright first let me say i dont believe the apollo mission was a hoax for one moment, but i didnt see this on the site so im worried someone will bring it up as an attempt to convince me.

www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

My initial guess would be these are photos from the movie capricorn 1.

Welcome to the board. These photos are very real. They were taken at a lunar landing training facility. The use of these photos as evidence of a lunar hoax is just bizarre. If perpetrating a hoax, why go to the trouble of building a large, complicated and very noticeable like the crane to film something that need never be scene. The LM landings weren’t shown live. The visual records were made from a data acquisition camera (DAC) placed in the LM. On some early missions the camera shot at a low frame rate. For Apollo 17 the camera shot at a movie frame rates. I don’t know specifics. But for a conspiracy, filming from inside the fake LM was completely unnecessary. Why go to all the trouble, risk exposure, and have to let many more people onto the conspiracy? Not filming would be far simpler.

On the other hand we do have this great photographic record of men landing and walking on the moon taken with the DAC from inside the LM. If one proposes a conspiracy, one has to explain this away. So one says the film was shot at the landing training facility and ignores all the problems with this like the fact that the photos of the simulated lunar surface looks nothing like the actual lunar surface .

[unknown]

Is this image real?
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.html
Go to the first footprint on the moon, the image where they say:
"Image to left: The first footprints on the Moon will be there for a million years. There is no wind to blow them away.
Credit: NASA"

Don't you see anything strange, don't you see anything wrong in that image?

Try to guess. I will tell you tonight in "A question of credibility" thread.
See you again soon

[JayUtah]

Try to guess.

No. Do not play games. If you believe there is a reason why this photograph is not authentic, and you wish to discuss it with us, give the reason. Do not try to be cutesy or condescending and make us guess at what your arguments are.

[unknown]

See again this image
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.html
"Image to left: The first footprints on the Moon will be there for a million years. There is no wind to blow them away.
Credit: NASA"

Does it seem to you a foot-print? Look at shadows carefully. What do you see?
That foot-print shows an elevation that projects a big shadow on the left.
Hey, martin, tracks sink on the ground, tracks are like a bas-relief.
In that image instead the foot-print forms a high-relief.
You know it's impossible that a foot-print is in elevation.
This image is the most faked one you can see. ;D ;D ;D

[Bob B.]

unknown said:

Does it seem to you a foot-print? Look at shadows carefully. What do you see?
That foot-print shows an elevation that projects a big shadow on the left.
Hey, martin, tracks sink on the ground, tracks are like a bas-relief.
In that image instead the foot-print forms a high-relief.
You know it's impossible that a foot-print is in elevation.
This image is the most faked one you can see.

It looks to me that this is probably a left boot print with the heel at the bottom, or at least let's assume this is the case.

It appears to me the illumination is coming from about the 8-o'clock position. The biggest shadow is in the sunken heel of the print, which continues up the left side. There is a smaller shadow in the sunken toe. This illumination angle is also consistent with the shadows cast by the boot tread as well as the other shadows outside the print. There is nothing in the picture that looks remotely to me like the print in raised. It's just a regular sunken foot print.

edit to add:

If the print were raised, then the illumination would have to be from about the 2-o'clock position to produce the large shadow at the heel. This angle is contrary to all the other shadows I see in the photgraph.

[unknown]

Hey, Bob B.
you have trouble with your eyes.
THAT FOOT-PRINT IS IN ALTO-RILIEVO. ;D ;D ;D

[sts60]

The shadows of small pebbles or clumps to the right and top-right of the bootprint indicate illumination coming more from the 9 o'clock position; I think the physical boot impression is uneven or on uneven ground, leading to the 8 o'clockish-light look.

In any case, it looks like a track of a boot sunk in the ground, with raised impressions inside due to the tread pattern, exactly as expected.

Of course, this is one of the most famous and widely-distributed photographs of the Space Age. Does unknown really think NASA would make such a rudimentary error for a "hoax" effort?

This is such a lame argument that not even silly frauds like Rene or Sibrel use it. unknown, do you actually believe what you're saying, or are you just trolling?

[DaveC]

Let's see if we can follow unknown's logic here. The Apollo missions must be faked because a photo of a boot print looks like it's raised above,rather than indented into the surface. So NASA put together a collection of faked photos intending to convince people the missions were real, but for some reason was unable to figure out that a boot would create an indentation in the surface? I could be way off base here, but I think if someone with even a modicum of intelligence wanted to photograph something that looked like a boot print, they'd probably press a boot into some impressible material and take a photo of the print it left.
Perhaps "unknown" would care to speculate on how and why NASA would create something that looked like a cast of a boot print to photograph rather than an actual boot print?

I'm with Bob B. on this. To me it looks like a boot print lit from the lower left of the frame. In my life I've seen lots of shoe and boot prints impressed into soil, and this one looks exactly as my experience says it should.
"Unknown", if it looks like a raised, rather than depressed relief of the sole, try looking at the picture upside down. Sometimes that will help you see past the illusion that is confusing you.

[Bob B.]

unknown said:

Hey, Bob B.
you have trouble with your eyes.
THAT FOOT-PRINT IS IN ALTO-RILIEVO. ;D ;D ;D

Why would anybody fake a footprint in the way you describe? If I was in charge of the hoax and one of my team members told me they were going to fake a boot print by using some sort of raised form, I'd laugh them out of the room for making sure a preposterous proposal. If you want to take a picture of a boot print, just go out and make a real boot print for crying out loud. Have you even though about whether your claims make any sense?

[Bob B.]

sts60 said:

The shadows of small pebbles or clumps to the right and top-right of the bootprint indicate illumination coming more from the 9 o'clock position; I think the physical boot impression is uneven or on uneven ground, leading to the 8 o'clockish-light look.

You may be right, it does look like the shadows of pebbles are pointing straight to the right. In any case, the illumination is definitely coming from somewhere on the left.

[JayUtah]

First, folks, the picture linked by Unknown is actually flipped horizontally from the original (AS11-4-5878). The light direction in the original is from 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock.

Second, Unknown, you're having an encounter with a well-known (and often used) optical illusion, the "convex/concave lighting" illusion. See this link for a good example.

www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_hollow-face/index.html (Requires Quicktime plugin)

So instead of insisting there is something wrong with everyone else's eyes, consider there is something wrong with yours.

Occasionally I'm privileged to do some work for Rocky Point Haunted House, one of the premiere haunted attractions in the United States. We get older material from Disney's Haunted Mansion attractions as they are replaced. One of the most endearing and simple illusions in that attraction is the statues that turn and look at you as you pass.

This is done by the means illustrated in the practical example on the right side of the page linked above. A concave impression of a bust is indented into a wall, but lit from below by a hidden light. Thus the shade and shadow are consistent with the reciprocal convex shape lit conventionally from above. But since the actual geometry differs from the perceived geometry, changing your point of view produces unexpected results.

This illusion works because the brain is predisposed to believe that lighting comes from above. It is also predisposed to believe that objects that resemble a face are convex, because faces are convex. This double attack on the visual system's preconceptions is especially strong and entirely convincing, even at very close range. The viewer must actually be mere feet away before other depth cues defeat the illusion.

The picture here is lit from the side. It honestly doesn't matter whether the lighting comes from the right or from the left. It only matters that it doesn't come from above. When this occurs, about half of all people experience an immediate convex/concave ambiguity. Most, however, seek through other cues to resolve it. A few, like Unknown, demand that the view be convex rather than search for evidence of possible concavity.