NASA has been CAUGHT retouching and switching photos

[John Dolva]

Thank you Evan. Is it possible to readily say where that mag cover photo was taken from?

(Also, if possible a reference to the best photo of the 16 landing site?)

[John Dolva]

Lunar North ?

http://www.lunarrepublic.com/atlas/sections/a2.shtml

[Evan Burton]

John,

The image is AS16-107-17446. The medium resolution and high resolution images are available through the Project Apollo Archive in the Image Gallery section.

The best source for finding out the context of images are the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (for surface activity) and the Apollo Flight Journal (for inflight activity). They often are also a source of ancillary documents and material, including videos.

With reference to the ALSJ, you can find out details of the image:

AS16-107-17446 (OF300) ( 228k or 1069k )

144:16:27

"Locator" to the Rover from John's first Station 4 sample site. Charlie is still at the Rover. Note the spray of dirt propelled toward us by backward motion of Charlie's left heel. Note, also, the large rock at the lower right that John drove over just before stopping the Rover. The Rover chassis clearance is about 14 inches (35 cm). A

detail

shows the tool harness (or carrier) that is used to secure the SCB to Charlie's PLSS

Looking at the timeline, we can find out what was happening:

144:15:49 Duke: I've just got to get a picture with the 500 of the old Orion sitting out there. Just spectacular. (Pause) Okay, I'm going to take a couple of North Ray, Tony. (Pause)

[Charlie's pictures of the

LM, North Ray Crater, Ravine Crater, and Smoky Mountain

are AS16-112-

18269

to

18277

. David Harland has assembled portions of these frames into a

mini-pan

.]

144:16:05 Young: Most of these rocks have a whitish cast to them, Houston, but...(Pause)

144:16:13 Duke: Okay, Tony, I'm up to frame count 90 on magazine Lima.

RealVideo Clip (2 min 33 sec)

144:16:21 England: Okay. (Pause)

144:16:27 Duke: Wow! What a place! What a view, isn't it, John?

144:16:30 Young: It's absolutely unreal!

144:16:34 Duke: We've really come up here, Tony. It's just spectacular. Gosh, I have never seen...All I can say is "spectacular", and I know y'all are sick of that word, but my vocabulary is so limited.

144:16:50 England: We're darn near speechless down here...

[Fendell reaches the clockwise pan limit. Charlie has just put the 500-mm camera under the CDR seat. John is in the background, probably taking the "locator" photos for his first sample. He has already taken a cross-Sun stereopair, AS16-107-

17443

and

17444

, stepping to his right between frames. He will collect the rock which is casting a shadow on the gray-scale gnomon leg.]

[Frame

17445

is John's down-Sun "before". Note the sizable pieces of rock that he ran over as he maneuvered into their parking spot. The Rover chassis clearance is about 14 inches.]

[Frame

17446

is John's "locator".]

144:16:51 Duke: (Reviewing LMP-9) Okay, we got the description...(Stops to listen) Can you guys see how really spectacular the view is?

144:16:59 England: We sure can.

144:17:02 Duke: Hey, yeah. Where's the big eye? (Turning to face the TV) There it comes.

144:17:05 England: We're looking at you.

[Charlie goes to the back of the Rover to get the rake. John is getting a sample bag off his camera.]

144:17:08 Duke: Look upslope, Tony. Okay, look on upslope, and you see all this rock field that we're in here. (Pause) Okay. Anyway, I'll put the rake...The rake's coming next, John (as per CDR/LMP-9).

144:17:19 Young: Okay. I was just going to get this one sample.

144:17:21 Duke: Okay, go ahead. Then we need a pan. That's after penetrations; and then I've got to get the...Guess what's coming up? I can almost pick this thing (meaning the Rover) off the ground.

[The Rover moves as Charlie tries to free the rake. John bobs down onto his right knee to grab the sample. He doesn't quite make it. Fendell pans left.]

So to get an idea of what the area looked like, check out all the images that were taken around that area (Station 4), especially the pans. Don't forget that different magazines were in the same location, so check which were used. They very often took an image of the samples in place before picking them up, took pan shots or images that had known features in them as 'locators'. This enabled them to accurately place where they were when samples were collected and the various locations they visited.

The best photo of the Apollo 16 landing site? Well, I presume you mean from lunar orbit? Duane has shown a good steroscopic image from the Lunar and Planetary Institute. This is fairly good, but I don't know if it is what you are actually after:

Higher resolution versions of the same map are available from this page.

[Evan Burton]

Oh - I forgot about the images from the LRO:

Yep - lunar north is the same as our north.

[John Dolva]

Thank you Evan.

(I'm obviously coming at this from a position that the Lunar Landings occurred.) However I'm trying to approach this issue as someone who knows little about how to explore the issue.

I was hoping for a detailed answer as you provided. This will be invaluable for students.

As a student I'll take my time in following your directions and if further 'blocks' come up I'll question. At the moment I feel that the help as outlined should enable one, (no matter how peripherally interested, ignorant (in the sense of not knowing), or lazy one is), to find most of the answers for oneself. Thank you. I'll now take some time to do that.

It is not being handed the answers on a platter and accepting them unquestioningly that enhances knowledge, but rather the starting point is that those in the know provide sufficient pointers so those exploring these issues with ignorance can gain a knowing.

Thank you for your patient, to the point and timely answer.

[Evan Burton]

No problems John.

The point is to ask questions, find resources, evaluate evidence and come up with your own conclusions. I would also add to look at the Moon hoax websites, look at the claims that people like Jack make... but investigate them the same as you would any pro-Apollo claims. Keeping an open mind means listening to all sides of the argument. I am less open minded now because the depth of my research has convinced me... but I still investigate each new claim. IMO though, the problem lay in that there have not been any new claims but rather rehashes of the same claims I have investigated to my satisfaction.

[Duane Daman]

Evan,

So they did make a map of the Apollo 16 moonset .. Nice.

I'm glad you posted the recent Apollo 16 LRO photo, as that was what I wanted to discuss with John next.

I found several photos on this web site, showing the alleged landing sites of A11, A15, A16, A17 and A14, with special attention payed to number 14.

There was no picture of the alleged A12 landing site, so I 'm assuming for whatever reason, that NASA was not able to image that site.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

My question is why does only the A14 site show "footpaths', when none of the other sites do?

Also, where are the Rovers and the Rover tracks at the A15, A16 and A17 sites? .. In fact, where are the landers??? .. The alleged LM at the A14 site appears to be a small white square, where the LM's at the other sites look like tiny little dots.

After all the hype from the NASA and their Apollo defenders, the people who doubt the authencity of Project Apollo (and I assume even those who defend it) were hoping to see better photos of the suppossed landing sites than these pathetic examples.

NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

Also, it has been proven that the LRO photos have all been processed through Adobe Photoshop.

Considering the the fact millions of people believe Apollo was a fraud, I don't think was a very wise thing for NASA to do.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

The date on that page is 07.17.09, prior to the LRO reaching its lowest orbit. Many more images have been taken since then, from a lower orbit, showing more detail:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html

[Dave Greer]

I found several photos on this web site, showing the alleged landing sites of A11, A15, A16, A17 and A14, with special attention payed to number 14.

There was no picture of the alleged A12 landing site, so I 'm assuming for whatever reason, that NASA was not able to image that site.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

My question is why does only the A14 site show "footpaths', when none of the other sites do?

Also, where are the Rovers and the Rover tracks at the A15, A16 and A17 sites? .. In fact, where are the landers??? .. The alleged LM at the A14 site appears to be a small white square, where the LM's at the other sites look like tiny little dots.

After all the hype from the NASA and their Apollo defenders, the people who doubt the authencity of Project Apollo (and I assume even those who defend it) were hoping to see better photos of the suppossed landing sites than these pathetic examples.

NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

Duane, the link you've given is for the initial images of the Apollo sites, before the LRO descended to its mapping orbit of 50km.

Check out the later images at this website instead (including the Apollo 12 site):-

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html

Here's the Apollo 17 site as an example. Shows a lot more detail than the initial images.

Also, it has been proven that the LRO photos have all been processed through Adobe Photoshop.

Considering the the fact millions of people believe Apollo was a fraud, I don't think was a very wise thing for NASA to do.

Photoshop is an industry-standard image processing application. Anyone who has convinced themselves that Apollo was a fraud isn't going to be convinced by any evidence that involves NASA, regardless of whether the images were processed in Photoshop or not.

[Craig Lamson]

Also, it has been proven that the LRO photos have all been processed through Adobe Photoshop.

Considering the the fact millions of people believe Apollo was a fraud, I don't think was a very wise thing for NASA to do.

They are DIGITAL images, they need to be processed through SOMETHING! Do you know even the jpg images from your cell phone or camera get PROCESSED by some form of digital image processing software before you can see them?

[Duane Daman]

Thanks for providing the newer LRO images, but they still don't provide any real evidence that the Apollo debris is on the lunar surface either.

Like I stated before, NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

As for processing the LRO photos through Adobe Photoshop, all I can say is that it was not a very wise thing for NASA to do, considering the fact that millions of people either don't believe Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon, or don't believe the Apollo photography was really taken on the Moon.

We were all hoping that NASA would be able to provide the definative proof that Apollo craft really landed on the Moon.

But so far, they have obviously fallen far short of that task.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Or the difference could be image compositing.. That was another trick of the photofakers, when attempting to show "distance" in the faked Apollo photography.

Lets review your recent claims here Duane.

First you postulate that the LACK of sharpness in the far background in a mid field photograph is an indication of fakery.

Then you contend that the SHARPNESS in the far background of a far field photo is the result of photographing a "small scale model".

Interesting choices on your part and really quite telling as to your understanding or...rather the lack of it...of the photographic process.

First your "front screen projection claim. Given the point of focus, and the distances found in that photo, an IN FOCUS background as you have suggested simply would not have been possible. Simple photo 101 DOF stuff. It's not rocket science. Here is a wonderful DOF calculator for you to play wiht...and maybe check your claims before making them.

http://www.photosmith.ca/Library/Depth%20of%20Field%20Wheel.pdf

And one for your Andriod phone, I love it on the evo...

http://www.androlib.com/android.screenshot.app.qtFA-tmm.u.aspx

Now when we look at your "small scale model" claim we find you have it all backwards once again.

Photographing a small set requires a having the camera very close to the subject or using a very long lens. The problem..for you..is that both of these options produce the exact opposite in terms of DOF that what we see. In other words if the photo was created as you suggest the chances of that much sharpenss (DOF) over such a large are of the frame are near none.

I was hoping, upon seeing your return, that you might have educated yourself in the subject matter, namely photography. Clearly that is not the csase.

Thanks for the warm welcome back to the forum Craig.. I missed you too.

As for educating myself on the subject matter, namely photography, actually I have.

That's why I know, regardless of how you care to spin it, that the "distance" shots on the "moon" were mostly accomplished using not only small scale models, but also image compositing and front screen projection, which was state of the art technology during the time of Project Apollo, otherwise known as The Apollo Simulation Program.

I'm not the only one who has discovered this evidence either, as you will see by watching these videos, explaining in detail how much of the Apollo photography was faked.

2/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation

3/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation SkullDefiler

[Dave Greer]

Thanks for providing the newer LRO images, but they still don't provide any real evidence that the Apollo debris is on the lunar surface either.

If not Apollo landing sites, what do all those these images show? This one for example (Apollo 12 landing site).

Like I stated before, NASA has the technology to resolve and image down to the size of a beachball on the Martian surface, from Mars orbit, yet refuses to use this same technology to image the alleged Apollo landing sites on the Moon.

The LROC camera can resolve down to 0.5m from is mapping orbit, not much bigger than a beachball. What extra detail would you need to be able to see in order to accept the images were genuine? Or would you claim any extra detail was simply added in using computer software?

We were all hoping that NASA would be able to provide the definative proof that Apollo craft really landed on the Moon.

Well, that wasn't the LROs mission, but it's done it more than adequately IMO. Apollo 11 for example.

[Craig Lamson]

Or the difference could be image compositing.. That was another trick of the photofakers, when attempting to show "distance" in the faked Apollo photography.

Lets review your recent claims here Duane.

First you postulate that the LACK of sharpness in the far background in a mid field photograph is an indication of fakery.

Then you contend that the SHARPNESS in the far background of a far field photo is the result of photographing a "small scale model".

Interesting choices on your part and really quite telling as to your understanding or...rather the lack of it...of the photographic process.

First your "front screen projection claim. Given the point of focus, and the distances found in that photo, an IN FOCUS background as you have suggested simply would not have been possible. Simple photo 101 DOF stuff. It's not rocket science. Here is a wonderful DOF calculator for you to play wiht...and maybe check your claims before making them.

http://www.photosmith.ca/Library/Depth%20of%20Field%20Wheel.pdf

And one for your Andriod phone, I love it on the evo...

http://www.androlib.com/android.screenshot.app.qtFA-tmm.u.aspx

Now when we look at your "small scale model" claim we find you have it all backwards once again.

Photographing a small set requires a having the camera very close to the subject or using a very long lens. The problem..for you..is that both of these options produce the exact opposite in terms of DOF that what we see. In other words if the photo was created as you suggest the chances of that much sharpenss (DOF) over such a large are of the frame are near none.

I was hoping, upon seeing your return, that you might have educated yourself in the subject matter, namely photography. Clearly that is not the csase.

Thanks for the warm welcome back to the forum Craig.. I missed you too.

As for educating myself on the subject matter, namely photography, actually I have.

That's why I know, regardless of how you care to spin it, that the "distance" shots on the "moon" were mostly accomplished using not only small scale models, but also image compositing and front screen projection, which was state of the art technology during the time of Project Apollo, otherwise known as The Apollo Simulation Program.

I'm not the only one who has discovered this evidence either, as you will see by watching these videos, explaining in detail how much of the Apollo photography was faked.

2/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation

3/3-2001 Space Odyssey and Moon Landing Footage - Front Screen Projection Presentation SkullDefiler

Well if your education is complete, then how exactly did you get it exactly backwards? But its really nice to see you have at least chosen a new straw to grasp...

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks so much for the utube nonsense Duane. The presenter is woefully unprepared to discuss the effects of DOF in photography. And it quite easy to see how you have allowed yourself to be mislead.

Spend some time doing some actual DOF calculations and learn something concrete instead.