Image Compositing Used to Fake Apollo Photos

[Dave Greer]

The "Neil Armstrong is so shy" excuse has been used ad nauseum.

His "shyness" is because of his guilt, or possibly embarrassment, over his involvement with the Apollo scam.

His behavior might not be obvious to those who are too closed minded to see or admit that Apollo did not happen as advertised, but it's obvious to people who are not wearing Apollogist blinders.

Duane

Neither of us will convince the other on this point, and it's impossible to prove either way. You see a guilty man, I see someone full of humility. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Duane Daman]

The "Neil Armstrong is so shy" excuse has been used ad nauseum.

His "shyness" is because of his guilt, or possibly embarrassment, over his involvement with the Apollo scam.

His behavior might not be obvious to those who are too closed minded to see or admit that Apollo did not happen as advertised, but it's obvious to people who are not wearing Apollogist blinders.

Duane

Neither of us will convince the other on this point, and it's impossible to prove either way. You see a guilty man, I see someone full of humility. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Men full of humility don't make speeches with cryptic messages in them.. Nor do they squirm and gulp and scratch their necks when asked simple questions about their alleged achievements.. Nor do they run away like cowards and hide behind their handlers when asked to set the record straight, put an end to the debate and swear on the Bible that they walked on the Moon.

Armstong's guilt is obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Okay, getting back to the Apollo photos, here are some examples from the Apollo 17 photo shoot that have been proven to be fake.

"On some internet sites (Nitecatty and others) the authenticity of Apollo photos is challenged when the Earth is visible on the photos. Two problems are pointed out: the angle view of Earth is to small (should be 1.93o) and the angle of the Earth above the horizon is varying on the photos (should be constant, ~54o from Apollo 17 landing site).

My calculation fully supports both claims, however I discovered an even larger discrepancy. The camera lens used had a 38o*38o (up-down*left-right) field of view, the Earth was 54o above the horizon, therefore the camera COULD NOT take pictures of the Earth and the Moon's horizon simultaneously.

Pro NASA people believe that NASA could not have faked the images because it would have involved thousands, and some even suggest that hundreds of thousands of people. But these images prove that they did not even have one good astronomer or physicist to help making the fake images. Therefore they made huge mistakes.

Calculating the angle of Earth above Moon's horizon

Apollo 17 Landing Site Coordinates:

- 20.19080 degrees North Latitude

- 30.77168 degrees East Longitude

If u are standing in the center of Moon's Near (visible) Side, then ur coordinates are zero degrees Latitude and zero degrees Longitude, in that point the Earth will be 90 degrees above the horizon all the time. In any given position or even on any circle around the center point, the Earth's angle above the horizon will never change in time. We can calculate that angle for the above given coordinates as ~54 degrees for Apollo17's alleged landing site. (If taken the center as the Pole, the landing site is on 54o of Latitude.)

NASA had three lenses for the Haselblad 500 EL, with lens focal length: 80mm, 250mm and 500mm. Most of the time they used the 80mm lens, coincidentally this has the widest field of view: 38o*38o.

We can calculate the diagonal angle:

alpha=2*arcsin{sin(37.9/2)*sqrt(2)/2}=51.5o

On the left image ( above) I'm showing why NASA could not have taken the images on Apollo 17 landing site with even the widest view angle lens they had for the camera. The Hasselblad 500 EL camera had three lenses, the widest: with 200mm focal length, had 38 (precisely 37.9) degrees angle view (both up-down & left-right). If the astronaut kept the camera parallel with the horizon then the Earth and the Moon's horizon would NOT fit into one picture.

If the Astronaut turned the camera sideways by 45o, the diagonal field of view being 51.5o the Astronaut still would not have been able to get the horizon and the Earth (54o) in the picture.

However, NASA Astronauts had taken pictures with Moon's horizon and the Earth in it, therefore NASA faked all of the Apollo 17 images where the Earth is visible. (This argument doesn't apply to pictures taken from the Command Module which was well above the surface.)

The following NASA images were used for the analysis: AS17-134-20384 ; AS17-134-20387 ; AS17-134-20463 ; AS17-134-20464 ; AS17-134-20465 ; AS17-134-20466 ; AS17-134-20471 ; AS17-134-20473 ; AS17-137-20910 ; AS17-137-20911 ; AS17-137-20957"

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

[Duane Daman]

And from that same site, here are some more examples of image tampering.

Manipulation of the Horizon Edge

AS15-92-12451

AS17-147-22514

"The most manipulated part of NASA images is the edge between the sky and the land or objects (LM, rover, radar). These two pictures (left) have step-like edge at the horizon, this is an obvious proof that the image has been tampered with, almost for sure digitally. The sky was a primary concern for NASA, they kept adding and wiping out the stars from the images."

[Duane Daman]

Manipulation of Images around Objects while the Sky is the Background

AS11-40-5944

AS17-137-20891

Click on the link to see more examples of photo tampering and fakery.

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

[Craig Lamson]

Okay, getting back to the Apollo photos, here are some examples from the Apollo 17 photo shoot that have been proven to be fake.

"On some internet sites (Nitecatty and others) the authenticity of Apollo photos is challenged when the Earth is visible on the photos. Two problems are pointed out: the angle view of Earth is to small (should be 1.93o) and the angle of the Earth above the horizon is varying on the photos (should be constant, ~54o from Apollo 17 landing site).

My calculation fully supports both claims, however I discovered an even larger discrepancy. The camera lens used had a 38o*38o (up-down*left-right) field of view, the Earth was 54o above the horizon, therefore the camera COULD NOT take pictures of the Earth and the Moon's horizon simultaneously.

Pro NASA people believe that NASA could not have faked the images because it would have involved thousands, and some even suggest that hundreds of thousands of people. But these images prove that they did not even have one good astronomer or physicist to help making the fake images. Therefore they made huge mistakes.

Calculating the angle of Earth above Moon's horizon

Apollo 17 Landing Site Coordinates:

- 20.19080 degrees North Latitude

- 30.77168 degrees East Longitude

If u are standing in the center of Moon's Near (visible) Side, then ur coordinates are zero degrees Latitude and zero degrees Longitude, in that point the Earth will be 90 degrees above the horizon all the time. In any given position or even on any circle around the center point, the Earth's angle above the horizon will never change in time. We can calculate that angle for the above given coordinates as ~54 degrees for Apollo17's alleged landing site. (If taken the center as the Pole, the landing site is on 54o of Latitude.)

NASA had three lenses for the Haselblad 500 EL, with lens focal length: 80mm, 250mm and 500mm. Most of the time they used the 80mm lens, coincidentally this has the widest field of view: 38o*38o.

We can calculate the diagonal angle:

alpha=2*arcsin{sin(37.9/2)*sqrt(2)/2}=51.5o

On the left image ( above) I'm showing why NASA could not have taken the images on Apollo 17 landing site with even the widest view angle lens they had for the camera. The Hasselblad 500 EL camera had three lenses, the widest: with 200mm focal length, had 38 (precisely 37.9) degrees angle view (both up-down & left-right). If the astronaut kept the camera parallel with the horizon then the Earth and the Moon's horizon would NOT fit into one picture.

If the Astronaut turned the camera sideways by 45o, the diagonal field of view being 51.5o the Astronaut still would not have been able to get the horizon and the Earth (54o) in the picture.

However, NASA Astronauts had taken pictures with Moon's horizon and the Earth in it, therefore NASA faked all of the Apollo 17 images where the Earth is visible. (This argument doesn't apply to pictures taken from the Command Module which was well above the surface.)

The following NASA images were used for the analysis: AS17-134-20384 ; AS17-134-20387 ; AS17-134-20463 ; AS17-134-20464 ; AS17-134-20465 ; AS17-134-20466 ; AS17-134-20471 ; AS17-134-20473 ; AS17-137-20910 ; AS17-137-20911 ; AS17-137-20957"

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

Gianthoax and Duane screw up again.

The lunar surface Hasselblads had a 60mm lens, not an 80mm lens.

Sheesh don't you ever check anything out before you post it? Screwed up with DOF now lenses....whats next?

[Craig Lamson]

And from that same site, here are some more examples of image tampering.

Manipulation of the Horizon Edge

AS15-92-12451

AS17-147-22514

"The most manipulated part of NASA images is the edge between the sky and the land or objects (LM, rover, radar). These two pictures (left) have step-like edge at the horizon, this is an obvious proof that the image has been tampered with, almost for sure digitally. The sky was a primary concern for NASA, they kept adding and wiping out the stars from the images."

Or that mysterious jpg compression! Gotta love that Duane and gianthoax now screw up shutterspeed and exposure values. Whats next.....

[John Dolva]

Craig, I think the lack of comprehension of these matters can provide an endless source of these ''proofs''. It is quite sad that they persistently display this ignorance. It may show a stubborn inabillity to learn and responses will always be futile afa they are concerned. This is a lesson in itself but it really belongs in kindy.

[Kevin M. West]

Has it occurred to you that the moons "furface" is not flat, and the horizon can be on a hill, reducing that 54 degrees?

[Duane Daman]

I just read some of the replies to the latest evidence I posted and unfortunately it's the same old excuses the Apollogists have made hundreds of times before .. "Dust on the lens" to Jack's photo fakery evidence, and a myriad of typical, mudane excuses used to pretend to disprove the image tampering and compositing evidence I posted, along with the evidence proving that the A17 "earth" was pasted into the "lunar" sky.

It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography.

Unfortunately the Apollo debates here are nothing but an obsessive "one up" game that the Apollogists are determined to "win", no matter what they have to do to "win" it.

What a shame we live in a country where the truth of almost everything, from the JFK assassination, to the 911 attacks, to the Apollo fraud, is suppressed by people who feel its more important to "win" a silly game than to admit the truth.

Okay, enough of my disappointment in realizing that nothing will ever change on this forum, and onto more evidence of the Apollo Hoax.

"Evidence of Hoax:

Grissom and the Lemon

In January 1967, Virgil 'Gus' Grissom, a NASA Astronaut, held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the United States was "at least a decade away" from even contemplating a lunar mission. He was severely rebuked for giving that interview without permission. Following this reprimand, Gus Grissom hung a lemon attached to a coat-hanger in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to any cameras present, without speaking, what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought of the Apollo programme.

Three Astronauts died in 1967

On 27 January 1967, Grissom, Chaffee and White died by a horrific pressurized oxygen fire, while locked in the capsule at the top of a Saturn V rocket, thus proving Grimson’s point that the technology was not on the required level.

A 500 Page Report and a Death

Thomas Baron was a safety inspector during Apollo 1 construction. After the fire Baron testified before congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray the United States would never make it to the moon. His claim and his opinions made him the target. As part of his testimony Baron submitted the 500 page report detailing his findings Then exactly one week after he testified Baron's car was hit by a train. Baron, his wife and his step daughter were killed instantly.

The First Astronauts Didn't See the Stars

During their first interview, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins, did not know if they saw the stars from the Moon (while Buzz Aldrin looks down nervously). Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, the sky is black, and the stars are very bright. Later Astronauts (obviously better informed) sad they saw the stars and they were bright.

Lift offs With Infinite Acceleration

Apollo 15,16,17 lift offs start with sudden velocity, this violates Newton’s law of acceleration.

Lift off Without Dust and Flame

Apollo 15,16,17 Lift off: Lack of blowing dust and lack of flame. NASA believers claim that there should not have been a flame, dust etc… For the Apollo lunar ascent and descent module single main engine and sixteen attitude control thrusters, the fuel and oxidizer were, respectively, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. The space shuttle orbiter also uses hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Manoeuvring Subsystem and Reaction Control System, and the flame was visible on many NASA videos.

Lack of Craters under the LEMs

All 6 landings: Lack of a crater under the Landing Modules. Again, the exhaust does not dissipate as fast as not to create at least a small crater.

The Photos are Fake

Almost all NASA Photos are fake, all you have to do is to examine them with a good photo enhancement program. Although, some photos are genuine from orbiting position and on the Moon surface, these were taken most likely by the Surveyor spacecrafts that landed on the Moon.

No Legitimate Photos with the Earth in the Sky from the Moon's surface

The most brilliant object seen from the Moon is the blue Earth. Anybody would have taken many pictures of it, but not the NASA Astronauts. I counted only EIGHT pictures with the Earth in the sky that were taken from the Moon's surface. As shown on the picture to the right (AS14-64-9190HR), the Earth was clearly inserted into the pictures (when the Astronauts or the Landing Module are also on the photo).

Lack of Earth shine effects

According to NASA the Earth shine is 50 times brighter than a full Moon. Therefore, in the shady and very dark places on the Moon the Earth will lighten up objects when the Earth and object are in the right position. Indeed we have many NASA images with completely black shade, but not a single one showing the effect of the Earth shine.

Problems with Hasselblad 500 EL

-The 160 Kodak film used is not sensitive enough to take pictures with large illumination difference between shadow and bright spots on the Moon

-With the high ultraviolet radiation on Moon they could not take the color photos with as perfect colors as shown on many NASA photos

-Camera fixed on the chest

-No camera seeker

-Astronauts without long experience in making photos

-With radiation which has a negative influence on the films

Circumstantial Evidence

The Disney Connection

In the 1950s W. von Braun worked as technical director at Disney Studio on three space-related television films. Therefore, von Braun had the best experience to be in charge of faking the photos and videos. He also had the personality, as a former Nazi, to stage the fake Moon Landing.

Richard Nixon's Character

During the Apollo Moon Landings Richard Nixon was the President. We know his character from the Water-Gate scandal.

Radio Signals Not Picked Up

NASA believers claim that the signals should have been picked up from the Apollo mission in many countries. But, nobody has ever testified picking up signals from Apollo Spacecrafts, not even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Russian Scenario

Some Russian scientists claim that NASA has made it to the Moon, was orbiting it for a while, and returned without landing. This scenario would explain the radio signals from the Moon (if there were any picked up).

Moon Rocks

Moon Rocks do not prove manned mission, they can be brought back in unmanned mission.

Moon Rock Verification

The minimum requirement is to compare NASA Moon rock with Moon rock originating from the Antarctic. There should be difference due to the Antarctic rock being recrystallized going through Earth’s atmosphere. We do not have such laboratory results, therefore the NASA Moon rocks do not even prove a possible unmanned mission.

According to a Voice of America article:

"The vesicles are not cleanly [smoothly] spherical. They're spherical, but they have fairly rough outlines. They look as if there's been some recrystallization."

If recrystallization was proven, it would render the NASA Moon rocks fake, because the recrystallization could have occured only by going through Earth's atmosphere. Also, this would prove that the NASA rocks are from the Antarctic.

Buzz Aldrin Punches Bart Sibrel

A New Mexico documentary movie director, Bart Sibrel, wanted Aldrin the swear on the Bible that Aldrin had been on the Moon. Instead, Aldrin punched him.

European Space Agency’s Smart 1 Spacecraft

On USA Today:"We shall search for them (i.e.:landing sites), with measurements not only in black and white, but also in three colors...." They found nothing.

Japanese Aeronautical Agency’s Kaguya-Selene

From 10 kms above surface the "visible" camera resolution was 1m. They found nothing.

Lost Items:

-NASA lost Armstrong’s audio tape with his famous first sentence on the “Moon”.

-NASA lost Apollo 11’s video tapes.

Neil Armstrong on the 25th Anniversary:

-“The only bird that can talk is the parrot, but, he cant fly very well”

-"There are great ideas, undiscovered breakthroughs available, to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers."

Epilogue:

I believed until 2001, just like many of you do, that the Moon landings did happen. We all have been mesmerized for many years by NASA and political propaganda.

It was in the year of 2001, that I walked into a friend’s office, who was an IT and animation specialist. The day previous Fox aired the hoax documentary (I did not see it.). He showed me the Apollo lift offs from the Moon, then he showed two other animations: one with sudden start (infinite acceleration) and the other with gradual start (with realistic acceleration). I immediately knew what the problem was: The Apollo lift offs videos were with instant velocity, therefore the NASA videos were/are fake."

http://gianthoax.com/moonhoax/

I will post more photos of image composting and tampering when time allows.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

So rather than address the arguments, you attack the posters, ignore the arguments, and post more garbage. Typical.

[Duane Daman]

So rather than address the arguments, you attack the posters, ignore the arguments, and post more garbage. Typical.

Like I said before .. NOTHING will ever change on this forum.. Not even your TYPICAL flame baiting one liners.

I didn't "attack the posters".. I merely pointed out what type of silly "one up" games are played here, in an attempt to suppress the truth.

So thanks for proving my point.

[Dave Greer]

It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography.

Duane

You've really let yourself down here. One minute you're emailing me music and spoof videos, coming across all chummy-chummy, the next minute you're libelling me on a public forum. There's no need. We should all be capable of discussing the evidence in a civil manner, and agreeing to disagree where necessary. By all means, attack with gusto any evidence that is presented (you don't seem to be doing that), but is there really any need to resort to these tactics? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (we all have bad hair days), but if this is how you truly feel about me, then don't bother pretending to be friendly in future.

[Duane Daman]

It's obvious that the EF tag team of Burton, Greer, West, and Lamson (Lewis must be working on another forum) has no interest in the truth about Apollo, but only uses this forum to suppress the truth, by any means necessary.. Their disingenous mind games are quite transparent.. And from what I can see, several of the other members here have actually fallen for their dishonest games, which is understandable, since not many people are willing to accept the fact that NASA lied about Apollo and staged the photography.

Duane

You've really let yourself down here. One minute you're emailing me music and spoof videos, coming across all chummy-chummy, the next minute you're libelling me on a public forum. There's no need. We should all be capable of discussing the evidence in a civil manner, and agreeing to disagree where necessary. By all means, attack with gusto any evidence that is presented (you don't seem to be doing that), but is there really any need to resort to these tactics? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (we all have bad hair days), but if this is how you truly feel about me, then don't bother pretending to be friendly in future.

Dave,

My calling you one of the EF tag team was not meant as an insult, but rather as a fact.. What you do here, or on any other forum for that matter, doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree in a polite manner.. It's also no reason why I can't share music videos with you on YouTube, since we are both fans of Neil Young, or share humorous videos with you either, since I also know you have a sense of humor.

I sent you those videos not to be "all chummy-chummy" but to just be friendly .. I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt over my calling you one of the disingenuous tag team members here, but hey, if the shoe fits...

Cheers

[Dave Greer]

Dave,

My calling you one of the EF tag team was not meant as an insult, but rather as a fact.. What you do here, or on any other forum for that matter, doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree in a polite manner.. It's also no reason why I can't share music videos with you on YouTube, since we are both fans of Neil Young, or share humorous videos with you either, since I also know you have a sense of humor.

I sent you those videos not to be "all chummy-chummy" but to just be friendly .. I'm sorry if you got your feelings hurt over my calling you one of the disingenuous tag team members here, but hey, if the shoe fits...

Cheers

Hurt feelings? Thicker skinned than that. Disappointed by you? Yeah I guess so. You can't on the one hand be accusing someone in public of deliberately and dishonestly trying to stop the truth getting out, while in private behaving in a friendly manner. I'm sorry, but to me that's just a bit too weird for my tastes.