Apollo Photos are Crude Studio Fakes

[Dave Greer]

Well I must say that little checkerboard trick is quite impressive .... The colors sure look different to me , but then I don't know how to Photoshop images to prove it one way or another .

But this still doesn't explain why there are no bootprints leading up to where Conrad is doing the bunny hop on the moon set .

So I gather from your distraction tactics with the checkerboard picture that none of you can refute the evidence which shows this photo to be bogus ?

No , I can't prove that Conrad was suspended from a fly system , but from the position of his dancing bootprints , the lack of any bootprints leading up tp his position , and the way he is leaning forward , it appears that a fly system cable would be the most logical answer as to what is obviously wrong with this picture ..

Duane

The checkerboard illusion simply demonstrates that using phrases like "it's obviously fake", or "it looks obvious to me"", is not always a valid standopint to argue from. Squares A and B look like completely different colours - but they are an identical shade of grey. Hence, saying they are "obviously different" is a subjective opinion which happens to be wrong in this case.

That doesn't mean that subjective opinions are always wrong (many people say they trust their instincts - even though this simple example proves that instincts can let you down big style) - but you need to be able to back that opinion up with something of substance, by looking beyond your subjective opinion, and understanding why it might be wrong.

This applies to many things - and especially when it comes to trying to understand Apollo photos, taken under circumstances that are beyond our experience, if not our comprehension.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

"This applies to many things - and especially when it comes to trying to understand Apollo photos, taken under circumstances that are beyond our experience, if not our comprehension. "

This is not rocket science we are taking about here ... It's the fact that there are NO bootprints leading up to where Conrad is suspended from his fly system ... The few bootprints which ARE in the photo show that he didn't walk up to his position .... So he was either droppped in by cable or his image was superimposed over the background and the bootprints were added in later in the wrong place .... Take your pick .... but whichever you pick , the fact still remains that there are NO BOOTPRINTS walking up to where he is dangling for this photo shoot .

You know what the most annoying thing is about Apollo defenders ? ... They can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be a fake ... It doesn't mean the missions were fake Dave ... Just the photos ... but then if nasa told fibs about where the photos were really taken , then I guess they could possibly have told a few little fibs about their missions too , right ?

Speaking of telling fibs ... Have you seen those red tinted pictures of Mars that nasa tried to pass off to an unsuspecting public as being the real colors of the RED PLANET !!! ... They are too funny for words ! ... Those clowns actually ordered the photos coming in from the Mars rover to be changed , so that the BLUE SKY of Mars would be PINK and the BROWN DIRT of Mars would be RED ! .... Oops again .

I think I will post them here so we can all see how deceptive nasa really is when it comes to their missions to other planets .

Edited February 23, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

You know what the most annoying thing is about Apollo defenders ? ... They can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be a fake ...

If the Apollo images are truly correct - as I believe - then the reverse is also true: the "Apollo Hoaxers" refuse to admit that they might be wrong.

It doesn't mean the missions were fake Dave ... Just the photos ... but then if nasa told fibs about where the photos were really taken , then I guess they could possibly have told a few little fibs about their missions too , right ?

Is this a change in position? You have previously claimed that it was impossible for the Apollo astronauts to travel through the Van Allen Belts (VAB) without serious physiological damage. If it was impossible to travel through the VAB, then it was impossible for a manned landing on the Moon.

If it was possible for Apollo astronauts to travel to and land on the Moon, you have to explain why the images were "faked".

Based on your statements, I request you clarify your position.

[Duane Daman]

What I mean is that Dave will never admit the photos are fake because he believes that would imply that the missions were faked ... but that is not necessarily the case .... nasa could have gotten to the moon and found things they didn't want us to see .. So they faked the photos to cover up what is really on the moon .

What do I believe personally ? ... That both the Apollo photos and the Apollo missions were faked .

But I don't discount the possibly of an alternative technology landing men on the moon ... A stealth technology that our military wants to keep hidden from the world .... and if this alternate space program did take place behind the scenes , then Apollo was just the smoke screen paraded out in front of the TV cameras and the world ... The conventional technology used by Apollo didn't look like it could endure a fall off of a balcony , much less a trip through deep space to land safely on the moon .... I could be wrong , but you asked me to clarifly my position and that would be it .

[Evan Burton]

What I mean is that Dave will never admit the photos are fake because he believes that would imply that the missions were faked ... but that is not necessarily the case .... nasa could have gotten to the moon and found things they didn't want us to see .. So they faked the photos to cover up what is really on the moon .

What do I believe personally ? ... That both the Apollo photos and the Apollo missions were faked .

But I don't discount the possibly of an alternative technology landing men on the moon ... A stealth technology that our military wants to keep hidden from the world .... and if this alternate space program did take place behind the scenes , then Apollo was just the smoke screen paraded out in front of the TV cameras and the world ... The conventional technology used by Apollo didn't look like it could endure a fall off of a balcony , much less a trip through deep space to land safely on the moon .... I could be wrong , but you asked me to clarifly my position and that would be it .

Thank you for that.

[Dave Greer]

"This applies to many things - and especially when it comes to trying to understand Apollo photos, taken under circumstances that are beyond our experience, if not our comprehension. "

This is not rocket science we are taking about here ... It's the fact that there are NO bootprints leading up to where Conrad is suspended from his fly system ... The few bootprints which ARE in the photo show that he didn't walk up to his position .... So he was either droppped in by cable or his image was superimposed over the background and the bootprints were added in later in the wrong place .... Take your pick .... but whichever you pick , the fact still remains that there are NO BOOTPRINTS walking up to where he is dangling for this photo shoot .

You're missing out at least one other possibility - the bootprints are there but are simply not visible: hidden by, for example, the astronauts own shadow. Can I prove this? No. Can I discount this as a possibility? No.

You know what the most annoying thing is about Apollo defenders ? ... They can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be a fake ... It doesn't mean the missions were fake Dave ... Just the photos ... but then if nasa told fibs about where the photos were really taken , then I guess they could possibly have told a few little fibs about their missions too , right ?

Do you want me to answer in a similarly trite manner? OK - the most annoying thing about Conspiracy Theorists is that they can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be real.

Not a single photo that I have looked at has been proven to be fake, so why should I admit to something that hasn't been proven? Everytime you see proof of fakery, I see mundane explanations that fit what we see. Occam's principle wins out each time, at least from my point of view.

A quick example. I was having a discussion with someone on another site about animal mutilation, and mentioned how I saw a decaying corpse of a dolphin washed up on a beach when I lived abroad in my youth. The dolphin exhibited some similar features that alleged animal mutilations do. My explanation was that it was probably due to the corpse rotting and being scavenged on. The other person asked if it was possible that it could have been caused by time-travelling aliens. My answer, it could have been time-travelling aliens, and I would have no way of proving that it could not be time travellling aliens, but given the evidence available, the most likely explanation of the two is the one I thought of. Occam's principle in action.

So, if you want to believe that the astronaut was dangled onto a moon set on a harness for some bizarre reason, you have every right to believe that. However, even if the photos were faked, then the simplest way to do that would just be to get the astronaut to walk around on set, doing what the astronauts were supposed to be doing. Hence, even if I did believe that the moon landings were faked (or even this one photo), I wouldn't subscribe to the fly-harness theory - it seems an exceedingly unlikely way for some to try and fake that particular shot.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Dave Greer]

Trying to find the most appropriate thread to put this in - I think this one should be OK.

I was thinking about the 16mm DAC footage of each and every Apollo mission that landed on the moon, and how it would be very difficult if not impossible to fake using 1960's film and computer technology. We see footage of the lunar surface from several thousand feet up, then the LM pitching over, descending slowly, traversing the lunar surface where we can clearly make out surface features. The surface gets closer and closer, then about 100 feet up, we start to see dust being blown out from beneath the lander. We see the shadow of the LM (in at least one case while the LM is some way above the surface - Apollo 15 I think). The shadow of the LM descends until touchdown, the engines are stopped, the dust stops.

Incredible footage, and how they would fake that in 1969-1972 I don't know.

It's been purported that they used huge clay models - but how would these show the incredible level of surface detail as well as detail from several thousand feet? How would they have faked the dust being scoured from under the LMs exhaust bell?

The more we look in detail at the photos and the 16mm and TV footage, the more congruous they appear - surely not evidence of "crude studio fakes", but evidence in favour of Apollo? Take for example the 16mm landing sequence of Apollo 14 (you'll need DivX to play it). Look at the sequence all the way through.

Now, look at the last image of the lunar surface after the craft has landed. There are also several Hasselblad photos taken from the LM which show this dentical scene. Every last crater and rock is present both in the 16mm DAC footage, and in the equivalent Hasselblad photo.

For example, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...4-66-9230HR.jpg.

I've cut the relevant part form the 16mm footage, rotated it slightly and enlarged it, and superimposed it over this scene taken form the same window).

The only differences I can see between the two images is the shortening shadow lengths - which you would expect to shorten with the Sun rising in the intervening 5.5 hours. Here's a GIF which shows things more clearly.

Crude studio fakes? Either Apollo was faked so incredibly well that it's virtually impossible to tell it from the real thing, or it is the real thing.