Dave Greer

Computer enhancement tells you that there was a lot a scanner noise on that image. Someone thought the image would look nicer if the scanner noise was blacked out. Take a look at a copy of the image I found at this website - ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/as11_40_5863.jpg If you zoom in on the image you can see what appears to be scanner noise over the whole image. Here's a crop to show what I mean. It looks like someone had a copy of this image (or similar), didn't like the scanner noise in the sky, so cropped most of it out to make the sky look black. No great mystery.

This is purely a matter of semantics. If the original images used to create the stitched-together panorama are genuine, it's disingenuous to suggest that the panorama is a "faked photo", which suggests subterfuge. For example, I recently visited Abu Dhabi, and took several photos of the Corniche. I later used software to stitch some of the images together into a panorama. Makes a neat desktop image. Using your definition, I created a faked photo - but it was created from originals. You can call my panorama a fake, but that doesn't mean the individual images it was composed from are fakes. From a hoax point of view, it only makes sense to analyse images which are purported to be single Hasselblad images, with a reference number. Stitched panoramas are visually impressive, but should not be used for analytical purposes for various reasons. Analysis should only be done on the original images.

Jack You've detected dust on the lens. Look at the images immediately before and after the image in question. It's part of a pan. The other images show the same feature in the same place relative to the frame of the image. If it was a badly lit backdrop, it would be in the same place relative to the background. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18813.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18814.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18815.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18816.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18817.jpg AS16-117-18814 (before) AS16-117-18816 (after)

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA and the US military have been involved to some degree in several projects. I don't know enough of the structure of either organisation to form a definite opinion as to whether NASA falls under the jurisdiction of the military, but I think it's unlikely, since Obama proposed that NASA and the Dept of Defense space programme should effectively merge. "President-elect Barack Obama will probably remove barriers between the U.S. civilian and military space programs once he takes office, according to one report. Bloomberg News reported late Thursday that Obama's transition team was exploring collaboration between NASA and the Pentagon in order to get America's next generation of spacecraft into orbit before the scheduled date of 2015." Source There have obviously been big spin-offs for the military from much of NASAs research (see link as example). http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/381584main_Military_Contributions.pdf As an outsider looking in, I hope NASA and the Dept of Defense stay separate, but as I don't pay any tax dollars I have absolutely no say in the matter!

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.

Neil Armstrong is by nature a very humble, reticent human being. That's just who he is. He doesn't revel in being the centre of attention, and that doesn't always sit well with being the first man to walk on the moon. You're mis-representing what actually happens in the interview. The interviewer asked a rhetorical question, and answered it without giving Armstrong time to speak. He didn't ask the question, wait several seconds while there was an awkward silence, then tell Armstrong the answer. There was no hesitation on Armstrong's part, because he wasn't even given time to answer the question, which was rhetorical anyway! If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to get a stopwatch, and measure the amount of time between the words "moon" and "twelve". It's a fraction of a second, virtually instantaneous. As always you're entitled to your opinion. In my opinion, his humility is admirable, as is his desire for Apollo to be recognised as a team effort involving thousands, rather than focussing on the steps of one man who happened to be the one who first climbed out of the hatch. It's also clear from this interview (and others), that he doesn't want his life to be defined by a single action, but for the "ledger of our daily work".

Duane The site you linked to had a link to the Apollo image on the ALSJ, but that's not the one that shows the effect in the sky that they've highlighted (when processed). That's what I'm after, the actual image they used (i.e. the link to the image on whatever site they got it from, not just the ref number), and also what processing was used to highlight the effect shown. I think John has quite amply shown that he's capable of doing his own research and coming to his own conclusions. I look forward to it, especially if it is claimed to be "proof" that the Apollo imagery cannot possibly be real, rather than "this is how I think they might have been able to fake it". Those 2 are not the same.

John Many of the Apollo images are available as very high resolution scans taken directly from film rolls, with no processing applied, from the Gateway to Astronaut Photography website. The images available at most other sites, for example the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, have been editted in order to improve the appearance of the image (minor cropping, improved contrast, scanner noise removed from sky, etc). If we take the image in question, you can find the link to the very high resolution image on this page (click on the link, 5 minutes later the image should be available from the server). Compare it to the highest resolution version at the ALSJ (click here). You can see the improved contrast, darkened sky etc very well (even though the original scan is of higher resolution). I've tried applying various filters and other techniques to both the ALSJ and "Gateway" versions of this image, but can't see the kind of detail shown in the version Duane has brought up for discussion. As we don't know what site it came from, we don't know the provenance, and can't contact them to see what processing was done to the image to create the effect seen. Maybe if Duane could supply the link to the URL this image came from (pre-processing), and also details of what processing was done to the image we could investigate further.

There's nothing to address. It was created using a still from the Apollo 15 lift-off footage. I'm still waiting for proof that LRO images were faked, rather than conjecture.

Duane Have you got any proof to support your assertions? I'm sure that like me you've seen many photos taken on Earth that show the same kind of features you've mentioned here, but that doesn't mean those images were faked using front screen projection, or small scale set models. Here's an example. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Joshua_tree_keys_view_pano_more_vertical.jpg If you think that image is faked, you could go out and take photographs yourself that show the same features that you say were created using front projection, or small scale model sets. What specifically is it about the Apollo images that proves they must have been faked in the way you claim?

The sun angle in the second image is different to the first. It's almost directly above, which makes it virtually impossible to see shadows. It also affects contrast and the way differences in albedo. are represented. You can see this in many LRO images, including ones that don't include Apollo hardware.

Addressing a couple of the recent claims made about rover tracks. 1. Only single tracks being shown when there are four wheels. Clearly the rear wheels may just run over the same line that the front wheels did. Sometimes you can see both tracks, as witnessed here. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11195HR.jpg 2. Tracks not visible in between wheels. As pointed out, astronaut activity around the rover can easily kick up enough dust, or create enough bootprints, to cover the tracks up. Sometimes the tracks are only partly covered up, as shown in this image. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11200HR.jpg

If not Apollo landing sites, what do all those these images show? This one for example (Apollo 12 landing site). 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? Well, that wasn't the LROs mission, but it's done it more than adequately IMO. Apollo 11 for example.

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. 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.

Ever heard of "artistic licence"? The only people making a big deal out of it are you and Jack. Otherwise you wouldn't be getting Jack to post red-herrings like this:- <IMAGE REMOVED BY MODERATOR> I think it's time to leave this image alone and concentrate on the actual Apollo images, given that you now seem to be distancing yourself from it. This thread demonstrates quite succinctly that your estimation is often way off beam. Non-exclusivity of stock image websites has about as much to do with the authenticity of the Apollo programme as the contents of my sock drawer has to do with traffic enforcement in Leamington Spa.

The guy who took the photo is a photographer. Here's his website. Here's his email address. The photo is claimed to have been taken in the Sahara. The appearance of the shoe-prints supports this (they aren't anywhere near as distinct as the Apollo photos). Examination of the tyre tracks clearly shows they are not the same as the LRV tracks. The only people on the face of the planet claiming this image might be part of the Apollo photography are Jack and Jim, or Jack or Jim, I don't know who made the claim first and care even less. This whole episode is an exercise in futility and desperation. Critical thinking skills, who needs them? If the photographer had decided to label his image "Mark of the Martian Rover", no doubt you'd be inferring that NASA have already started faking images for a manned trip to Mars in thirty years time, and this one was released early by a whistle-blower. I know it's a long shot, but maybe, just maybe, this photo was actually taken by the person who claims to have taken it, in the Sahara desert? Who'd a thunked it...

Four reasons? (i) that the setting looks like that of many other "official" moon rover photographs It's a black and white photo of sand, with tyre tracks and shoe-prints. It's bound to have a superficial resemblance to some of the Apollo photos. (ii) John Dolva has offer a counter-argument to Kevin's suggestion it was NOT taken on the moon Here is what John said by way of clarification:- "Just to clarify. I hold no significant opinion on the photo Kevin regards as earthbased in the prev study. My references were to the NASA image, I haven't delved into the other picture and so don't have anything much to say about it. If there are connections in what I wrote and the representation of it as providing a reason ... then that is not intentional. I basically wish to focus on images that NASA presents as authentic." (iii) other photos offered by fotosearch are identified as "artist's renderings", for example, if they are not "official" moon landing photographs Not all - see below. In addition, you seem to be inferring that fotosearch's naming convention is the final arbiter on the authenticity or otherwise of an image. This is not an argument that many will find convincing. (iv) Foto Search has s price list as follows: <snip> I can't imagine how they could be charging prices like these for an image that was NOT "an official moon rover photo from the moon". Incredulity isn't proof of anything. You can download hi-res images of all the Apollo photos from NASA sites for free, so why would an outlandishly high pricing policy on fotosearch (for MANY of their images) somehow point to this image being an authentic Apollo image, when you can download them all for free? Using your logic, this image must also be a genuine Apollo photo, since fotosearch are charging up to $399.95 for a digital copy of this image. http://www.fotosearch.com/CRT465/15476-64dg/ I was really hoping you could do better than that Jim.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suppose that the image in question may be part of the official moon rover collection. It shows tyre tracks and shoe-prints in sand. The person who took the photo thought it resembled lunar rover tracks, thus the name "Mark of the Moon Rover". Fotosearch is a stock photo repository, he probably sold it to them. Does this sound like a more or less likely scenario than the one you have proposed? Do you agree that the burden of proof for a claim such as yours should fall squarely on your shoulders to demonstrate that image is meant to be authentic?

Aviation Week and Space Technology featured that very image on the front cover of their May 8, 1972 edition (just 11 days after Apollo 16 returned to Earth). No c on rock.

I couldn't agree with you more John. I don't post here for the benefit of Jack W (and latterly Jim F). I post in the hope that those of questioning mind will appreciate and understand both sides of the argument, and perhaps even take the time out to do some research for themselves. I must confess though, it is worrying when someone of Jim's credentials is so easily persuaded by Jack's studies, which are either demonstrably false, or simply "appeal to belief" when there is a perfectly plausible and mundane explanation that fits very well with the "official" Apollo record.

No big mystery here folks. From the ALSJ:- 122:49:13 Schmitt: That looks good. That looks good. Hold that heading. [After letting Jack off at the SEP transmitter, Gene will re-initialize the Rover navigation system which he will use in laying out N-S and E-W tracks with the Rover wheels. He and Jack will then use these tracks as guides for laying out the four 35-meter-long arms of the SEP transmitter antenna.] [The third line of CDR-32 calls for Gene to position the Rover so that he is pointing east. After initializing the Nav system, he is to drive east for 100 meters; then turn right to a heading of 210 and drive another 100 meters; and, finally, turn right to a heading of 360 for a drive of 200 meters north. This procedure would produce a cross of Rover tracks intersecting about 50 meters east of the SEP transmitter. Then, once Gene has the pattern laid out, Jack will carry the transmitter over to the intersection.] [Cernan - "We came up with this during training; the Rover heading indicator let us get a very accurate layout."] [Gene's statement that he is rolling west is open to several contradictory interpretations. One is that he has misspoken and means "east" rather than "west". A second interpretation is that Gene is going to lay out the pattern west of the transmitter, rather then east of it. A third interpretation is simply that he is going west of the transmitter before coming back alongside it, headed east, to let Jack off. I prefer the last of these.]

Jack Don't have a cow, I was helping you out to get things moving. I disagree when you say the numbers aren't necessary. How can anyone check the validity of your claims without access to higher resolution images, or not being able to put the images into context by looking at other photos at the same time that may show something you've missed, or by examining the video footage taken at the same time? For example, there is a photo taken after Apollo 17 EVA3 that shows the tracks left where the rover had been at the end of EVA2. So, if they lowered it onto set by a crane for some reason at the end of EVA2, they certainly drove it away after EVA3. In fact, the EVA2 image shows tyre tracks, but they have mainly been obscured by 30 minutes of astronaut activity around the LM - activity that you can actually witness in the video footage. Here are the remnants of the tyre tracks in AS17-140-21354. Here is the post-EVA3 image, showing the tyre tracks exactly where the rover was parked at the end of EVA 2. Click here for hi-res version. The tyre tracks start just to the left of the horizontal thruster. And here is the link to the EVA2 closeout videos, watch them all to see how much astronaut activity there is around the LM. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.clsout2.html#1471519mh

In the interests of getting this thing rolling, here are the image numbers and links to the images Jack used in his original studies. Gary, feel free to move this to the other thread if you deem it appropriate. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-023483100%201283279937_thumb.jpg Image number - AS17-137-20979 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-095921600%201283279948_thumb.jpg Image number - AS17-143-21933 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-036518400%201283279959_thumb.jpg Image number - AS17-140-21354 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-070676600%201283279984_thumb.jpg Image number - AS15-88-11902 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-089437100%201283280026_thumb.jpg Image number - AS15-85-11470 Image number - AS15-85-11471 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-018472200%201283280033_thumb.jpg Image number - AS15-85-11437 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-5621-021770500%201283280041_thumb.jpg Image number - AS16-109-17797 I've changed the thumbnails of Jack's studies to links due to the limit on posting images, but they're pretty much in order as posted.

Jim, with respect, I'm going to find it very hard to maintain any kind of reasoned debate with someone who holds an opinion like that. The towers didn't collapse, but turned to dust? I'm going to withdraw from this debate there is clearly nothing further left for me to say.

Your initial claim was that they should have carried on digging to look for survivors because the official government position was that it crashed into a mine shaft. But that isn't the official position. The official position is that it crashed, nose first, at 580mph, into a field. That field was at the edge of a reclaimed strip-mine. The plane did not crash into a mine shaft. If someone takes issue with the "official position", do you agree that it is incumbent upon that person to state the "official position" correctly, rather than ambiguously (at best), or completely incorrectly (at worst)?