NASA Exposes Their Apollo Moon Landing Hoax!

[Kevin M. West]

Astronomers from all over the world would have jumped at the chance to have seen a sight like that

Why don't you ask a few astronomers if there would have been any scientific value to pictures of the stars taken from a handheld camera on the moon.

[Duane Daman]

Astronomers from all over the world would have jumped at the chance to have seen a sight like that

Why don't you ask a few astronomers if there would have been any scientific value to pictures of the stars taken from a handheld camera on the moon.

Why don't you give me some reasons why you are making ridiculous assumptions that such a picture taken from another planetary body wouldn't be of any scientific value to astronomers ?

List them please!

The point is this .... Man allegedly set foot on an alien planet for the first time in the history of mankind .... But what did they take dozens photographs of ? ... Their BOOTPRINTS !

The stars had obviously NEVER been photographed from the Moon before and had NEVER even been SEEN from the Moon before ... So why wouldn't they have at least photographed them once ?? ... And why wouldn't they ALL have mentioned SEEING them ?? ... It makes no sense unless they COULDN'T SEE THEM OR PHOTOGRAPH THEM FOR SOME STRANGE REASON ! ( LIKE MAYBE THEY WEREN'T REALLY ON THE MOON ! )

[Craig Lamson]

AT THE END OF AN EVA , WHEN PACKING UP, WHEN DRIVING TO STATIONS ON APOLLO 15, 16 , AND 17. ... SIMPLY SET THE CAMERA UP DURING TRAVERSE AND TAKE A PHOTO WHEN THE ROVER STOPS... WHAT A PICTURE! .. HALFWAY UP HADLEY RILLE WITH STARS ABOVE OVEREXPOSED LUNAR SCENES.

I think you have a typo there. You said "OVEREXPOSED LUNAR SCENES" when you must have meant "solid white area unrecognizable as anything specific".

No , it doesn't need to be recognizable as anything specific , as long as the horizon and lay of the lunar surface can be made out.

As well as those elusive "STARS" of course!

Here's a simulated Vegas example of what the lunar surface would have looked like if any of the astronots had bothered to take any photographs of the stars above an overexposed surface.

Astronomers from all over the world would have jumped at the chance to have seen a sight like that and nasa knew it .... but for some VERY strange reason , the guys allegedly standing on the Moon decided to not take any star photographs , even though they should have been able to .

So the excuse to not take take photos of stars without an atmosphere on the Moon , regardless of overexposing everything else is completely ludicrous.

So why include the foreground IF IT WAS GOING TO BE OVERXPOSED by 10 stops or more? If star photos WHOULD have been taken, why not shoot only the sky?

All of this still begs the question, which you have not answered...Why would star pictures from the moon be that much better than ones taken with proper equipment from a high, clear, dark sky site here on earth?

[Evan Burton]

I'd be interested to see if any of the documentation for Apollo, starting from right back when it was the Space Task Group under Eisenhower, ever set a goal of taking photographs of the stars from the lunar surface.

I'd bet money it has never been a goal. Why? Because you are there to study the Moon, not the stars. You are there to gather data that you cannot obtain from elsewhere.

Photographs of stars? That was a primary purpose of Skylab, with the Apollo Telescope Mount amongst other observing equipment.

[Duane Daman]

Yes , I'd be interested how many hours NASA's think tank must have sat around discussing the scientific merits of taking a photographic tripod stand to the Moon , and how much of that precious EVA time couldn't be sacrificed to leave a camera sitting for 30 seconds to photograph the stars .

Of course , little did NASA realise that a few of there heros were planning other ways to spend that precious 30 seconds, by displaying their golf skills, and franking the envelopes they were planning on selling to the highest bidder , and also carving a heart into the moonset dust during the Apollo 12 stunt .

Here is a rather suspicious looking photograph of the UV camera , which allegedly took many photographs of stars during the Apollo 16 photoshoot ...

Notice how brightly lit the camera is in that dark shadow !!

And here is the article explaining that part of the mission .

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1972-031C-10.html

Now the only thing missing are all of those photograhs of stars that this camera allegedly took .... If you happen to find any , could you please post them here ? ... Thanks . ... * ( except for that one very questionable example you already managed to find , that is )

Edited October 23, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Evan Burton]

Now the only thing missing are all of those photograhs of stars that this camera allegedly took .... If you happen to find any , could you please post them here ? ... Thanks . ... * ( except for that one very questionable example you already managed to find , that is )

You are mis-stating the situation. No missing photographs. They may not be online, but they are available:

Ultraviolet Imagery and Spectra

NSSDC ID: ASUV-00048

Other ID: 72-031C-10A

Availability: At NSSDC, Ready for Offline Distribution (or Staging if Digital)

Time Span: 1974-09-06 to 1975-12-09 (as determined by NSSDC)

Description:

This data set consists of 70-mm film containing a second-generation negative copy of the 35-mm film returned from the Descartes landing site, Apollo 16 mission, experiment S201. Included are pre-flight calibration exposures (mission frame number 1-18), a black frame (mission frame number 19), and the 190 exposures taken from the lunar surface (mission frame numbers 20 - 209). The mission frame number for each picture is on the film, but no other information is given. The lunar surface exposures are distributed over ten specific target pointings. There are both imagery and spectral frames. Imagery was done with a lithium flouride or a calicium flouride corrector plate, while the spectra were taken using either the lithium flouride corrector plate or no corrector plate. (Note: the complete data on each of the mission frames is contained in the separate NSSDC data set 72-031C-10C. This data set will be sent automatically to those requesting this data set).

Archive Location

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Space Science Data Center)

Media Information

209 70-mm Black & White Negative, Feet

************************

Digitized Scans of the Far-Ultraviolet Camera/Spectroscope Frames

NSSDC ID: ASUV-00017

Other ID: 72-031C-10B

Availability: At NSSDC, Ready for Offline Distribution (or Staging if Digital)

Time Span: 1972-04-21 to 1972-04-23 (as determined by NSSDC)

Description

This data set consists of magnetic tapes containing the digitized results of microdensitometering the 209 mission frames from the Apollo 16 far-UV camera experiment of Carruthers and Page. These scans were all performed on the dicomed model 57 microdensitometer using a spot size of 38 microns and a scan interval of 32 microns. The tapes contain a total of 476 scans. There are 288 scans of the 190 mission picture frames, 58 scans of the 19 mission calibration-frames, and 130 scans of the special frames used for calibration control during the scanning process. All tapes in this date set were written in binary and were packed at 8 bit/byte. Each tape is multifiled and has no information other than the direct scanning data. The data on the tapes are blocked out in the following manner. First, the scan of one complete frame is contained in one file. Second, each record within a file represents one scan line of data recorded left to right. (The full scan of one mission frame is equivalent to 1024 records). Third, each byte (b bits) within a record represents the light transmittance value recorded by the scanner for one increment of the scan interval. The 8-bit a/d digitization allows for a possible range from 0 to 255 in the recorded transmittance values along the scan line. The maximum number of elements (bytes) per scan line for a mission frame is 1024. (Note - to locate the scan of particular frames on these tapes and to know how that scan was performed requires used of the NSSDC data set 72-031C-10C. Data set 72-031C-10C will be sent automatically to those requesting data set 72-031C-10B.)

Further questions can be directed to:

NSSDC Coordinated Request and Support Office, Code 633

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771

+1-301-286-6695 (Voice)

+1-301-286-1635 (fax)

request@mail630.gsfc.nasa.gov

[Evan Burton]

It also turns out that many of the images are available online:

http://www3.telus.net/summa/faruv/

(Thanks Dexter!)

[Duane Daman]

Thanks for all the links and the photos ... Unfortunately they look just as fake as the rest of the Apollo photos , that were allegedly taken on the lunar surface .

And how can you explain the UV camera being brightly lit up in the midde of that pitch black shadow ? .... It looks as though it was superimposed into the photograph.

[Evan Burton]

Thanks for all the links and the photos ... Unfortunately they look just as fake as the rest of the Apollo photos, that were allegedly taken on the lunar surface.

So you have become an expert in stellar UV photography? Exactly how are they fake? Precisely please. Like "the 200 angstrom light values are insufficient to have registered with the UV camera settings, because the following formula dictates that only values between 500 to 1500 would have been visible without dimming or blooming...."

Please tell us, oh wise one.

In the mean time, while waiting for your great dissertation, I'll contact the people (astronomers, you know, ordinary folk without technical knowledge) who can tell us.

[Duane Daman]

This stellar UV photography image was taken from low earth orbit .... So what proof do you have that the one's you posted were taken from the Moon ?

"Release Date: 12 June 1995

This arc of hot stars in the star-forming region N 51 in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) was photographed by NASA's Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UIT) during the Astro-2 mission of Space Shuttle Endeavour, March 2-18, 1995. The LMC is about 160,000 light- years from the Earth, and appears in the constellation Dorado, which is visible from the Earth's southern hemisphere. "

http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/project/Astro...es.html#NGC6752

[Craig Lamson]

And how can you explain the UV camera being brightly lit up in the midde of that pitch black shadow ? .... It looks as though it was superimposed into the photograph.

If you had a clue as to how light works you would understand. All the clues are there. In what direction are the shadow on the telescope being cast?

gotta love the power of reflected light...works great on shiny stuff!

Edited October 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Thanks for all the links and the photos ... Unfortunately they look just as fake as the rest of the Apollo photos, that were allegedly taken on the lunar surface.

So you have become an expert in stellar UV photography? Exactly how are they fake? Precisely please. Like "the 200 angstrom light values are insufficient to have registered with the UV camera settings, because the following formula dictates that only values between 500 to 1500 would have been visible without dimming or blooming...."

Please tell us, oh wise one.

In the mean time, while waiting for your great dissertation, I'll contact the people (astronomers, you know, ordinary folk without technical knowledge) who can tell us.

I gotta love this one. Duane spends days telling us how great a thing it would have been to photograph stars from the moon. Only HE wants it done with a hasselblad and a wide angle lens. So Nasa does it right, with a correct, TRACKING telescope and returns almost 200 images from this dedicated imaging equipment. BUT WAIT! Not good enough for Duane! He wants snapshots instead! What amazing logic.

Faced once again with evidence that destroys his position, he reverts to the Jack White defence....the phoots LOOK faked! ROFLMAO!

[Evan Burton]

This stellar UV photography image was taken from low earth orbit .... So what proof do you have that the one's you posted were taken from the Moon ?

No, that's not correct. Once again, from the data set posted above:

"This data set consists of 70-mm film containing a second-generation negative copy of the 35-mm film returned from the Descartes landing site, Apollo 16 mission, experiment S201. Included are pre-flight calibration exposures (mission frame number 1-18), a black frame (mission frame number 19), and the 190 exposures taken from the lunar surface (mission frame numbers 20 - 209)."

You yourself posted images of the camera on the lunar surface.

[Craig Lamson]

This stellar UV photography image was taken from low earth orbit .... So what proof do you have that the one's you posted were taken from the Moon ?

No, that's not correct. Once again, from the data set posted above:

"This data set consists of 70-mm film containing a second-generation negative copy of the 35-mm film returned from the Descartes landing site, Apollo 16 mission, experiment S201. Included are pre-flight calibration exposures (mission frame number 1-18), a black frame (mission frame number 19), and the 190 exposures taken from the lunar surface (mission frame numbers 20 - 209)."

You yourself posted images of the camera on the lunar surface.

Duane seems to think that stars photographed from the moon with a standard camera would be SO much better than those taken with the same equipment here on earth. I guess he forget the tell this photograper:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ost&id=3625

Edited October 24, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

Ooops - apologies, Duane, I misread your reply.

Well, the star positions don't tell us much - at least not enough to say this is from LEO and this is from the lunar surface.

Some of the images show the Earth and star fields; how far away would you need to be in order to "re-create" that shot from LEO? Can they be taken from LEO? What do they show? Can they be taken from within the VABs?