Apollo 11 Moon Photo Hoax Evidence

[Jack White]

Since the response to the topic of faked Apollo moon photos

has been so sparse, I may discontinue posting all the faked

photos from Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. If at least 5 of you

have an interest in this subject, please post a reply and I

may continue.

This obvious fake is NOT representative of my research.

Jack

PS...I attempted to add an image to this posting, but the image refuses

to post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trying again to add the image.

Jack

[Shanet Clark]

Of course I am in the group wanting more photo analyses.

[Jack White]

Of course I am in the group wanting more photo analyses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shanet...just for you.

Seriously, I would like for EVERYONE to respond who would like

to see more faked Apollo photos. I would like at least

5 or 6 respond, to make it worth the trouble.

I hope this image posts, since the last five times I tried

the images did not attach. This is a test.

Jack

[Frank Agbat]

Jack,

I find these photos intriguing. I had not given the entire Apollo program much consideration, but I'm certainly going to give it another look based upon what you've posted.

Regards,

Frank

[Jack White]

Jack,

I find these photos intriguing.  I had not given the entire Apollo program much consideration, but I'm certainly going to give it another look based upon what you've posted.

Regards,

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Frank. Five persons have now responded favorably, so I will continue to post these images. I hope to get lots of comments from those who are interested and study the images.

Jack

[Shanet Clark]

2/05

Members

I have perused the web and our ED.FORUM/JFK site has the best visual aids to help judge the Lunar Photographs authenticity debate, thanks to our member, Jack White.

The only better source is the exhaustive NASA site itself:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Please go through the 16mm and Hasselblad stills with a critical mind.

REVIEW THE STILLS, these are worth looking at!

Edited January 7, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Evan Burton]

Here is another interesting comparison of two consecutive exposures

from Apollo 11. Aldrin is carrying two pieces of the Seismic Experiment.

Between exposures, as he takes a couple of steps, the equipment seems

to undergo a considerable transformation. Also, the two pieces were

to be carried like a dumbbell by a "carrying bar" connecting them.

The bar is not seen, and Aldrin seems to be holding each piece awkwardly

using some unseen "handle" on top.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

I can see no disparity between the photographs. Handles are often recessed, so I don't see any problem that a handle is not in view.

Could you please educate me further on where the actual disparity is?

BTW, I am starting from the begining of posts. If this has already been addressed, I apologise.

[Evan Burton]

if my mind serves me correctly, werent aldrin and armstrong mere rookies and other more qualified astronauts were overlooked. Jack, in your opinion, how were aldrin and armstrong co-erced into going along with this, I dont think i could live a lie like that for the whole of my life. presumably they sent a craft up into space for show and then broadcast the faked images of them on the moon. are there any photos of the shuttle landing?

john

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John, Excuse me if this has already been answered. I'm going through this (large) thread piece-by-piece.

Aldrin & Armstrong were NOT rookies.

Aldrin flew on Gemin 12, and Armstrong flew on Gemini 8.

The man responsible for flight assignments was Deke Slayton (himself a member of the original Mercury 7). Flight assignments went by a rotation. Backup crew, miss two missions, then prime crew. These assignments were sometimes changed by necessity (as Mike Collins got reassigned to Apollo 11 because of a back injury).

When you say "more qualified', exactly what do you mean? The most qualified were the original Mercury 7. Shepherd had Meneires Disease, and was grounded. Ditto for Slayton. Glenn had left NASA for a political career. Carpenter left NASA for underseas study. Cooper flew on Gemini 5 before leaving NASA. Schirra flew on Gemini 6 before commanding Apollo 7, and then retired. Grissom died in the Apollo 1 fire.

The most qualified people were the "next nine" from the Gemini days, and they were put into a rotation.

Finally, could I ask what you mean by "are there any photos of the shuttle landing?"?

There are many images and videos available of the Shuttle landing, both from test flights and from orbital missions.

If you refer to a lunar mission, then you are badly mistaken. The Shuttle was never designed to leave Earth orbit, and never did so.

[Evan Burton]

For several years now rather than exclusively JFK studies, I have concentrated my efforts on two much larger and more important US govt conspiracies. In order to EDUCATE the many members of this forum, I will post in this category much of my previous work in these two areas.

The first area is the massive propaganda program of the 60s and 70s to make the world believe that the US sent manned missions to the moon. Promised by JFK in his inauguration speech, the hoax was actually perpetrated by his two evil successors, Johnson and Nixon to stake out a claim of space superiority for the US during the Cold War.

They called it NASA's APOLLO manned moon missions.  At a cost of billions of dollars, a sophisticated program simulated several missions, and offered as proof of success THOUSANDS OF FAKE PHOTOS SHOT IN A PHOTO STUDIO ON EARTH. I have done several hundred photo evaluations which prove this beyond any doubt. I will post many of these studies here for your edification.

The second area is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT...the staged events of 9-11...another massive propaganda event perpetrated by the Bush administration to provide a NEW PEARL HARBOR...an excuse to go to war for control of middle east oil resources. I have studied this intensively for three years and will offer photographic proof that the OFFICIAL STORY IS NOT TRUE.

On both issues, the real secrets are well hidden. But I will show you the available evidence and you can reach your own conclusions.

As a starting point, I submit the following study. For several years NASA refused to comment on questions of whether the astronauts' bulky spacesuits would fit through the small egress door on the LEM. So in July of 2004, NASA released a NEW PHOTO allegedly from a sequence of Apollo 11 photos, showing a smaller Aldrin exiting the spacecraft easily. Comparison of the two frames from the same film sequence shows STRIKING UNEXPLAINABLE ANOMALIES. Study the two photos. You be the judge.

Much more to come. I will attempt to answer any questions about this exhibit and others.

Jack White

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Thank you, I will be the judge and ask other to follow your advice to also look at the photos and judge for themselves.

I don't see any problems between the two photos.

In one, the panel refered to is lit. In the next, it is not (because it is in shadow).

What is the problem?

In addition, the photo talks about many anomolies... I cannot find them. Could you please point them out?

Finally, I challenge your remark about NASA refusing to talk about the small LM hatch door. It is mentioned in hundreds of documents. The original concept was for a round hatch (because it was also meant to be a docking hatch for the CSM). As weight considerations became more important, the hatch was changed to be square (because of complaints by the astronauts the hatch was too small) and because of LM structural considerations.

All these facts are very well documented.

I invite anyone who is interested to search the internet for these documents (use Google or your choice of search engines) and determine for themselves the design history of the LM (and other spacecraft components). Don't rely on just one site; look for several. Ensure you are reading a wide range of opinion about the subject. Look for the difference between opinion / speculation and actual technical detail.

Use all these resources, then make up your own mind. Remember that things can be different on the moon; what happens here may NOT happen on the moon. Ask experts. Get a variety of opinions.

Don't accept just one persons word on it. Not mine, not Jack's, not anyones. Research for yourself and make up your own mind.

[Evan Burton]

A high tech spacecraft worthy of Star Wars!

How did such a flimsy LEM make it to the moon, held

together with Scotch tape?

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack,

Have you actually looked at the design specifications for the LM, the environment it was meant to work in, the forces it was required to withstand?

Did you read about the need to reduce the LM weight?

The fact it was never designed to operated in anything more than a 1/6g, airless environment?

Jack, please! A lot of your concerns are easily answered with a bit of research into the design, construction, and operatiing methods of these craft.

I know people who can point to a Boeing 747 and say "nothing that heavy with wings that small can fly!" - but would you deny that they can fly, and do every day?

[Bill Miller]

Jack, please!  A lot of your concerns are easily answered with a bit of research into the design, construction, and operatiing methods of these craft.

I know people who can point to a Boeing 747 and say "nothing that heavy with wings that small can fly!" - but would you deny that they can fly, and do every day?

Evan - Your point is not only well said, but is a valid one, as well. Some people can look at a photo of a tree in the light of day and see that the bark may look light in color, but when seen from a different angle the same bark can appear much darker. Let's say we had taken photos of that tree from the two different views that I just mentioned. These same people would be accurate in saying the color tone of the bark changed between photos, but it is their inability or maybe lack off desire to consider the natural causes for the color change that then leads them down a path of thinking there is something sinister afoot in those images. Take notice of those who accept such oddities as something beyond what they really are because they are not usually people of experence in photo interpretation and who have a good understanding in the effects of lighting and perspective.

Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor

Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-

Function: noun

Etymology: William of Occam

Date: circa 1837

: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Look at this comparison below ...

The man in the green circle seen in the Zapruder film has on a dark colored coat, but when seen in a photo looking back the other way ... part of his coat looks white. Look at the second and third woman to his right. The woman in the light peach colored dress shows two color tones of the same material just because of a mere lighting change. The woman in the plaid top loses the stripes because of the same effect. It would be easy to say the images have been tampered with and those who do not consider all the causes for what we are seeing could easily be mislead in thinking something is seriously wrong between these two different views taken at about the same time.

So again, your response offered a common sense approach that I hope people will at least take note of regardless of what their final conclusion ends up being. IMO, about each and every such claim dealing with the possible fakery of the moon photos has been because the causes for what they saw was not thoroughly researched beforehand.

Edited January 21, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Evan Burton]

Scoff if you wish...but NASA spent millions perfecting

ways to make faked moon photos.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using the detailed plaster models, they were even able

to depict the lunar capsule above the "moon terrain".

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the scientific types on the Education Forum:

Here the fakesters made a major astronomy mistake

in showing the "earth" over the plaster models...

they made it the wrong scale, and also show TWO

different LIGHTING PHASES...an impossibility for

Apollo 11.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To start, could someone explain what "... the photo at top allegedly took the photo above" means?

Next, trying to use tiny 'bumps' on the horizon as you have is no system for reference points. Any of those dips & rises look like all the other dips & rises.

Finally, are these photos meant to be consecutive photos on the same mission? If so, could you please post the NASA photo catalogue numbers?

[Evan Burton]

Aldrin's acouterments changed from one photo session to next.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is getting tiresome, Jack.

You seem to be deliberatly misintrepreting photos to support your own opinion.

Let's look at this series.

The black stripe on the right forearm is the watch & strap. The strap and / or watch are visible in all the photos where his right arm is visible.

Photo 1 - Look just above his right hip. You'll see a tube running from the PLSS backpack around to the fron of the suit. Move horizontally across to the right to Aldrin's forearm. You can see the watch strap.

Photo 2 - Look about 1/3 up the forearm. You can see a small dark object which is the watch face.

Photo 3 - Strap clearly visible.

Photo 4 - Right arm not visible.

Photos 5 & 6 - Strap and / or watch face visible.

The antenna? Visible in most, where it is not it's because of lighting.

The boots are always the same; in some lighting conditions they appear to be white.

Lighting - nothing sinister, nothing strange, just the effect of light, the lunar surface, white suits, apature and shutter settings of the camera.

To familiarise yourself with what the Apollo astronauts wore on the lunar surface, have a look at:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/agallery.htm

It has a range of excellent photos, diagrammes, and technical details about how the suits were developed, how they were worn, and what they did.

[Bill Dines]

Hi Jack,

Didn't realize you were here. Mind if I have a bat?

Lens Flares Prove Second Light Source In Apollo 11 Images.

I’ve believed for a long while that the lens flares visible in a lot of the Apollo images can be used much like the iron sights on a rifle to sight back to the light source. This theory is supported by the following from Jay Utah on the BABB:

From BABB: (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13018)

Q: “If we lined the two lens flares in as11-40-5873 could it tell us the sun's elevation? And if so, are there any exceptions that lens flares would not point directly to the sun”?

In response to the above question on Lens Flares, Jay Utah wrote:

“The sun lies along the line suggested by the two flares, but there's no way of knowing where along that line it lies”.

That is, the lens flares do indeed point back to the light source!

Okay, given the above, consider the 3 images used in the assembled image below. The images are: AS11-40-5863, 64 and 65. All consecutive shots by Neil Armstrong with very little change in his relative position between shots. The fact that these 3 images when assembled almost line up perfectly indicates how little Armstrong moved.

Does this explain why the “porch” on the side of the LEM away from the sun is so brilliantly lit?

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Jack,

Didn't realize you were here. Mind if I have a bat?

Lens Flares Prove Second Light Source In Apollo 11 Images.

I’ve believed for a long while that the lens flares visible in a lot of the Apollo images can be used much like the iron sights on a rifle to sight back to the light source. This theory is supported by the following from Jay Utah on the BABB:

From BABB: (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=13018)

Q: “If we lined the two lens flares in as11-40-5873 could it tell us the sun's elevation? And if so, are there any exceptions that lens flares would not point directly to the sun”?

In response to the above question on Lens Flares, Jay Utah wrote:

“The sun lies along the line suggested by the two flares, but there's no way of knowing where along that line it lies”.

That is, the lens flares do indeed point back to the light source!

Okay, given the above, consider the 3 images used in the assembled image below. The images are: AS11-40-5863, 64 and 65. All consecutive shots by Neil Armstrong with very little change in his relative position between shots. The fact that these 3 images when assembled almost line up perfectly indicates how little Armstrong moved.

Does this explain why the “porch” on the side of the LEM away from the sun is so brilliantly lit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a word...No. The porch side of the LM shows no signs of being illuminated by a point light source. All the surface reflections show a reflective highlight that can only be created with a very large and broad light source. Its much larger than even a huge diffusion panel. In my opinion the light source is the lunar surface beyond the shadow of the LM reflecting light back towards the shadow side of the LM. Further indications of this as the light source for the shadow side is the falloff of light on the ladder leg of the LM as it reaches down toward the shadow on the ground.

As for the secondary lens flare, it seems to lead to the right footpad which is showing a huge specular highlight. The angle of the sun to the camera makes this a very likely suspect for this flare. For a lens flare to occur the light needs to strike the front element of the lens.

A light placed in the positon you suggest would not illuminate the shadow side of the LM as seen. It would also cause a shadow on Aldrins left boot, which is not there. The surface light that is being reflected and lighting the shadow side of the LM is behind and beside the photographer and not in a position to cause lens flare.