We Never Went to the Moon

[Dave Greer]

"And your professional basis for this opinion is?"

I can tell the difference between a planet and a moon set .... What's yours ?

I think we need to move beyond this level of reasoning or the discussion will grind to a halt pretty quickly.

For example, I know the difference between a planet and a moon set too. Neither argument advances the discussion a great deal.

What I've tried to do with some of my analysis of Apollo photos is show why I believe them to be real, by looking at them in detail, comparing photos from different EVAs, looking at the previous and subsequent frames in panorama shots to see if that sheds more light, finding out what the astronauts were getting up to by using the ALSJ, comparing Hasselblad photos to TV or DAC footage taken at the same time.

I may well be wrong with some of my interpretations (although noone has really challenged them), but the more I look at them in detail, the more I realise they must have been taken on the scale suggested, not in the confines of a studio with painted backdrops. The tiny changes in shadows on distant mountains is just one reason against backdrops that hasn't been properly addressed.

[Duane Daman]

I may well be wrong with some of my interpretations (although noone has really challenged them), but the more I look at them in detail, the more I realise they must have been taken on the scale suggested, not in the confines of a studio with painted backdrops.

I have done the same but obviously came to much different conclusions than you did .

One of the reasons nasa got away with faking the Apollo photos is because they did it in many different ways .... The use of indoor moon sets being only one of them .

Some photos were taken outdoors , so the sun may have created changes in the shadows ... but Jack brought up a valid point which no one seemed to properly address ... Would the sun have changed so drastically from one photo to the next , in only a matter of moments , with the lunar day being the equivalent of 29.5 Earth days ?

I have studied many of the mountains in the Apollo photos and they look very much like painted backdrops ... and then there is the question of distance perception and the change of mountain size from one photo to the next ... If everything photograhed in a vacuum loses distance and depth perception , then why do some photos show distance and others don't , of the same scene ?

There are Apollo 17 photos of the same mountains, taken behind the LM .. and depending on where the photo was taken , the distance to the mountains behind the LM shows in one , where the mountains look huge , but then in most of the other photos from the same scene , the mountains behind the LM look like small hills , very close to the LM .

So how could this have occured if everything photographed in a vacuum does not show correct distance or depth perception ? ... How could these changes of distance and mountain size be accounted for ?

[Dave Greer]

I may well be wrong with some of my interpretations (although noone has really challenged them), but the more I look at them in detail, the more I realise they must have been taken on the scale suggested, not in the confines of a studio with painted backdrops.

I have done the same but obviously came to much different conclusions than you did .

Well, hopefully we can have some kind of meaningful discussion as to why we both came to our different conclusions.

One of the reasons nasa got away with faking the Apollo photos is because they did it in many different ways .... The use of indoor moon sets being only one of them .

Some photos were taken outdoors , so the sun may have created changes in the shadows ... but Jack brought up a valid point which no one seemed to properly address ... Would the sun have changed so drastically from one photo to the next , in only a matter of moments , with the lunar day being the equivalent of 29.5 Earth days ?

I've already addressed this issue in this thread (see post 8), but you glossed over it. I'm happy to revisit it and look at the issue in more detail if you wish.

I have studied many of the mountains in the Apollo photos and they look very much like painted backdrops ...

OK, they look like painted backdrops to you. They look like photos to me. Quite rightly, you wouldn't accept my opinion that "they look like photos" as proof that they were hotos. Do you have any empirical evidence that supports your theory?

One example of empirical evidence I've supplied was the change in shadows on mountains between photos taken some time apart. This is the sort of evidence that leads me to believe the photographic evidence is valid.

and then there is the question of distance perception and the change of mountain size from one photo to the next ... If everything photograhed in a vacuum loses distance and depth perception , then why do some photos show distance and others don't , of the same scene ?

Do you have an example of two photos of the same scene, one that exhibits the effect and one that doesn't?

Distance perception on lunar photos is different to that on the earth - no atmospheric effects, lack of objects of know size for comparison, and possibly other optical effects.

There are Apollo 17 photos of the same mountains, taken behind the LM .. and depending on where the photo was taken , the distance to the mountains behind the LM shows in one , where the mountains look huge , but then in most of the other photos from the same scene , the mountains behind the LM look like small hills , very close to the LM .

Again, can you supply reference numbers for the photos in question?

So how could this have occured if everything photographed in a vacuum does not show correct distance or depth perception ? ... How could these changes of distance and mountain size be accounted for ?

We'll need to know which specific photos you're referring to in order to have a meaningful discussion.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Duane Daman]

Dave ... On the thread you linked me to , you made the claim that the lunar day was..

"Lunar daytime = 14 earth days = 336 hours"

Yet this web site says the lunar day is ...

Earth ... 24 hours ..

Moon ... 29.5 earth-days ..

http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/bcp/zodiacal/moon/lab.htm

So if this is the right number , then your calculations are wrong .

Yes, I have the Apollo 17 photos in question, showing the differences in distance perception and mountain size , but before I post them I was hoping to get some professional feedback, so I would know if I was right about this or not .

If I do into this one completely cold , then Lamson will just play games with it ... but if my suspicions are right , then this will be some of the best proof yet that the photos were faked .

So give me a few days and let me see what I can find out .

[Dave Greer]

Dave ... On the thread you linked me to , you made the claim that the lunar day was..

"Lunar daytime = 14 earth days = 336 hours"

Yet this web site says the lunar day is ...

Earth ... 24 hours ..

Moon ... 29.5 earth-days ..

http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/bcp/zodiacal/moon/lab.htm

So if this is the right number , then your calculations are wrong .

I was only using ballpark figures as they didn't need to be accurate to a huge degree.

IIRC I used a figure of 28 earth days == 1 lunar day

Hence lunar daytime == 28/2 = 14 earth days.

I think the confusion is over the definition of length of a "lunar day" (which includes daytime and night-time) as opposed to length of "lunar daytime".

However, as we're already discussing the figures, let's be more accurate...

Lunar "day cycle" = 29.5 earth days = 708 hours.

Hence, lunar daytime (i.e. sun above lunar horizon) = 708/2 = 354 hours (my initial guesstimate was 336 hours, correct within 5%).

Looking back at the thread where I posted the picture of changing shadows in Hong Kong harbour, using the figure of 29.5 days for an entire lunar day instead of the 28 days figure I used as a ballpark figure:-

The sun appears to move across sky on earth 354/12 = 29.5 times faster than on moon. (Again, there is margin for error here due to variables such as latitude, time of year etc.) NOTE - I missed a simple mathematical trick here tha I could have used - if a lunar day is 29.5 earth days, then it's quite obvious that the sun moves across the earth sky 29.5 times quicker than it does on the moon. (This isn't allowing for latitude, time of year etc, but is a useful enough figure for what I'm trying to show).

The time between the two photos in question was approx 40 mins, which would equate to a time difference of approx 40/29.5 on earth, approx 1.36 minutes (remembering margin for error).

The initial figure I calculated was 1.5 minutes, so I'm happy with the figures I've used for this ballpark calculation. I'm happy to stand by my "Hong Kong Harbour" GIF as proof of the concept that you would expect to be able to see minor but noticeable shadow differences in the given time frames.

(We both know, of course, that shadow lengths are going to be exaggerated at sunrise and sunset - the Hong Kong pictures are taken as we approach sunset, and the Apollo 15 pictures in question were taken soon after the lunar sunrise, so I don't see this as a major issue).

Yes, I have the Apollo 17 photos in question, showing the differences in distance perception and mountain size , but before I post them I was hoping to get some professional feedback, so I would know if I was right about this or not .

If I do into this one completely cold , then Lamson will just play games with it ... but if my suspicions are right , then this will be some of the best proof yet that the photos were faked .

So give me a few days and let me see what I can find out .

No worries.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Dave Greer

[Craig Lamson]

Dave ... On the thread you linked me to , you made the claim that the lunar day was..

"Lunar daytime = 14 earth days = 336 hours"

Yet this web site says the lunar day is ...

Earth ... 24 hours ..

Moon ... 29.5 earth-days ..

http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/bcp/zodiacal/moon/lab.htm

So if this is the right number , then your calculations are wrong .

I was only using ballpark figures as they didn't need to be accurate to a huge degree.

IIRC I used a figure of 28 earth days == 1 lunar day

Hence lunar daytime == 28/2 = 14 earth days.

I think the confusion is over the definition of length of a "lunar day" (which includes daytime and night-time) as opposed to length of "lunar daytime".

However, as we're already discussing the figures, let's be more accurate...

Lunar "day cycle" = 29.5 earth days = 708 hours.

Hence, lunar daytime (i.e. sun above lunar horizon) = 708/2 = 354 hours (my initial guesstimate was 336 hours, correct within 5%).

Looking back at the thread where I posted the picture of changing shadows in Hong Kong harbour, using the figure of 29.5 days for an entire lunar day instead of the 28 days figure I used as a ballpark figure:-

The sun appears to move across sky on earth 354/12 = 29.5 times faster than on moon. (Again, there is margin for error here due to variables such as latitude, time of year etc.) NOTE - I missed a simple mathematical trick here tha I could have used - if a lunar day is 29.5 earth days, then it's quite obvious that the sun moves across the earth sky 29.5 times quicker than it does on the moon. (This isn't allowing for latitude, time of year etc, but is a useful enough figure for what I'm trying to show).

The time between the two photos in question was approx 40 mins, which would equate to a time difference of approx 40/29.5 on earth, approx 1.36 minutes (remembering margin for error).

The initial figure I calculated was 1.5 minutes, so I'm happy with the figures I've used for this ballpark calculation. I'm happy to stand by my "Hong Kong Harbour" GIF as proof of the concept that you would expect to be able to see minor but noticeable shadow differences in the given time frames.

(We both know, of course, that shadow lengths are going to be exaggerated at sunrise and sunset - the Hong Kong pictures are taken as we approach sunset, and the Apollo 15 pictures in question were taken soon after the lunar sunrise, so I don't see this as a major issue).

Yes, I have the Apollo 17 photos in question, showing the differences in distance perception and mountain size , but before I post them I was hoping to get some professional feedback, so I would know if I was right about this or not .

If I do into this one completely cold , then Lamson will just play games with it ... but if my suspicions are right , then this will be some of the best proof yet that the photos were faked .

So give me a few days and let me see what I can find out .

No worries.

If anyone doubts that the sun can move enough in 1:36 just photograph a sunset sometime. This one is an emperical slamdunk.

[Evan Burton]

There are Apollo 17 photos of the same mountains, taken behind the LM .. and depending on where the photo was taken , the distance to the mountains behind the LM shows in one , where the mountains look huge , but then in most of the other photos from the same scene , the mountains behind the LM look like small hills , very close to the LM .

So how could this have occured if everything photographed in a vacuum does not show correct distance or depth perception ? ... How could these changes of distance and mountain size be accounted for ?

I think I answered that here.