Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moon hoax - Photographic claims


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't avoided your question , I just don't understand what you are asking .... I guess that has to do with my complete ignorance of photography .

Sorry, I thought I'd explained it thoroughly - I'll try to be more concise.

Here is Dr Neville Jones claim:-

He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.

A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.

Dr Bouw states that rays of light from the Sun - which we know to be parallel - do not appear to be parallel when we see this effect called crepuscular rays caused when the sun shines through gaps in clouds.

Dr Jones questions this, and gives his reasoning by stating that (if Dr Bouw was correct), then "the Sun would be just above the clouds".

Since we know the sun is not "just above the clouds", it is clear that Dr Jones does not understand how things that we know to be parallel, do not appear to be parallel. Otherwise, he would have agreed with Dr Bouw's assertion, rather than labelling it an "outlandish claim".

I'll restate that I am NOT trying to steer the thread away from Apollo - you posted Jones' views then claimed they were proof of fakery, and invited others to debunk his claims. I've shown why I believe he does not grasp a basic point about perspective, which obviously casts grave doubt over his ability to analyse Apollo photos - it also casts doubt over the validity of the string of letters after his name.

The question is - do you agree with Dr Jones rebuttal re Dr Bouw's claims about rays of light, and if so why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for redefining the question ... I think I understand what you are saying now ... I also think that possibly Dr. Jones could have not quite understood what his opponent was saying or may possibly have used an incorrect term ( sun above the clouds ) to try to expres his opinion ... I'm not looking at the article right now , but I remember this was a very brief answer to one of the lesser important claims .. He addressed so many more important claims about the Apollo photography and answered them , to my knowledge , correctly .

As we all know , I don't know a lot about photography and don't even take pictures ... I have never even owned a camera except for cheap throwaway kind and have no interest in the subject at all .

But in spite of not knowing much about the subject , I am fascinated with the fact that the Apollo photos look so fake ... The moon does not look like a real planet in any of the Apollo photos , nor do the mountains look real , but rather like painted two dimentional backdrop scenery ... and the complete lack of depth perception to the point of the horizon looks to be no more than 50 to 100 feet in most of the photos also .... It looks like a stage covered with dirt , with crudely dug 'craters' which can easily be scuffed over by bootprints , and an obvious seam line between the end of the foreground stage to the beginning of the painted mountain walls ...

I looked at still photos from the move 'From the Earth to the Moon" and the sets used for that movie looked almost identical to Apollo photos ... Even the rock group Rammstein set up a fake moon scene for their video 'Amerika' which looked identical to the Apollo sets ....And they set up their video scene in a very brief amount of time and even duplicated the effects of a lesser gravity by using slow motion .... So obviosly recreating a moon set to exactly match that of the Apollo one's is not very difficult .

But getting back to your question ... I don't know if I agree with him or not because of the vague way the answer is stated ... and that is an honest answer .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for redefining the question ... I think I understand what you are saying now ... I also think that possibly Dr. Jones could have not quite understood what his opponent was saying or may possibly have used an incorrect term ( sun above the clouds ) to try to expres his opinion ... I'm not looking at the article right now , but I remember this was a very brief answer to one of the lesser important claims .. He addressed so many more important claims about the Apollo photography and answered them , to my knowledge , correctly .

As we all know , I don't know a lot about photography and don't even take pictures ... I have never even owned a camera except for cheap throwaway kind and have no interest in the subject at all .

But in spite of not knowing much about the subject , I am fascinated with the fact that the Apollo photos look so fake ... The moon does not look like a real planet in any of the Apollo photos , nor do the mountains look real , but rather like painted two dimentional backdrop scenery ... and the complete lack of depth perception to the point of the horizon looks to be no more than 50 to 100 feet in most of the photos also .... It looks like a stage covered with dirt , with crudely dug 'craters' which can easily be scuffed over by bootprints , and an obvious seam line between the end of the foreground stage to the beginning of the painted mountain walls ...

I looked at still photos from the move 'From the Earth to the Moon" and the sets used for that movie looked almost identical to Apollo photos ... Even the rock group Rammstein set up a fake moon scene for their video 'Amerika' which looked identical to the Apollo sets ....And they set up their video scene in a very brief amount of time and even duplicated the effects of a lesser gravity by using slow motion .... So obviosly recreating a moon set to exactly match that of the Apollo one's is not very difficult .

But getting back to your question ... I don't know if I agree with him or not because of the vague way the answer is stated ... and that is an honest answer .

Fair enough. I just find it surprising that you place so much faith in your interpretation of Apollo images when you admit to having very little photography experience.

You're entitled to your opinion on how the Apollo images seem to you, and to a certain extent I can sympathise with why you say what you are saying. Cursory examination of some Apollo photos do look peculiar. When you study them in enough detail, the clues are there to prove their validity - at least as far as I'm concerned.

A very quick example - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11453.jpg. Elbow Crater in the mid-distance is several hundred metres away. Mount Hadley in the background is several kilometres distant. It took me a good couple of hours studying this photo and others taken around the same time to prove the scale mathematically - it was quite complex and a nightmare to explain to someone of a non-mathematical nature - which I tried to do in a series of PMs to someone last year. I'll not repeat it here, I don't think it will move the debate forward. What it DID do for me, was show that I could prove things about Apollo photos to my own satisfaction - without having to rely purely on other people's word. Even though it is impossible for me to tell the scale of that photo just by looking at it, by studying it properly and measuring distances between features, I proved it is on the scale claimed.

I digress. Back to the good Dr Jones. At the moment I don't have the motivation to address all his claims - personally, I don't consider him anywhere near a credible source. That may change at some point, but like yourself I only have so much time to devote to my Apollo hobby. And it's taking a lot longer to type at the moment with one arm in a sling.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane has said that no-one is able to counter the claims put forward by Dr Jones; I'll give it a shot. Please note that the claims are made by Dr Jones and the quoted sections are from Duane's post; the quoted sections are NOT what Duane has said.

ANSWER

Although I do not, in general, concentrate on the photographic record, because physics arguments are, in my opinion, so much stronger, I do feel that some of Dr. Bouw’s incorrect assertions need to be addressed.

There is quite a clear bias here, right from the opening paragraph. We have doubters labelled as New Agers, Hare Krishnas, Flat Earthers and communists. In his magazine, "The Biblical Astronomer," 8(83), 4, 1998, he has also dismissed those who question NASA and its claims as being "wanderers."

There will be no such bias in this review, although I note in passing that Cuban schoolchildren are clearly better educated than their Americon cousins.

No particular claim is made here.

ANSWER

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs.

Here Dr Jones makes the claim that there is extreme contrast, but fails to offer any evidence to support that claim. Even so, the gamma of the colour reversal film used by the Apollo astronauts is much higher than the corresponding value for negative film. This, along with the care taken in post-mission processing of the film, reduces the contrast and allowed good tonal response in the finished images.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered.

Again, a statement is made without any supporting evidence. It is, rather, an appeal to authority. Dr Jones says that "..anyone with any real experience would plainly see...", implying that persons with the necessary experience agree with his statement, and anyone who disagrees with his statement does not have the necessary experience! In fact, there are very few professional photographers who support Dr Jones statement but this is difficult to prove beyond doubt. The best example to support this would be to ask Dr Jones why, if the images are obviously faked, have not large numbers of professional photographers come forward and said so? The only professional photographer to have doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo photographs would appear to be David Percy (I do not include Jack in the definition of a professional photographer).

When the matter of Apollo images have been raised on photographic forums (as distinct from science or debunking forums), the opinions are polarised in support of the images being true representations of actual events:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001JaK

The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images.

The images were NOT all "perfectly exposed and composed"; there are many examples of 'bad' photographs from the missions. Here are but a few:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5894.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5904.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S11/40/5970.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/46/6868.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/47/7009.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S12/47/7021.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...S14/66/9327.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...15/86/11607.jpg

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...6/107/17419.jpg

The shutter and apature settings were mostly pre-determined, so there was no requirement for a light-meter. Likewise, a viewfinder was not required; the camera could be chest-mounted and the astronauts had practised for months on Earth to take acceptable images without the need for a viewfinder.

Here are some resources on the Hasselblad:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/2.htm

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCam....html~mainFrame

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

http://www.hasselblad.com/about-hasselblad...-beginning.aspx

They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

The 'hotspots' are explained clearly by the Clavius website; I see no need to rehash what is already clearly explained:

http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

The Hasselblads had a matt silver finish to help protect them against thermal variation; even so, the film used could withstand the temperatures (as mentioned previously in two other threads, the requirements were for a temperature range of -186C to +114C; the emulsion used on the film included Ektachrome EF but it was placed on a special film base to meet the required specifications). The film magazines were kept in protected containers when not in use, and any radiation effects would have led to a very slight overall 'fogging' effect, which could be corrected in the processing.

His comment, “given the poor quality live video presented on world television,” is a little misleading, because television networks were not allowed any “live” feeds at all. They were actually broadcasting pictures off a large screen. The images on that screen were produced by NASA. In absolutely no way can one claim that the television broadcast was of a live event.

This only happened for Apollo 11. Because of the different video formats involved, the original video was played (live) on a monitor and then a NTSC TV camera broadcast the images on the monitor. This was a standard practice to convert incompatible video formats.

Anyone in Australia who watched American TV shows during the 70s and early 80s (before digital conversion) would have seen this effect. Americian programmes were recorded in NTSC (525 lines) whereas Australia used PAL (625 lines); the conversion process was the same as described above. This meant that US programmes appeared visually "softer" and not quite as sharp as local programmes.

He states, under “no evidence of air,” that, “The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape.” However, after having watched James Collier’s video, “Was It Only A Paper Moon,” I do not understand how he could have missed the undeniable evidence of air. Unless, of course, he has been watching NASA footage that has been “enhanced,” just as the “C” was airbrushed off the famous rock picture. (Just a thought here, why would NASA be touching up old photographs anyway?)

Once more, no actual evidence to support Dr Jones' assertion; he is merely saying "yes it is" or "no it isn't".

Firstly, have a look at some video of the LRV on the lunar surface:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/.../ap16_rover.mpg

Now, notice some things:

- the parabolic arc that the surface material follows

- no 'billowing' of the material, as would be expected in filmed in an atmosphere

- the material travels much higher than would be expected in Earth normal gravity

This all points to it having been filmed in an airless, low-gravity environment.

The infamous C rock has been explained. It was not on the original image, but turned up in one version of a scanned image. It was a hair that was scanned along with the image. Details of the full investigation can be found here:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

His next comment, however, is just plain rubbish: “Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.” Anyone who has seen this “thunderbirds”-style takeoff will recall the phenomenal rate of acceleration off the supposed lunar surface, and, of course, the exhaust must be pushing on something. So we are told that there is enough dust to leave zillions of footprints, but that this layer was not blasted away in all directions upon firing the engine! I do sometimes wonder about Dr. Bouw.

This would seem to illustrate Dr Jones' lack of familiarity with the LM. Firstly, though, he is correct about the thrust buildup. Although there is a small period of time for the thrust to build, it is for all intensive purposes zero. The LM ascent stage was not throttlable; it was an 'on/off' situation. The ascent stage, however, used the descent stage as a "launch pad".

The descent stage acted as a deflector, so none of the thrust went more than horizontal at lift off. As the ascent stage climbed, the "thrust shadow" area caused by the descent stage reduced - but the ascent stage was rapidly climbing away, so the effects were reduced.

The LRV camera (remotely controlled from Earth) was able to capture the effects during the ascent stage lift off:

LM_16_ascent_liftoff.gif

Apollo 16 - note the "spray" pattern caused by the ascent stage engine; it tends to be deflected upwards by the descent stage

apollo17_start_lm.jpg

Apollo 17

17unterteil.jpg

The descent stage after lift off

I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.

This is a classic example of how not to conduct an experiment.

Firstly, Mr Rene used a standard industrial-type thick rubber glove - not the gloves used by the astronauts. The EMU gloves used on the lunar surface consisted of integral structural restraint and pressure bladders, molded from casts of the astronauts hands, and covered by multi-layered superinsulation for thermal and abrasion protection. This gave the glove flexibility that Mr Rene's example did not have.

Mr Rene then evacuates his test chamber to a near vacuum - but the outside air pressure was about 14.7 PSI. This gave a pressure differential of about 14 PSI, not the 5 PSI which Dr Jones states. This increased differential makes it far more difficult to flex the gloves.

The experiment did not recreate the conditions experienced, and is invalid.

I'll take a break here, and return later to continue.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANSWER

Next, under “no dark shadows,” he claims that, “There is a fable common to modern man which claims that all shadows in a vacuum are pitch black.” What?! This is an interesting tactic that I only realized a year or so back, by watching an awful pro-Apollo television programme. In that programme, the self-styled defender of Apollo made some outlandish claims about what people who doubted his god believed. He then set about debunking the claim. To the general viewer it must have seemed very convincing “proof” that the programme-maker’s view was correct. What a genius. But hang on a minute, who exactly made the alleged claim that he was so effectively debunking? Certainly I knew of no one.

There is some scattering of light off the surface, which is what Dr. Bouw then goes on to discuss in all but name, and there would be a small amount of “earth shine,” but nowhere near enough to ensure that we always got a good picture of the stars and stripes.

Well, here Dr Jones shows that he is also a victim of a commonly held misconception - that it was 'dark' at the Apollo landing sites. This misconception is stimulated by the appearance of a black sky; to us here on Earth, that says 'night'. It is, however, totally wrong.

During the lunar 'day', the Moon receives about the same amount of sunlight that we get on Earth - it's just that there is no appreciable atmosphere, so the sky appears black.

The missions landed during the lunar 'morning', and there was plenty of sunlight - easily enough to take photographs.

Dr Jones is correct to say that there is light scattering off the lunar surface. Despite its appearance, the lunar surface reflects about 7% of the light which falls on it (known as albedo). This reflected light helped light some of the areas in shadow.

The amount of "Earthshine" would be very low and can be discounted.

Also, on several photographs, such as one of Aldrin supposedly coming down the ladder, there is a quite distinct hotspot, as would be caused by, for example, a studio light.

See previous post and link to Clavius about this claim.

He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.

A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.

Dave addressed this claim.

Then consider what he says about backlighting: “If the lunar landing photos were shot in a studio with flood lights and fill lights, there should be multiple shadows in many of the photos.” Dr. Bouw has clearly no experience of studio photography. Master and slave lights would not produce multiple shadows, even if one had the slaves as bright as the master, which is unusual, but possible. For example, if you are taking a photograph of a girl in a studio you would not light her in the same way as you would a man. You would want to have quite strong and fairly even lighting, to bring out her beauty and skin tone. For a man, the standard method is to produce a rugged appearance by heavy lighting on one side of his face, such that you obtain a triangle of light on the cheek opposite the light source. But for a woman, you generally want an evenness of light to emphasize a smooth skin, with some difference in intensity to give the picture warmth and a sense of reality or interest, if you like. If I were photographing a brunette, say, I would use either three or four big studio lights. There would be the master light, positioned either to my right (illuminating the left side of her), or to my left (illuminating her right side). There would be a slave on the other side of me, set to half to three-quarters master intensity, a powerful light to illuminate the backdrop and a hair light, positioned not far above her head, with a snoot attachment. That is four powerful lights. How many shadows would I expect to see? None. The only evidence you would have in the picture that more than one lamp was used is the fact that there would be two distinct lights in her eyes. If she were wearing a space visor, then I could just remove one of those lights at the processing stage and you would be left with no evidence at all. Furthermore, a gold or silver or white reflector is not a light, but is specifically for filling in otherwise dark areas. In either case, I would not expect multiple shadows.

It is therefore preposterous to imagine that the professional photographers used by NASA would leave multiple shadows because they used multiple light sources and reflector boards. Some photographs have shadows running in different directions, that is true, but I would put this down to the superposition of images, not multiple light sources.

Apart from a rather extended discussion about lighting required for a girl, Dr Jones fails to provide any evidence at all that additional lighting was used in the Apollo images. Neither has he provided any evidence that his discussion on lighting is correct, however his own photographic methods for lighting a young lady is not in dispute. The daylight conditions and light reflected from the lunar surface still explain all the properties seen in the images.

ANSWER

“That the lack of stars in the photos argument is bogus” does not explain why they simply did not photograph the stars from the lunar surface.

The Hasselblad 500 EL has far slower stops than 1/125s at f/8. Photographing the stars would have been child's play on the Moon, compared to getting such crystal sharp images of the flag and the "United States" sign.

WHY photograph the stars? Pictures of the stars could be taken from the Earth, with more specialised equipment that would advance our knowledge about them. A photo of the stars from the lunar surface would be... a photograph of some stars, with no value at all.

Images of the US flag on the Moon gave people a sense of national pride in the achievements of Apollo. Photographs of bootprints in the soil told scientists something about the mechanical properties of the lunar soil. Photographs of the various rock samples gave the geologists the context of the sample.

They were there to examine the Moon!

ANSWER

I have skipped the van Allen belts, Moon rocks and the like, because his position is based solely upon his belief in NASA claims, and because I wish to point out his photographic errors.

Yet Dr Jones fails once more to offer any evidence to refute those claims. Dr Bouw's position might well be based on his faith in NASA... but Dr Jones has not proven that his faith is misplaced.

Such circular reasoning is common with those who wear blinkers (such as those so-called scientists who advocate the idea of organic evolution, for example).

This is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on persons who do not share Dr Jones belief in creationism. Once more, no evidence is provided to refute the claims of a lunar landing.

Dr. Bouw concludes with, “In general we found that hoax advocates are ignorant of photographic printing techniques, photo enhancement techniques, and computer photo enhancement techniques. They also lack a basic understanding of modern astronomy and selenology (study of the moon's surface and rocks), no, not enough to properly state what astronomy and selenology have to say about the moon, and thus certainly not enough to offer intelligent critique.”

I hope that this small appraisal of his article will show up his assertions for what they are - incorrect, ignorant and misleading.

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page81.htm

In fact, Dr Jones has shown his own assessments to have the properties he ascribes to Dr Bouw. He has not provided any evidence at all to disprove the veracity of the Apollo programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much more to add to what Craig has said, save to reiterate that Dr Jones has provided no evidence that the photography was faked - he has merely tried to show how it could have been done.

And one of his points is very easily refuted:-

It is therefore preposterous to imagine that the professional photographers used by NASA would leave multiple shadows because they used multiple light sources and reflector boards. Some photographs have shadows running in different directions, that is true, but I would put this down to the superposition of images, not multiple light sources.

This photo taken on a beach show this effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon (perspective) - he has not proved that this must be down to superposition of images. Note the green lines show the apparent direction of the rock shadows, not necessarily the actual direction.

So, the Dr has again offered no proof or even evidence of fakery - he merely states how he thinks it may have been achieved.

shadow01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan ... Nice post ... but unfortunately it was nothing new .. Just the same old tired 'rebuttals ' that anyone can find on clavius .

I do appreciate your honesty with this statement though ..

"When the matter of Apollo images have been raised on photographic forums (as distinct from science or debunking forums), the opinions are polarised in support of the images being true representations of actual events."

Dave ... It's apparently not just a matter of perspective but rather PERCEPTION .

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals , Dr. Jones , David Percy or Jack White is ever going to change your mind .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan ... Nice post ... but unfortunately it was nothing new .. Just the same old tired 'rebuttals ' that anyone can find on clavius .

But you cannot disprove them.

I do appreciate your honesty with this statement though ..

"When the matter of Apollo images have been raised on photographic forums (as distinct from science or debunking forums), the opinions are polarised in support of the images being true representations of actual events."

I think what you said is not what you think it means; I said "...polarised in support..."; photographic forums overwhelmingly say your opinion on the Apollo photographs is wrong.

Dave ... It's apparently not just a matter of perspective but rather PERCEPTION .

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals , Dr. Jones , David Percy or Jack White is ever going to change your mind .

Duane ... It's not just a matter of opinion but rather PROOF .

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are not studio fakes, then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals, backed up with scientific evidence, is ever going to change your mind .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave ... It's apparently not just a matter of perspective but rather PERCEPTION .

I agree that perception plays a part in one's subjective opinion on photos. But there are still certain phenomena claimed by HBers to be proof of fakery, which are easily repeatable by anyone with a camera. For example, claims about shadows being proof of (multiple) artificial light sources: very easily debunked as I demonstrated with my previous beach photo.

If you can't see that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , then you can't ... and obviously no amount of proof from the professionals , Dr. Jones , David Percy or Jack White is ever going to change your mind .

Well, the evidence I've seen from the sources you claim simply isn't credible. Dr Jones (I'm assuming you mean Neville as Nathan doesn't appear to be a doctor) didn't even try prove that any Apollo photos were actually faked - as previously stated he merely tried to rebutt Dr Bouw's statements, and also tried to demonstrate how photos COULD have been faked, which is completely different to proving that any photos actually WERE faked. David Percy has been proven to be wrong time and time again in many of his photograhic studies. There is another thread open discussing Jack White's claims - I've offered ample evidence quashing two of his Aulis studies re shadow directions, by taking my own photos to show that what he claims to be impossible patently isn't - anyone with a camera can repeat these very simple experiments for themselves and decide for themselves who is correct.

On top of that, there is ample evidence in the photographic record that supports them being taken on the moon - for example the minute change in the shadow on a distant mountain between two photos on Apollo 15. All the photographic and video evidence I've studied shows they are congruent, even when people such as Percy have disingenuously tried to prove otherwise (Young jump salute). This is evidence that doesn't involve subjective perception.

So no, I don't see the Apollo photos as studio fakes - because I've seen no credible evidence supporting that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave .. The photos HAVE been proven to be fake by many researchers ... It's just that people like you and your nasa defending friends refuse to believe the evidence which proves this fact .

David Percy is not disingenuous and neither is the astronomer Nathan Jones or the physicist Dr. Neville Jones or Jack White ... They might not always be correct with their analysis of every single phony Apollo photo , but that by no means should imply that they are being intentionally deceptive .

Intentional deception is when you post different Apollo photos which don't apply to the photo evidence that is being discussed ... Or worse , even alter them in some way to try to disguise the fact that they contain glaring anomalies in them ..... Something which you have done repeatedly.

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave .. The photos HAVE been proven to be fake by many researchers ... It's just that people like you and your nasa defending friends refuse to believe the evidence which proves this fact .

Keep taking the irony tablets.

David Percy is not disingenuous and neither is the astronomer Nathan Jones or the physicist Dr. Neville Jones or Jack White ... They might not always be correct with their analysis of every single phony Apollo photo , but that by no means should imply that they are being intentionally deceptive .
IMHO Percy WAS disingenuous with his Jump Salute study - I can't believe that someone with his experience, who alleges he has studied the video in detail - could miss the flap on top of the PLSS that he claims isn't there.

The others are just wrong. IMHO of course. Hopefully Jack will continue debating his Aulis studies in the separate thread and we'll see why he's wrong.

Intentional deception is when you post different Apollo photos which don't apply to the photo evidence that is being discussed ... Or worse , even alter them in some way to try to disguise the fact that they contain glaring anomalies in them ..... Something which you have done repeatedly.

No - intentional deception is when you continue to call someone dishonest and sneaky, when they are completely up front with any image processing techniques they have used to bring out detail - NOT to hide detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely up front with altering the photos ? .... Oh that is rich .

Professional photographers , astronomers , physicists, scientists and regualar conspiracy researchers have somehow managed to have the courage to go up against the majority and mighty nasa , to expose their monumental lies about landing men on the moon , and you in your dishonesty , have the audacity to call them disingenuous ?

People have been murdered for trying to expose the Apollo hoax ... and that reason alone is why most people , especially the professionals , have kept their mouths shut about this and their hoax evidence to themselves ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...