The moon hoax.

[Coolhand]

Perhaps it will just turn up more pareidolia and apophenia

Seen these?
Face 1
Face 2

OMG! Its a sign! There are humans on Earth! Oh, wait a minute... :lol:

yeah, yeah... mr patronising. like i said it's more the symmetry of the mesa thats interesting, and that it's just a few miles to the north of that pyramid, which also has a pretty good axis of symmetry.

now this one really is 'funny'

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5854703,00.jpg

some people actually think this is a woman on mars, and not for example just a rocky ledge morons... :rofl:

this one's weird though, and not just a shadow...

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2006/102/mars-humanoid-skull.htm

looks a bit like a stormtrooper helmet from starwars too me! lol. probably just an interestingly shaped rock mind you.

and some alleged animal skulls...

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2004/073/animal-skulls.htm

again, most likely just interestingly shaped rocks... but if you consider that mars could have at one point been warm and wet enough to possibly support complex animal life - which i think is still something that is seriously considered then who knows.

There's also images of what might resemble forests, taken from orbit, and strange blooms that might even indicate vegetation or patches of algae.

http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-trees.html
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2007/115/forest-life-biodiversity-6.htm

mars, its a weird place...

 

[Yoda]

It is still my firm belief that NASA faked Apollo 11 but did indeed make it to the moon during the remaining missions ( obviously except for lucky 13).
Don't shoot me :sorry:; that's just what I believe.

 

[Danny Ramone]

Theres no option for what i believe...

That the landing was real.... but the photos were faked.
Why? Cos they saw something they wern't supposed to see.

HAM radio operators listening in picked up transmissions direct from the spacecraft when NASA stopped re-broadcasting due to an "overheated camera"

The story goes that Buzz and Neil saw two alien space craft on the other side of the crater watching them

Hey it may be crazy. I believe they went to the moon, but i still think that for some reason or another. those pictures were faked. Or at least frigged with.

Things like the famous picture of Buzz standing on the moon, shot by Neil? what is that behind Neil that can be seen in buzz's helmet.
And on one of the shots of the moon rover. the cross hairs on the camera. go BEHIND one of the arms of the rover.

I dunno. like i say I think they went. I dont dispute that, but you have to admit those photos are weird. Plus i wouldnt put it past any government organasition to have a back-up plan such as a purpose built studio

 

[Coolhand]

when crosshairs go behind an object, thats just a bright area 'bleeding' over the fine, dark cross hair, it's just something to do with how camera film is exposed. there are some odd things on the moon however. like the 'shard' tower, some odd things in craters and that out of place reflection in the helmet that you mentioned.

 

[bujin]

It is still my firm belief that NASA faked Apollo 11 but did indeed make it to the moon during the remaining missions ( obviously except for lucky 13).
Don't shoot me :sorry:; that's just what I believe.

:huh:

I don't get it. They faked Apollo 11 in July 1969, but did it for real on Apollo 12 in November 1969...?

 

[Urwumpe]

The story goes that Buzz and Neil saw two alien space craft on the other side of the crater watching them

Strange, they don't mention it here, and this one has the full communication on the moon inside:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

You believe everything you read in the web right?

Hey it may be crazy. I believe they went to the moon, but i still think that for some reason or another. those pictures were faked. Or at least frigged with.

Why that? Do you know how photos on the moon should look like?

Things like the famous picture of Buzz standing on the moon, shot by Neil? what is that behind Neil that can be seen in buzz's helmet.

Do you mean this one?

Do you see something behind Aldrin in the high-resolution version?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873HR.jpg

And on one of the shots of the moon rover. the cross hairs on the camera. go BEHIND one of the arms of the rover.

No, it is still in front of it - the object photographed is just too bright and overshines the fine cross hairs, so you don't see it anymore. This kind of argumentation is very pathetic. On the photo I linked, you have problems seeing any crosshairs in the right half - is it faked because of that?

No, it is just argument from ignorance. It argues by denying that there can be other reasons possible for the cross hairs to disappear behind a bright object.

 

[Coolhand]

ah, i think he actually means a photo from apollo 12 for that anomalous reflection.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

 

[Urwumpe]

ah, i think he actually means a photo from apollo 12 for that anomalous reflection.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

No, I think he really means this famous one:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

As you can see in the high res version, there are really two objects right next to Neil. The flag and the solar wind experiment shown in the photo before.

 

[Apollo 11]

the no stars issue can be easily explained. Go under a light at night. Do you see any stars? No. With the sunlight reflecting off of the moon's surface, the astronauts couldnt see stars either.

 

[Coolhand]

No, I think he really means this famous one:


http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

As you can see in the high res version, there are really two objects right next to Neil. The flag and the solar wind experiment shown in the photo before.

well yes those are easily explained so lets disregard that... whats the object in the apollo 12 photo?

Apollo 11, its all to do with exposure. You could have photographed the stars from the surface of the moon but you would have had to use a longer exposure time, which would have whited out the surface of the moon or anything under direct sunlight. if you pointed the camera up and used a longer exposure you could take some great shots of the stars and the milkyway from the lunar surface.

 

[Messierhunter]

It is still my firm belief that NASA faked Apollo 11 but did indeed make it to the moon during the remaining missions ( obviously except for lucky 13).
Don't shoot me :sorry:; that's just what I believe.

Would that mean you also believe all the build-up flights to 11 were faked yet 12-17 weren't? Apollo 8 was technically the first manned flight to the moon, not 11. 11 was only the first landing. Ever since apollo 8 astronomers have been photographing every manned flight to the moon. Here's a series of images from Maui showing apollo 8's TLI burn:

And from the corralitos observatory, here's an image sequence showing the motion of the Apollo 8 CSM on the way to the moon:

Lastly, Jim Young took this image of Apollo 11 (the streak against the stars) from Table Mountain as it returned from the moon:

 

[bujin]

the no stars issue can be easily explained. Go under a light at night. Do you see any stars? No. With the sunlight reflecting off of the moon's surface, the astronauts couldnt see stars either.

Not just that. Take a camera with a short exposure time and point it at the clear sky at night. You will probably get either no stars, or very faint images of the brightest stars in the sky. With the sunlight reflecting off the moon's surface, if they'd have used any longer of an exposure, all the pictures would have been washed out.

The "no stars" argument is probably the weakest of the lot.

EDIT: Oooops - I see Coolhand already beat me to this one!

 

[Messierhunter]

well yes those are easily explained so lets disregard that... whats the object in the apollo 12 photo?

Do you happen to know what the NASA number of that photo is? I get a 404 when I try to click on the image in your link.

 

[Coolhand]

a quick google of apollo 12 anomaly returned an enterprise mission page with the photo and some 'enhancements' hoagland seems to think that its something suspended in a glass structure... and that these structures are common on the surface. I think that if you took an old photo of mostly blackness, scanned it many years later from a second or even a first generation copy and boosted its contrast a lot in photoshop you'd have all kinds of crap show up thats just naturally from the film or whatever.

unlike those other pics, this shows up without enhancement and is way more interesting.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/mphotos.html

 

[bujin]

Ah, Mr. Hoagland.

What a complete numpty.

 

[Urwumpe]

ah, i think he actually means a photo from apollo 12 for that anomalous reflection.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

Well, lets locate it. It was shot by Bean and shows Conrad. It got shot close to Surveyor when looking at the objects reflected by the visor.

As the second magazine of film was B&W material, we should search it there.

Most photos have very high quality and look far better as on the website, so I assume, that it does not show the whole photograph.


And by comparing horizon and shown objects we find:

As you can see, it is fitting perfectly to the geometry of the photo on the crackpot science page, but is sharp as a scalpel.

And now we can look at the high res version to see what the strange artifacts before processing the image with filters really were:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg

Not really impressive anymore, right? Looks like a bit of lunar dust on the visor and the shadow is actually just Al's shaded right arm.

Even worse - it is so focused by the camera, compared to the LM in the background, that it is obvious that it is really on the helmet and not floating around somewhere outside the FOV of the camera.

 

[Coolhand]

yeah, most likely just a smudge.

i wonder what some of your takes are on that 'tower' thats supposedly several miles high, taken by that russian probe.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/zond3a.jpg

again it's from hoaglands site, but thats not where it originates from as far as i know. i've always found that to be a bit strange.

Ah, Mr. Hoagland.

What a complete numpty.

if you really want a giggle, look up some of John Lear's (son of the guy who founded lear-jet apparently) interviews on coast to coast AM... you can find them on youtube. infact, most all of coast to coast is hilarious. hoagland is on there a lot, pedalling his latest books... but he did do a mostly great article on de-bunking the lunar hoax - i think only because most of his wild theories are only possible if we actually did go to the moon, but still...

 

[Urwumpe]

yeah, most likely just a smudge.

i wonder what some of your takes are on that 'tower' thats supposedly several miles high, taken by that russian probe.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/zond3a.jpg

again it's from hoaglands site, but thats not where it originates from as far as i know. i've always found that to be a bit strange.

Can't tell you much about it's origin before I know more about the details of the camera, or the post processing of the images after transmission. It has striking similarity to overcharged CCD scans.

Using modern image processing, the moon looks like that based on the Zond 3 data.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Zond3mosaic.jpg

The raw data is shown here, together with all artifacts by transmission errors:
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm

Most raw images look less overexposed as the Hoagland stuff, so I can at least be sure, that the objects he presents are result of his postprocessing of the Zond 3 frames, or the reproduction from NASA publications.

Anyway, lets look for the features he points out here:

Frame 20 is the most likely candidate for the "image #1", when looking at the pointing of the camera:
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Zond03_20.jpg

As you can see, the important region is not existing: It was lost as transmission error. Of course, somebody can now say, it got censored... but well.

In Frame 24, which got used as the "Image #2" the transmission errors are gone. The "Dome" feature is also missing.

 

[Messierhunter]

if you really want a giggle, look up some of John Lear's (son of the guy who founded lear-jet apparently) interviews on coast to coast AM... you can find them on youtube. infact, most all of coast to coast is hilarious.

I tried debating with Lear a couple times on ATS and came away with the impression that he doesn't truly believe what he says, he just spins shoddy evidence the way he wants it to go. He completely ignored me when I presented evidence that the shuttle isn't making "secret space station visits" between launch and docking to the ISS and then again after undocking before landing.

He also argued that Armstrong feels guilty from "lying" about landing on the moon and he presented pictures from a post-mission press conference 3 weeks after returning to earth as evidence. I immediately thought it was odd that he said it occured "3 weeks" later and I quickly remembered the 3 week quarantine the crew went through after splashdown. I exposed the truth and showed pictures of the crew smiling and seeming incredibly overjoyed shortly after their return to earth while they were still in the quarantine trailer, but Lear refused to admit that a 3 week quarantine would have affected their attitude since they were able to spend part of it in the lunar receiving lab where they had some room to walk around.

 

[Moonwalker]

Honestly, people like Richard Hoagland are either extremely irrational or they just try to make money by some peoples ignorance. But I prefer the first one. He seems to be irrational. It's obvious that he hasn't any clue of what he is talking about and it is hard to believe that he really believes himself. I don't know if I should start laughter or weeping when I hear such people talking.

But the internet actually is the best platform to make irrationality of lots of people very well visible (and it even boosts irrationality sadly). It is a bonanza for people like Richard Hoagland...