Why do so many doubt the moon landing?

Not stars, but dust or dirt on the negative.

[link to wideeyecinema.com]

Watch the tape and you can see clearly how the fake shots were staged. They cut back the f-stop so that even the lamp that you see is dim because the low orbit earth is so damn bright, put a cutout or transparent photo on the window to make the round earth and terminator, and then zoomed from across the cabin. Watch especially between 32 and 34 min. and you can see them remove the cutout from the window and then change the f-stop and the lamp gets bright and you get great shots of the very bright earth filling up the window.

Not only is there bright blue light coming through the “left” hand window when the f-stop is increased, but at exactly 33:50-51 you can see the sky and clouds completely filling up the right hand window, briefly but clearly, when the camera pans to above the astronauts head. That is impossible unless you are near earth orbit.

Also, at about 27min. on the film, the image of the earth suddenly rotates two 360-degree turns. Did they, with no warning or announcement to Houston, rotate the craft on the axis of the window they are shooting from? Bizzarre.

And how did someone get between the shot and the camera? And how did a camera taking that same shot--the finished shot shown to the public--pan away from that person? And how did the lamp get between the shot and the camera? Not possible ergo fake.

And here is a youtube that analyzes a portion of the Sirbel film. They noticed some things that I did not. For example you can see the zooming in and out on the cutout earth with the floodlight in the view and that someone is turning the cutout earth while removing it from the scene.

[link to www.youtube.com]

And check out this page where a still photo, from a film I cannot get to open, shows the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM. The craft is alleged to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If you look out of the window you see blue sky? How can this be if they are not in near earth orbit?

But they miss the frames at exactly 33:50-51 in this film ( [link to wideeyecinema.com] where you can see the sky and clouds completely filling up the right hand window, briefly but clearly, when the camera pans to above the astronaut’s head. That is impossible unless, again, you are near earth orbit.



Impossible photographs:

[link to history.nasa.gov]

Holy crap! That is one tiny “astronaut”!


[link to history.nasa.gov]
A classic fake photo: Note the center larger reticule at this guys feet (shot from the chest mounted cam of his partner). Note the bright, no, very bright, fill lighting on his inner thigh, and the spot lit scene reflected in the visor.

How was that perspective achieved with a chest-mounted camera? The center of the photograph is at the subject’s feet. The terrain of generally flat, and you would need a steep hill or a high vantage point to take that shot.

A wide field of view is not going to magically bend light. These are not magic cameras. If you point the camera from chest level at the subject’s feet, you are not going to take a picture of the top of his head.


[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

The photo in question here has been repeatedly altered by NASA--Toning down the “hotspots”, adding background etc. Check it out.


[link to www.classicmanga.com]

This is an interesting look at very similar backgrounds for disparate places on the moon.


No tracks:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]
In this one the wheel is not touching the ground and there is no driver. WTF?

Featureless backgrounds:
[link to apolloanomalies.com]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]

[link to apolloanomalies.com]

Check out the rest at this site:

[link to apolloanomalies.com]


Check out the first photo on this page: Under the WTF? category.

[link to www.marsanomalyresearch.com]

Kubrick's 2001 was so full of mistakes and bad science it's pitiful. And you think he made videos that have fooled the world's scientists and engineers for 40 years? You are delusional, kid.

Pick one and try to defend it with references on your own.

Let's see how you do.

Your denile of the OBVIOUSE is noted and the status of Asrtro/the guy/snakeair and you are well known here. Why do you bother....oh your paid, Or your phsycosis is deep. Cause nobody could be as tard as you bunch.

We aren't the ones who are gullible enough to fall for the hoax bullshit based on absolutely nothing but flimsy anecdotal evidence. All you are doing is proudly displaying your gullibility and ignorance.

Psychosis? We aren't the ones displaying paranoiac delusions about the government...

Can you give us one good scientific argument to support your views?

What is bizarre is how someone could look at that portion of the clip with all the jiggling and not realize that it's the camera that's rotating. Or is it the entire spacecraft that's bouncing around like crazy?

Yes gazmik is a proud and noble defender of the truth and of the march forward of civlization, humanity and science....
he is a great great poster....we do appreciate his unremitting support and contributions to the cause....

thanks so much gazmik...
; )

ps. your raise is on the way.....

Isn't it amazing what they can do with hand-held video cameras? Next thing you'll say is that they moved the camera to the window to shoot the Earth rather than zooming from across the cabin! ;)

At least they passed high school English.

Because you haven't proved shit.

Because you aren't even close to being right. Why would anybody tell you that you're right when you're far from it?

No, you have not. Again, what real evidence have you provided?

There must not be a single hoax believer that isn't on meds.

You can't even get an electrical ground right, IDW. Why should anyone trust you about space science?

Mission accomplished ! I'm really not that well versed in science, however the vids.of Armstrong and his facial expressions and tone are a dead give away to me. He is/was a hurting man when he gave those interviews.

WEll done and know that a PERSON has noted your speaking the TRUTH. I laugh at the shill blathering. You my friend are the Victor! YOU WIN. Your correct.

Gaz/Com and astyro loose. Your words are LIES.

So you understand and are willing to accept you don't know much about physics, chemistry, astronomy, or math.

But somehow you are an expert on psychology, so good you can detect complex emotional states just from a simple video.

Why isn't every police department in the country clamoring to hire you?

Or is it just possible that there is more to psychology than the ability to receive the message Hollywood actors train themselves to project; that in the real world emotional states are subtler and easier to mis-judge?

Ah, but then you wouldn't be able to wield this armchair skill, this skill grown of no study, no work, no knowledge, to debase the skills and work of those who have dedicated decades to learning their crafts (aka those who work in the space sciences, as well as geologists, radio communications, etc., etc.)

And you have proved that how? YOU HAVEN'T! You have provided nothing and have proved nothing.

Posting snarky-assed statements doesn't count for shit.

Well, he did use ALL CAPS. That's much more convincing than math or references!

I believe ANYTHING as long it is in ALL CAPS

TeLl mE mORe ABoUt tHaT AbILItY

Armstrong is very shy and does not like public speaking.

How so.

So, Postman -- should I repost the infamous IDW list? It's still in my archives...

That's an interesting question, and a good topic for another thread. The crash of the Hindenburg comes to mind; in spite of the different views on how the fire started, I don't remember seeing any anomalous photos connected to the event.



[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

Ok, so you acknowledge that a bright spot of light appears in these 2 consecutive photos, with a similar relative intensity and a close, although not exact, position in the sky.
If we can logically rule out that it's a star, planet, or dust on the lens, then the question still remains: what is it?

The Hindenburg. Although there are different theories as to how the explosion started, I don't remember seeing any anomalous photos.


[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]
[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

At least you acknowledge that a similar spot appears on 2 consecutive photographs, changing slightly in location but not intensity.
If we rule out its cause as being a star, planet, or dust on the lens, the question remains: What is it?

I had to remember what I wrote in the first post and had to repost, but it appeared the way I wrote it the first time anyway. Strange. Anyway, sorry for the double post.

Unfortunately one runs afoul of the conspiracy believer double standard. A photograph taken by a probe showing the major artifacts of one of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon, in the relative positions and sizes as documented, is considered no proof of anything. A blurry picture of a single white dot is considered incontrovertible evidence of a UFO.

If either of us were to look at pictures from the flight and disaster of the Hindenburg we would no doubt notice several things that looked slightly odd. People would have trees growing from their heads, tiny people would be next to big people, and so on and so forth. We'd see these things, but pass by them almost without noticing; since we are at least slightly familiar with how a camera sees the world, and we would accept it is far more likely a man is in the distance, than that a dozen midgets each under six inches tall were riding the Hindenburg that day.

A conspiracy believer, on the other hand, is alert for any anomaly. He doesn't require that it support an alternate theory; he only requires that it disagrees with the mainstream view. If there was any possible way of twisting the small size of the background people into supporting the suggestion that the Hindenburg was "faked" (never mind what was faked, exactly -- they never do!) they'd find it.

Perhaps the little people are evidence of a sloppy paste-up job as the photograph of the dirigible's launch was faked. And, indeed, the aircraft doesn't look believable. It really does look like a toy, once you look at it right. So obviously it never existed in the first place, and all the pictures of it are faked up with models and pasted up in the darkroom.

And here we come to the second aspect of the conspiracy believer. They would approach the subject with little but vague memories and their own opinions on how a lighter-than-air craft is constructed, piloted, managed. Many things would "look fake" because they have no idea what a ballonet is, or what the Akron was.

And when you add photographic "analysis" to the mix, you run against the generally poor skills in perspective and optics and photography. Yes...conspiracy theorists are out there every day calling a picture suspicious because shadows aren't parallel.



So it is a task. I DO know a little something about airships, and before I started theorizing about the Hindenburg I'd make sure to educated myself more. I also have lit professionally, and attended lectures on studio photography. So I would, indeed, notice that the envelope was crumpling in a suspicious way or the lighting seemed too bright on the ground -- but I'd recognize why these were happening, and accept these as more plausible explanations.

I wouldn't, unlike the typical hoax believer, require a crane to explain a smudged footprint.

And, unfortunately, hoax believers have no perspective on their own mental processes. They would be quite capable of accepting what appeared to be anomalies in photographs of the Hindenburg (because they have no emotional stake in believing it faked) but at the same time refuse to accept that there are more likely explanations to the "anomaly" they've found in the Apollo record.

Obviously something in the processing. From the LPI website where those links point to:

Because of all this processing, these catalog images should not be used for research purposes. They should only be used to select and identify images for use in a research project. Higher resolution products should be obtained for use in any scientific investigation(s).

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

If you look at the images at the Apollo Gallery at apolloarchive.com, those bright spots aren't there:

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov] or [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] (Hi-Res)

Let us be precise. I acknowledge that a bright spot appears on two consecutive frames on the JSC contact prints. It is not evident in the Kip Teague scans.

The dot is not particularly similar in respect to location either in relation to surface or relation to frame.

There is no way of stating whether it is of similar intensity; the dot appears to have maximized the emulsion.



The first possibility that came to my mind is that it might be the CSM. This isn't impossible; you would expect the CSM to appear in several of the following frames, but we don't know how much time passed between shutter pulls. Since the astronaut was taking this panorama manually (turn a little, press the shutter, turn again), a different interval between frames is likely. (Aka sometimes he might just turn his upper body, other times he might have to move his feet.) If it were the CSM, it could fly out of sight during the latter.

This is not ultimately answerable but you could given time work out the orbit of the CSM and see if it is even possible that it flew over during that panorama.

I'm not considering it a likely explanation, however. Also, the CSM fails to explain why there are similar but dimmer dots in other locations, as well as overlaid on the surface.


This leaves us with artifacts in camera, on the lens, or in the scan process. The movement of the particles suggests mechanical exposure (film train or scanning head), as electrostatic attraction is going to keep dust particles on the lens in place.

A further aspect is that this was slide film. Which actually works to our advantage. Assuming the usual process of making a print from a print, during the FIRST print (off the actual film) any opaque item would leave a white dot. And since this is the film unloaded from the magazines, there is a high probability of some lunar dust getting into the process.



Here's the sanity check of that theory; look through other JSC scans and try to find similar spots that do NOT appear in the sky but instead are in deep shadow.

I just made a visit to JPI and I found similar white dots -- about half of them overlaying the ground or other surface features -- in about one out of every 10 scans.

One or two were consistent with being a spot of dust on the camera lens illuminated by sunlight. Others were not, making scan artifacts the most likely explanation.

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]