If you concede that this image matches, but claim the others don't, then you are effectively saying that "they" (whoever "they" are) created two different LM sets for Apollo 15. In both these sets they had an identical rock, which can be identified in various photos. They had to figure out some way of faking the descent footage from several thousand feet, all the way down to the surface, including dust scoured away by the descent engine. They then designed a set that accurately mapped the terrain and craters visible in the film footage, for the purpose of taking several high-resolutin images from the LM window. Then, for some unknown reason, they completely rebuilt the set with missing craters, but designed the set in such a way that there was some kind of feature, in the location where the craters originally were, that resembled craters when viewed from a different direction under different lighting conditions.

It doesn't make any sense to me. It just doesn't add up from a conspiracy point of view.



Can you demonstrate why? Is it in the wrong location? If so, where should it be? If it's the wrong size, how big should it be?



Let's not muddy the waters by reducing the discussion to a battle of semantics over the definition of a small, shallow crater as opposed to a despression. We all know what the discussion is about.

I agreed in my previous post that I believe Peri has more accurately identified the "green" crater than I did.

You have hit the nail on the head with one of the major differences in the thought processes between the normal, logical way of thinking and the CT way of thinking.

When most people see that the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the evidence leads to a conclusion let's call it conclusion X) they agree that conclusion X is most likely to be correct. They also conclude that their previous conclusion (let's call it Y) was most likely incorrect.

When a CT sees that the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the evidence leads to conclusion X they decide that the experts are part of a huge conspiracy and that the government, that their conclusion Y is still correct and that the Government is covering up conclusion Y. The beauty of being a conspiracy theorist is never having to admit you are wrong... even to yourself.

"The beauty of being a conspiracy theorist is never having to admit you are wrong... even to yourself."

pft thats how I feel about "non-conspiracy" people but you guys have the pretious Government backing your story and as we all know the Government wouldn't ever do anything shady (they wouldn't lie to us, history proves this right? lol)

its pretty easy to just side with the authority figures and back up their "official story"

It's just as easy to disbelieve because it is the official story.

The clever thing to do is to believe based on the evidence, that it what you will see the vast majority of those that support the Apollo story doing. You will see my nationality if you look to the left of this post. I am not a US citizen, I owe no allegiance to the USA or it's government. That is true of many that post here. I don't particularly trust the US government or my own. I am happy to admit that you can tell that a politician is lying because you can see his lips moving. None of that changes the facts, and the facts are that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the validity of the Apollo Moon landings.

If ever the evidence is supplied that shows that Apollo was faked then I will do the clever thing and will side with the evidence and admit I was wrong. As of yet I have not seen a single piece of evidence that supports that conclusion.. not one.

Who says the "story" that the moon landings happened is "backed" by the government? That's like saying that the government backs the story that the Cassini probe is at Saturn or backs the story that somebody circumnavigated the world in a plane or hell that they back the story that the earth goes around the sun. They don't BACK any of these, they happened. They don't have publicists or groups that go around promoting stuff like this. I am just confused by what people mean when they say stuff like that.

Apollo was a US Government programme so I suppose from that point of view you would have to say that it is backed by the US government.

The thing that confuses me (one of the many things that confuses me in the wacky logic of the hoax believer) is that hoax believers talk about it being "backed by the government" as if there is only one. Of course that isn't true and again and again they fail to explain why, if as they claim, the US government lied to beat the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union never revealed the fact to the world, and actually backed the US version of events.

When will you come up with some EVIDENCE for an Apollo Hoax instead of spouting the same "Evil Gubmint" balloon juice you have been spouting for the past three or four posts? I for one am sick of it.

If you believe Apollo was a hoax TELL US WHY. "Because the Government said so" is so far from being an answer it is worthless; and so far, that's all you've got.

its cause you guys will never change your minds cause your closed minded about everything and the way you respond to posts on here doesn't make me want to discuss or present any ideas

you simply respond with name calling (wacky logic and ballon juice, are you guys 5 or something)

all governments are acting together so thats why I don't specify who's Government cause they are all working together (secret societies control everything you see hear eat breath and the way you guys think apparently)

Ps I don't care where you are from in the least (your PM is just as envolved as the Bush family)

What evidence that you can provide to us supports that claim?

I would like to add that I am an Individualist and anti-government in general. I disdain government yet I don't see them all being linked like you do.

What discussions or ideas have you presented?

And all you've done is call us "Government-Lovers" (without any evidence, I might add.)

Or is it because you have no case to present?


That was not name calling. This site allows the idea to be attacked not the individual. Referring to people as "are you 5 or something" is attacking an individual and is name calling. You are showing a double standard here, particularyl as you started your post by referring to people that disagree with you as "close minded". Double standard from a conspiracy theorist, quelle surprise.


Accusations with out supporting evidence, another one straight from the CT hand book.


And yet more anti-establishment nonsense.

You write an awful lot and yet you say nothing. Now try actually presenting some real evidence instead of empty rhetoric... if you can.

Oh, Peri...I KNOW IT'S THE ENGINEER IN YOU!
It's clear as day by observing your process.
It's one of the reasons I endeavor not to interject too much.
This is your baby (and Posty's), you're having a good time with it, you've got the tools, and you're doing great work...both of you.

I got no business interfering with that!!!



And as to what you said at the end of your statement....boy, I'll agree with that!

No, no, no...I still don't think you've listened or understood. I thought you might when you actually asked a question and got an answer...(to which you never responded, tellingly).

It's not a matter of closed mindedness. It's a matter of knowledge.
I've asked you to phrase your doubts as questions, and to cease with the silly declarations based on nothing. That's the way you'll get an answer...often an in depth answer to your doubts.




I, for instance, responded to your one question with this:



Remember that?
Please tell me, how is that name calling??


You ignored that completely just so you could throw this crap back into the mix:




Jesus...
You have an agenda here, apparently. Your Governement CT-Mind Control nonsense position. A position which you can't support, and don't even attempt to substantiate.

Apollo was executed by a regular people...people with a lot of dedication and drive and ability, people who took risks, tried new ideas, and failed, only to learn from those failures so they might succeed. Many worked for the government of the United States, paid salaries which weren't the greatest in the world, but were sufficient...and frankly, most all of them didn't care what they were paid...just about what they were doing.

And none of them would've ever considering "throwing the game". Their integrity prohibited that.



Again:

You obviously have doubts, and that's all they could possibly be. For instance, you've said:




Try this variant:


"I don't think the video they showed us is the actual footage they shot on the Moon, and here's why:

(List a reason or two....)"


This at least will get you into discussion, and will lead you into things you never knew: guaranteed.

Try it. It's alot of fun, because it stimulates learning...!

Actually that's a profoundly good point.

As President Reagan stated: 'Government is not the solution, it is the problem.'
He was right...

Actually, the problem is that when two or more people get together, they tend to create a government.

Human nature being what it is, this problem seems to have no solution.

No. My primary argument is that the video still does not match up with the post-EVA photos (such as AS15-87-11793 / 94 / 95). Based on how the "lunar surface" seen in the video still is fairly undefined, and has an overall "rounded" appearance, I've suggested that it's most likely a large scale model of the Moon.

A few images of the "Moon" (such as AS15-85-11396) that were supposedly "..taken by Jim Irwin out his window after the SEVA but before EVA-1.." do match up with the area seen in the video still. But the lunar surface in these images also have a "rounded" appearance (like the still), are also in b&w (like the still), and also show a "pre-EVA" lunar surface (like the still). The only difference is that they are more defined than the still.

Most likely this is the reason you selected those few images - because they do match up correctly with the still. But the problem is that these images (and the still) don't match up with the post-EVA photos you've cited.



And I'll answer again: The issue is whether or not the crater in the still (and AS15-85-11396) matches up correctly with what is seen in the other photos (such as the one you're citing). All you've done is point out an area with a slightly angled-down footprint. You haven't made a valid argument to show how it matches up with the crater in the still/pre-EVA photo.

Here is the crater, cropped from the video still and the pre-EVA photo...



And here is what you claim to be the same "crater" as above, cropped from your photo...



Notice that the crater in the still matches up correctly with the crater in the pre-EVA photo, in every comparable feature. They even show the same small crater just behind and to the left of this crater.

But your "crater" does not match up. There is very little downward slope where your 'footprint' is, while the crater has a sharp ridge (which casts a shadow inside the crater). There is no small crater (adjacent to the main one) present in your photo. There are numerous other differences, beyond those two. But there are no features to your "crater" which match up correctly with the crater seen in these two images.



None of the features match up - not just this single crater. The largest crater seen in the still is entirely different. The entire terrain is different.

That's why there is no problem matching up the features in the still with the pre-EVA image - because they show the same "terrain" (as it were).

That's why it's impossible to match up the features in your photo with the still / pre-EVA images - because they show entirely different terrains.

If you recall, I asked you if you could match up the photos correctly. Since you couldn't, you're now trying to switch the burden of proof from yourself to me. I've gone over one small crater, and shown that it doesn't match up. But you want me to go through each and every difference, although that still won't convince you that they are not the same "terrain", will it?



No, he's circled an entirely different area for where he claims the "crater" is. It may be adjacent to your "crater", but it's certainly not the same as yours.

That's what happens when there is no "crater", leaving you no choice but to "sketch" one into the image. Each of you know the general area where it's 'supposed' to be, in relation to the large crater. But when it comes down to specifically narrowing down a spot where it might "fit in" best, then it becomes a real crap shoot.

Ah MID, this is why I just love you 'Engineer type' guys. You guys cut right to the heart of the matter. Yes, it is indeed a matter of knowledge, and very specific knowledge at that.

Kudos to Posty and Peri for the last few pages...most enlightening.

there, ol' Ron said one of the most profound utterances of the age.

A man named David Icke told me.

Dan Dare. sorry

Turbs

You need to factor in the differences in the photos, which explain many of the apparent differences between the two images.

The still/pre-EVA is taken from a height of around 15 feet. The EVA image is around 5 feet. This makes a big difference as to how craters/depressions are perceived.
The still/pre-EVA is pointing downsun. The EVA image is pointing around 120 degrees to this angle.
The still/pre-EVA image was taken several hours before the EVA image. The sun has risen, and shadows have noticeably shortened.
The still/pre-EVA image is of "virgin" surface. The EVA image is after several hours of astronaut activity around the LM. Bootprints, scuffed up dust, LM tracks obscure some features.
The pre-EVA image is quite sharp. The EVA image is slightly blurred, making it more difficult to identify tiny rocks that could otherwise identify the crater.

What we can see when you study the EVA image in detail, is a shallow depression or crater, call it what you will. It's in the correct position



Au contraire. I've spent a lot of time looking at the pre-EVA image and someof the EVA images, and I've found some features that are clearly the same despite being photographed from different locations/heights/times.

The image in question is AS15-87-11787. It was taken from the same location as AS15-87-11793 - they are part of the same pan sequence.

Check out these two craters I've highlighted.



They correspond completely to the craters in the pre-EVA image AS15-85-11396, which you agree is an accurate match for the film still.



Please examine the hi-res versions I've linked: these small images are just to identify the red and blue craters I'll be referring to in both images.

Look at this crop of the pre-EVA image (11787) taken from the LM.



Compare it to the EVA image (11396)



I've highlighted some of the similarities in this animated GIF below. Slight differences in relative positions of rocks are easily explained by the difference in perspective due to different viewpoints.



Conclusion: someone went to an awful lot of trouble making sure the rocks in that crater all matched up between sets! Or, it was filmed on a single set. Or, the photos were taken on the moon.



I already ceded that Peri had more accurately identified the crater than I had, I woudn't expect you to keep beating me over the head with it Turbs. Especially after identifying rocks and shadows as a turtle shell.

He sure did, didn't he?
...and it took the "great communicator", Ronaldus Magnus, to state what reasonable people had (or should've) know for a looong time.
It still is the problem!

Shazam!
And that is the issue.

Everything supports what you say here Posty...

It's a matter of not taking into account variances in visual perception in vacuum at various sun angles...depth perception, and even color change depending on the vantage point.



Hmmm... I wonder which one it is?!





I think you can expect more of the same Posty.
It is so obvious that the photos out the window match the photos taken on the ground that the arguments are becoming mundane....

But I do so enjoy watching you guys work!

Yes, we did. Now let's see if China can do it nearly a half-century later using stolen technology.

edit: At first I thought this thread was joke. But I just read through it carefully and it looks like some of you actually think that the Apollo missions never happened. Wow. I'd love to spend a day inside your heads. Do you wear tinfoil hats? Do you think your TV sends video of you back to secret government labs? Wow.

Nice work on the comparison images, postbaguk. As I'm sure you've noticed, those same craters are a really big clue to figuring out where Jim Irwin was standing when he shot the EVA-2 photo pan. With your comparisons, it should be pretty obvious to just about anyone that the EVA photos taken on the lunar surface show the same terrain as the pre-EVA shots from the LM.

So Turb, what do you have to say? This sure seems to be good evidence that the DAC landing footage = pre-EVA Hasselblad shots from the LM = EVA shots from the surface. I could easily post many more matchups, and I'm sure Posty could, too. It's better to stay focused on one topic at a time, though, so I'm going to hold off on posting anything else new until we resolve this one.

Do remember, though, that I've already given you one other perfect match which you ought to consider along with Posty's work:

LEFT: AS15-85-11396 (inside LM post-SEVA) RIGHT: AS15-87-11791 (outside LM on EVA-2)

It was a hoax, I have proof.

Look!

Not sure if this has been posted before, sorry if it has.

If we turn that rock around, will it have a "C" on it?? Darned whistleblowers screwed up again!!

Oh, Repo...it's no joke!


And trust me, your thoughts I am sure have entered our heads at one point or another and in some form during the course of some of these discussions...!

I can't say that is has been posted before.
However, it does provide a little comic relief!

Thanks!

They may have entered our head MID, but most of us have refrained from saying it because we understand the rules of this site. Repoman, it is OK to attack the idea, it is not OK to attack the individuals that hold them. Please keep that in mind in future.

im open to the idea, but the evidence points otherwise i mean no stars in the backgroung, weird misplaced shadows, lighting too bright,
ive yet to see any concrete evicence and then theres another thing. why

havnt we gone back and started inhabiting it

Why do so few people understand the very basics of photography? More importantly why are people prepared to base their beliefs on a subject they clearly know nothing about?

Go and read a book on photography and you will discover just how silly this argument is. You don't have to take my word or any other Apollo supporters word for it, you just have to go to a library, read a book and learn.

Indeed...I probably should've inserted that into my comment!

Well, I think Waspie has given you a big clue.

You're mentioning elementary things which have not only been explained here ad-nauseam, but which are available for your own personal understanding in many places right on the internet (there is nothing abnormal about no stars in the background, there are no wierd mis-placed shadows, and the Moon's lighting is in fact exceedingly bright--for completely logical and natural reasons).


Why we haven't yet gone back has also been explained many times. It's completely understandable...and you'll find several complete explanations of this fact on this very forum in several places....

Head of nail, let me introduce you to Mr Hammer.

A few years ago, when the tinterweb was in it's infancy, I saw a programme on late night UK telly. A very plausible man was insisting that he had proof man didn't land on the moon. He made me start thinking about the moon landings, and I lapped up every ounce of information I could about the moon-hoax... determined to discover the truth. If the landings had been faked, I wanted to be in the Vanguard of "outing NASA."

I became rapidly dis-illusioned in the hoax movement.

All his arguments dissolved under scrutiny. I thought perhaps he was mistaken. I sought out other hoax opinions. None of them held water under anything more than the slightest scrutiny.

He is, of course, David Percy. I owe him a debt of gratitude. Because of him, my critical thinking skills have blossomed. I try to learn the answer and the explanation to things I don't understand, rather than leaping to an assumption.

The moral of this tale? I echo Waspie's sentiment. Learn about stuff you don't understand. Don't just assume that the "dis-establishment" view must be the right one.,

"This one"? We haven't resolved the last one(s) yet, Peri! I'll be glad to address postie's new image comparison, afterwards.

As you know, I'm referring to the video still (and AS15-85-11396) versus the post-EVA photos you and postie have cited (AS15-87-11794/95). Whether or not the craters, etc. match up. My last post was specifically on your "green" crater, to point out some of the discrepancies (no smaller crater adjacent, etc.) in the post-EVA photos.

I was hoping to address the largest ("red") crater in detail as well, before moving on.

There was no reply to the "green" crater discrepancies I noted. All postie said (before moving on to his new comparison) was this...

You need to factor in the differences in the photos, which explain many of the apparent differences between the two images.

The still/pre-EVA is taken from a height of around 15 feet. The EVA image is around 5 feet. This makes a big difference as to how craters/depressions are perceived.
The still/pre-EVA is pointing downsun. The EVA image is pointing around 120 degrees to this angle.
The still/pre-EVA image was taken several hours before the EVA image. The sun has risen, and shadows have noticeably shortened.
The still/pre-EVA image is of "virgin" surface. The EVA image is after several hours of astronaut activity around the LM. Bootprints, scuffed up dust, LM tracks obscure some features.
The pre-EVA image is quite sharp. The EVA image is slightly blurred, making it more difficult to identify tiny rocks that could otherwise identify the crater.

What we can see when you study the EVA image in detail, is a shallow depression or crater, call it what you will. It's in the correct position

I find it interesting to note that only one of these differences does not factor into his own latest comparison (the similar position (point of view) for his "double-crater" images). The other differences apply to both of our comparisons.

What does this imply? That your "green" crater does not properly match up with the crater in the still/pre-EVA photo for only one reason - you're seeing it from the other side?
(Don't answer that - I'm just being sarcastic to make my point).

But I would like to get a reply on the "green" crater discrepancies (no smaller crater, etc.)....

Why do you think the very small crater next to the "green" crater should even be visible in the EVA photos? I've given a list of factors that could contribute to that. If you look closely at 11794, there has clearly been plenty of astronaut activity at the very spot where you would expect the tiny crater to be, so it's highly likely it's been obscured. There's the possibility that minor variations in the terrain are obscuring the craterlet from the POV of the EVA image.

Since you also wanted to discuss the "large" crater, I've had a look at that one myself. Here are a few of the similarities I noticed in just one small strip. There are many others.

I've highlighted the area I'm looking at below.



Here's some of the minute features that match up very well.

It's not just the small crater that's missing. The entire "green" crater itself does not match up - size, shape, slope, etc.

It's not going to alter all of its basic features or "disappear" because of a different lighting angle or boot scuffles.

I'll return to this asap...

Well, hopefully you'll also return to address the image matchups Posty has been making for you. They're clearly showing the same terrain down to very small pebbles, and those aren't the only examples we could give you.

As for the "green" crater, just what are you trying to match up? In the EVA-2 photos, the area has been heavily disturbed by the crew, and there weren't many unique features in that area to begin with -- except, of course, for the large rock I've already pointed out (which you're still ignoring):





There isn't much downward slope to the boot print in the crater because the crater isn't very deep. Also, there is no "sharp ridge" as you mentioned earlier. Here's a closeup of the crater as seen from the LM window post-SEVA. This is a crop from the ultra-high-resolution version of the photo available here.

AS15-85-11396 (cropped & brightness levels adjusted)


As you can see, there is no sharp ridge. At the time this photo was taken, the sun was probably only about 15 degrees off the horizon (it's somewhere between 13.3 and 19.6 degrees). Since the crater wall is NOT in complete shadow, the crater can't be any steeper than 19.6 degrees, and is probably closer to 15 degrees. From the footprints in the area, I'm guessing the crater is 6-8 feet wide. If we assume a radius of 4 feet and simple conical sloping walls with a 15 degree angle, we get a maximum depth of just over one foot. With a 20 deg slope, we get a depth of 1.4 feet. It's just a shallow little depression in the ground. The very low sun angle in the landing film really exaggerates it's appearance. That enhanced terrain visibility is actually one of the reasons the Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning.

This is a case where it's easier to see the match if you step back and look at the big picture (literally!). Here's the LM photo again. I've marked on it the rough area I believe we're looking at in frame AS15-87-11793. The blue line shows the direction in which Jim Irwin was pointing the camera, and the green lines show the edges of the field of view. I've also tinted the craters that show up in both images and have marked the rock I showed above with a big red arrow.

AS15-85-11396 (Tinted and Marked)


And here's the EVA-2 photo with your mystery crater tinted green:

AS15-87-11793 (Tinted)


Everything falls just where it ought to be. And yes, I can prove that the blue area at the edge of 11793 really is the blue crater in 11396. I'll show you that later today in another post. The small crater adjacent to the green crater that you claim is missing in the EVA shots would be located just to the right of the large center crosshair in frame 11793. There's a feature visible in 11793 at the right spot, but I can't tell if it's the tiny little crater or if it's just a bootprint. Your "missing" crater would only be 1-2 feet wide and a few inches deep. It could easily be obliterated by a bootprint, and that area has seen some pretty heavy traffic.

Good spot on matching up the green craters there Peri.

Just in case anyone isn't sure how easy it is for a small crater to get covered up, check this out. Taken from Apollo 11. I've matched up a little crater which is about the same size as Turbs "missing crater" from Apollo 15. It totally disappears after the astronaut has walked past it just once. Since we know there has been astronaut activity where the small crater is in the Apollo 15 images, it's quite possible it's been obliterated.

I think this is one of the stupidest claims, even some of the smarter Hoaxers admit it is BS.

1. Everyone* can go outside and try to photograph stars, and see that it doesn't work the way the Hoaxers claim.

2. The whole idea of "Nasa couldn't calculate the star positions, but Hoaxers could" ist ridiculous.

Essentially, I would say you're correct....
It's really simple, basic photographic principal.

As I stated in a previous post, the difference in parallax between the Earth and the Moon is the equivalent of FOUR HOURS of the travel of Earth's orbit. In other words, the difference in parallax between photos taken on Earth five hours apart is greater than the difference between photos taken simultaneously on the Earth and the Moon.

This parallax is tiny, and absolutely would not register on the cameras and film that the astronauts used.

I'll soon post details for the large crater comparison I'm doing between these cropped photos..



But first - why are there two lights present in this photo?...

Are you referring to the lens flares or something else?

I think this link explains it nicely.




Edit: Forgot link

Well, that oughtta be amusing at least



There aren't. The effect you're seeing is a lens flare, a common occurrence when pointing a camera at a brilliant light source, such as the Sun, and is something you'd probably know if you bothered to spend even 1% of the time that you put into these crackpot ideas and opinions of yours on something more constructive, like studying or researching or maybe even reading up a bit on photography and/or lighting, for instance....

And yeah... not holding my breath on that either....




Cz

Moon dust and the moons atmosphere.

Why is it that the dust and there is a lot of it that is thrown up by the moon buggy's wheels, just fall straight back to the moons surface as if it were in a normal
atmosphere. ???

Dan Dare

This is a hugely contradictory post and suggests that the poster dosn't understand the HB argument never mind the reason why that argument is wrong.

It is the very fact that the dust DOES fall straight back to the surface that shows that it ISN'T in an atmosphere. An atmosphere would tend to cause fine dust to "hang in the air" rather than fall straight back.

The effect is stage lighting, a common occurrence in Apollo photos.

Maybe you'd like to show us all how the crater matches up correctly in the two photos?

I'll wait for the usual excuses, after you fail miserably.

I look forward to you producing a tiny scrap of evidence to support this instead of just your opinion. Maybe you would like to show us how this is stage lighting and not lens flare with some photographs of your own to prove it.


I second the above turbo, in all the years you have posted you have never produced one single piece of evidence to support your belief. You have, time and time again, dismissed real evidence as excuses but that is the limit of what you have achieved. I suspect me waiting for you to produce real evidence is a victory for hope over experience.