Moon landing was fake

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The fact that the LM blueprints were destroyed has even been discussed on clavius , the Holy Grail of the NASA defenders and the Apollo worshipers .. and I happen to "know" that it is a pro Apollo site .... Just as 'Who Mourns for Apollo ' is a pro Apollo site .... Where did you ever get the idea it's a conspiracy site ?

By actually reading it (do you ever actually read the sites you use for reference straydog?). It admits it is a conspiracy site promoting the idea that NASA is hiding photographs they took on the moon:

If enough people can be convinced by this deliberate disinformation campaign that "there are no NASA conspiracies" -- by the deliberate promotion and then effective debunking of obviously bad conspiracy theories like "We Never Went To The Moon" -- then it will be much easier to sell the idea that NASA "just missed a couple of things" on those Mars pics all those years ago. And certain people, deeply implicated in the cover-up, will neatly escape the consequences for their theft over more than forty years of our entire space program!

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part I

Yes, it is unbelievable that NASA ordered Ken Johnston to destroy all the duplicate sets of Apollo photography, essentially trying to confine the control of the visual record to one set of prints that NASA could manipulate. But it wasn't to cover up that we never went! It was to cover up what we found when we got there!

I hope, with this series of articles, we have proven one key point -- that the real "NASA problem" lies before us, still waiting to be solved. -- MB.

From Who Mourns For Apollo? Part II (see earlier link).

The underlying reasons for NASA's deception and duplicitousness regarding what is really on other planets in our solar system -- including the 30+ year pattern of withholding crucial Lunar information from the people who paid for Apollo in the first place, and what we now know from NASA's own photography is on the Moon -- are the REAL issues here.

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part III

There are however, some questions involving our specific area of lunar investigation that to date, have remained unanswered. We therefore ask the cogent question relating to the real issue:

Now guys, will you help us get to what's REALLY waiting for us on our moon?

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part IV

Waspie ... I am neither ignorant or poorly educated , so please stop with your transparent personal insults .... If you want to hang on to your fairy tale belief that Apollo went to the moon , then that's fine by me ... but stomping all over me for my beliefs in the process really doen't help your cause very much ...

Instead of calling me names , wouldn't it make more sense for you to just rebutt my posts with evidence that shows that you are right and I am wrong ? ... Your tired little program of ridicule and ad homs only makes you look mean spirited , and also the one who is being ignorant .

straydog, you really must learn to read what is in front of you (as clearly demonstrated above). I have alreadtywarned you about misquoting people and making false accusations. I have called you no names what I said was:

I have said it before and I will say it again, keep posting straydog. With every redundant, ridiculous and contradictory post you make you just demonstrate how idiotic and ignorant of the facts the pro-hoax position really is. You are NASA's best weapon against the hoax theory as you manage to highlight every single thing that is wrong with the arguments of the charlatans that make their money by selling their books and videos to the gullible and poorly educated.

(emphasis mine).

So you see I am attacking the view point and the sellers of the books, not you. As the rules state:

attack the viewpoint being presented, not the person who holds that view

I have not broken them.

However this comment:

Your tired little program of ridicule and ad homs only makes you look mean spirited , and also the one who is being ignorant .

(my emphasis again) is a personal attack against me and is against the rules.

[Obviousman]

Obviousman .... A LM sitting behind ropes on display somewhere in a NASA museum is not proof of it's flight capabilities either.

No, but they can be examined - and have been.

How about addressing my question about the EVA booklets ? .... How could the astronauts have typed those pages and made such perfect drawings and notes of those rock positions and experiment placements during or after their EVA's, inside that cramped little LM inside those bulky spacesuits ? .... Did they take a typewriter onboard the LM with the other equipment ? ...

No, they were prepared BEFORE the missions. What is so strange about that? Checklists are used through aviation.

They planned where to land, where to put experiments, etc.

The rock? Take a good, close look at the image of the cuff checklist I posted, and tell me what exactly is wrong with it.

And speaking of those bulky spacesuits ..... in the later missions didn't they remove those bad boys ? .. And if it took several people to suit them up on Earth before launch , then how did they suit up themselves or even each other in that tiny cramped little LM compartment , where two astronauts could barely move much less suit up ?

They put them on before they landed, didn't they?

And, yes, they did remove them between EVAs on later missions - and it was quite a tight fit. But hardly "barely move".

They could achieve this because.... ta-da!... they practiced beforehand - on Earth, in a mockup - and developed a checklist to tell them what to do and in what sequence.

None of this is strange to anyone in aviation; I'm curious - what line of work are you in?

Edited December 29, 2006 by Obviousman

[straydog]

"No, they were prepared BEFORE the missions. What is so strange about that ? " ... Are you kidding me ? .... Look at it again !! .... How could NASA have known BEFORE the missions where the rocks would be placed ? ... Or where the ground would be DISTURBED ? .... These were movie scripts for godsakes !

And no , I doubt there was room to suit up in the LM , even if NASA claims there was .... I have watched astronauts being suited up ... Well , real astronauts anyway, in real pressurized spacesuits ... Who knows what went on with the Apollo crew ? .... Definately nothing normal , that's for sure .

Edited December 29, 2006 by straydog

[straydog]

By actually reading it (do you ever actually read the sites you use for reference straydog?). It admits it is a conspiracy site promoting the idea that NASA is hiding photographs they took on the moon:

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part I

From Who Mourns For Apollo? Part II (see earlier link).

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part III

Source: Who Mourns For Apollo? Part IV

straydog, you really must learn to read what is in front of you (as clearly demonstrated above). I have alreadtywarned you about misquoting people and making false accusations. I have called you no names what I said was:

(emphasis mine).

So you see I am attacking the view point and the sellers of the books, not you. As the rules state:

I have not broken them.

However this comment:

(my emphasis again) is a personal attack against me and is against the rules.

Yes , I've read this site ... several times in fact ...

Here is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the web site "Who Mourns for Apollo ? "

"In the last few years, we have become increasingly alarmed as a particularly silly and damaging "urban myth" has begun to take hold. Promoted by a few well known authors such as David Percy and the late James Collier, this latest twist on the current "conspiracy nation" fad is based on a simple, if unbelievably naive and absurd notion -- that the Apollo Missions and subsequent Moon landings were faked. Admittedly, we thought this whole issue was put quite nicely to rest in August 1997, when Enterprise Mission principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland "debated" Collier on Art Bell's "Coast to Coast AM" radio program. The results of that debate can only be described as an unmitigated humiliation for Collier, who turned out to be totally out of his element and misinformed on the general subjects of space travel, physics, engineering, NASA, and Apollo itself. "

If that's not considered to be a pro Apollo site , then I don't know what would be .

[Obviousman]

Straydog, this is an example of why people ask you to read things in more detail before you pass judgement on them.

Is the cuff checklist a script? Most certainly! The activities of the astronauts on the lunar surface were planned in great detail; it was very expensive to get them there, so they could not afford to waste time.

Let's have a look at that cuff checklist example; you should be aware that this is for the Apollo 12 CDR (Commander, Pete Conrad), not the LMP (Lunar Module Pilot, Al Bean). He has his own checklist:

To begin, note that it is labelled FIRST DOCUMENTED SAMPLE, and it is during EVA-2 (the second EVA). They have various contingency samples when they first exit the LM, but this is the first of the real geological work.

Have a look at the right hand page under the heading DOCUMENTED SAMPLE. The first step is SELECT SAMPLE. It wasn't predetermined. The astronauts had geology training, and knew what the scientists on Earth would be interested in. They walked around looking for a sample that would be of interest. They didn't just wander aimlessly, they went down-Sun (because that what was pre-planned).

The diagramme then told them HOW to take the photographs (i.e. from what position, camera settings, how far away, what order) and where to place the gnomon, etc.

Now, if we have a look at the ALSJ, what do we find?

132:08:50 Conrad: Okay, I was setting up my rock hole and all that good things for the polarizing light. (Pause)

[This is a reference to the diagram Pete has in his cuff checklist laying out the requirements for the polarization photography and documented sampling. The rock hole, specifically, is the hole left after Pete moves a rock and puts it down a short ways away either on its back or its side.]132:09:10 Conrad: Say, I was looking at a rock that has small crystals in it. One of them is shining very, very bright green, like ginger-ale-bottle green. (Pause)

Then later...

132:12:17 Conrad: I'm taking the polarized pictures right now. (Pause) Al, when you get up to me, if you'll just stop up-Sun at 15 feet and take that shot of what I'm shooting f/11:15, two pictures: one before, one after.

[Details of the polarization sequence can be found on Pete's checklist page 10.]Pete's Polarization Series (frames 7172 to 7188)

132:15:25 Conrad: Okay. Put the tool carrier down and get your up-Sun (means down-Sun) pictures. You see where my footsteps are, that rock that's half buried and the two rocks that I've turned over in my footsteps?

132:15:35 Bean: Yeah.

132:15:36 Conrad: Okay; it's 15 feet, f/11. Two shots. Now, you're not going to get the before, unfortunately.

132:15:46 Bean: Okay. How about right...(Would you) rather have my shadow here or over there?

[Al wants to keep his shadow off the photographic area.]132:15:50 Conrad: No, that's the pile, right there. See where I turned over the two rocks alongside the great big rock, where my foot tracks are?

132:15:58 Bean: Oh yeah, way down there at the end.

132:16:00 Conrad: No, right here. (Pause) I'll walk over to it.

132:16:04 Bean: That's a good idea.

132:16:06 Conrad: Right straight in front of me. This rock pile, right here.

132:16:09 Bean: Oh, okay. Want me to shoot it from right here?

132:16:11 Conrad: Yeah, and you aren't 15 feet. Back up, you're 11 feet.

132:16:13 Bean: All right. I sure will. Fifteen feet. Okay, it ought to be about f/11. (Long Pause)

[Al's two, unfiltered down-Suns of the area are AS12-48- 7046 and 7047. He stepped to his right in between the pictures.]

So they looked for a sample, then followed the checklist diagramme as to where to take photos. The disturbed area is where the CDRs footprints would be.

Nothing strange about that.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Obviousman

[postbaguk]

Straydog, this is an example of why people ask you to read things in more detail before you pass judgement on them.

Is the cuff checklist a script? Most certainly! The activities of the astronauts on the lunar surface were planned in great detail; it was very expensive to get them there, so they could not afford to waste time.

<snip>

Then later...

So they looked for a sample, then followed the checklist diagramme as to where to take photos. The disturbed area is where the CDRs footprints would be.

Nothing strange about that.

And it all shows how congruous the evidence is - the photographic evidence ties in with the record of activities on the ALSJ, and also with the cufflist.

[postbaguk]

Posty ... You don't believe that with 25 billion dollars at your disposal it would be possible to fake the Apollo Program ? .... Now look who's being naive'.

I do not believe it would be feasible to fake the amount of evidence they would have had to in order to fool the countless thousands of people, qualified in their field, who would later spend years poring over the evidence in detail.

What do you think the money was spent on? Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly contractors, worked on Apollo - each making sure that their part of the process worked. So, NASA ended up with billions of dollars worth of Apollo hardware which was designed and built by contractors to actually do the job it was intended for, but decided to fake all the evidence for having gone there anyway?

According to HBers, there only needs to be a very small number of people are in on the hoax: those at the very top, maybe someone at mission control, the astronauts themselves, a few set designers, a couple of photographers, and a TV crew. I disagree. How many people work on your average Hollywood blockbuster? You know, the ones which despite being only a couple of hours long, being made by professionals in their field, and employing continuity people, are absolutely riddled with continuity errors, goofs, bloopers, editting errors etc? And that's despite having modern technology at their disposal, as well as hundreds of trained staff, professional cinematographers, set designers, cameramen, prop designers, directors, continuity. Why do they make goofs and mistakes in every film you care to mention - yet a small number of NASA insiders were able to film for many hours, with most "takes" lasting an hour or so, on huge photo-realistic sets, in a vacuum, with some means of perfectly simulating 1/6 earth g, all filmed live (otherwise the guys at mission control would ALL have had to be in on it as they could see the video, and communicate with the astronauts) whilst also taking almost 20,000 photos on the lunar surface, as well as in orbit, including producing dozens of pictures of earth so realistically faked that even with 1960's techniques they are fooling photographers, film-makers and scientists nearly forty years later? I'm sorry straydog, it is you who is being naive.

But if you think it was faked with an incredible amount of realism , you're wrong again .... NASA made plenty of errors , not only with the photography but with the way they allowed the astronauts to act while on the moon sets ... The script writers were awful .. and the ad libs by the Apollo astro-actors were even worse ....

No errors have been pointed out in the photographic record that stand up to any kind of scrutiny. As for the script-writers being awful - you're listening to the voices of astronauts doing their (albeit incredible) job - you're entitled to your opinion as to whether you like what they are saying, but that in no way constitutes evidence of a hoax.

I have seen proof of the pre-written scripts on the little EVA booklets the astronauts had strapped around their wrists .... In Hawkins' book he shows a page of official Apollo items and a close up of one of the pages from one of their EVA books , shows a printed diagram of the moon stage , complete with rocks placed in certain places and instructions for the astro-actor of where to go to pick up rocks and lay down certain experiments and what to bascially describe as he is doing it ....There is no way that a pre-written diagram of the terrain , including the rock positions and the LM position and instructions of what to pick up and place where , could be real ....It was all just a big show for the cameras .... NASA would have had no way of knowing where the rocks and craters would have been before landing on the real moon !... This is some of the best proof yet of Apollo being one big expensive B rated movie production .

See the mundane but accurate explanation provided to you by Obviousman.

I checked the front of Hawkins' book and there are copyright laws involved ... but if I write to the publisher , I might be able to get permission to scan some of Hawkins' book pages here so you can see what I'm talking about with the pre-written EVA booklets .... It was all a F A K E .... but NASA did such a good job of it that over 80 percent of the population of the world bought it as being the real deal .

Either they did a good job or they didn't. Not only was it good enough to fool the world, but they also fooled everyone qualified in their field who has studied the evidence in great detail. Yet at the same time, it was bad enough for someone such as yourself, with no expertise or training in any relevant field, to be able to tell at a glance that some photos are actually paintings, and that others are obviously crude fakes.

Being open-minded, I'll side with the explanation that better fits the available facts. I reserve the right to change my opinion, of course, should any damning evidence come to light, that is more conclusive than the evidence in favour of Apollo. It needs to be something a little more substantial than "this photo is obviously a fake, there are clearly stage-lights", or "the moon is a searing radiation hell" or " the moon rocks were all found in Antarctica" or "the astronauts looked uncomfortable at their press conference so were obviously lying". Hard facts, backed up by supporting evidence, rather than supposition and hand-waving please.

[straydog]

Nice try guys but you know what they say about pictures .... They are definately worth 1000 words .... Below is the definative proof that NASA staged the moon landings and that the astronauts followed scripts which were attached to their wrists in the form of little EVA booklets .

No mattter how you both attempt to spin this one , there is absolutley NO WAY that NASA could have possibly known the lay of land on the moon , including the rock positions and where the lunar soil would be distrubed BEFORE the astronauts ever went there to disturb it .... Look at it again .... It's a movie script diagram , including instructions of where the astro-actors needed to place their Gnomon prop and then pick up the moon set rocks for the TV cameras ... It's a PRE-WRITTEN STAGE SETTING DIAGRAM , including where the moon set rock props were located .

[phunk]

Nowhere in that picture does it show where the rocks are located. It shows where they should position themselves and their instruments for these specific photos, relative to whatever rocks they find.

[capeo]

Nowhere in that picture does it show where the rocks are located. It shows where they should position themselves and their instruments for these specific photos, relative to whatever rocks they find.

Precisely. Its an instruction book. This page is for how to set up polarized photos without disturbing the area to be photographed then a procedure list for collecting samples of the photgraphed items. A gnomon is a sundial indicator. Note the names on the other pages as well. It's a procedural manual. Also note the small size for easy storage on the compression suit.

[Picturesque Orion]

Wow, I hope this thread does`n't end up like the other one. What really makes me nervous is that will we bahave the same when Nasa goes to the Moon againg? Will we believe they landed men on Mars when they actually landed man? If we stay as ignarant like now and not believing anything the goverment says then we are doomed. You really think a whole goverment will actually fake a moon walk to actually impress another nation?? Sounds stupid to me. How many times do this hoax claims have to be debunked?? This topic is very old now, not for UM but for the entire world. I think we should pay more attention to the debunks because they certainly make more sense then the hoax claims. At least most of them.

[AtomicDog]

Not only that, Walter Cronkite and other news commentators at the time talked about how the astronauts were performing items as per and from their checklists, demonstrated how the checklists worked, and showed the astronauts doing it on live TV! If it was such a big to-do how come NASA made no secret of what they were doing?

AS12-48-7071

AS16-116-18649

Note the checklist on the left sleeve? In plain sight.

That's funny. Keeping a secret by showing everyone what you're doing.

Edited December 29, 2006 by AtomicDog

[AtomicDog]

Also, if the astronauts were on a stage, it would be simpler for the director to tell them what to do directly, instead of having them follow a script. Who's going to hear him?

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

I cannot wait until everyone finds out it was faked!

One of the more things that stands out to me about the moon missions is when you see a shot of Nasa's control room and its just a bunch of blinking lights and turn knobs. I mean it looks absolutly pre-historic. This was the time when a calculater was the size of a computer and the computer took up rooms. The technology was simply not there, how can most of you people on this forum believe without any doubt that they had 11 succesful missions. I suggest everyone who is sooooo sure about the landing being real watch the fox special they put out in 2003. It has alot of questions that cannot be answered.

Here are some youtube clips I want of the pro appolo people to look at and debunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f7RDQ27pvo (how do you explain the cross hairs behind the objects? and the Lines in the picture not not running parallel

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I cannot wait until everyone finds out it was faked!

You will be waiting a long LONG time.

One of the more things that stands out to me about the moon missions is when you see a shot of Nasa's control room and its just a bunch of blinking lights and turn knobs. I mean it looks absolutly pre-historic. This was the time when a calculater was the size of a computer and the computer took up rooms. The technology was simply not there, how can most of you people on this forum believe without any doubt that they had 11 succesful missions.

Why do so many people think that the stone age ended in 1980? You do realise that 1969 was the year that the 747 and Concorde made their first flights don't you? Or that the fastest aircraft (official FIA record, I know the X-15 was faster) ever built, the SR71 took to the air in 1962? Or the shuttle, the most complex machine ever built was designed while men were still walking on the Moon and the first rolled out just 4 years after the last lunar Apollo flight?

To claim that the technology did not exist is to totally ignore the facts.

I suggest everyone who is sooooo sure about the landing being real watch the fox special they put out in 2003. It has alot of questions that cannot be answered.

Not only CAN they be answered but they have been ad nauseum on this site and many others

Here are some youtube clips I want of the pro appolo people to look at and debunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f7RDQ27pvo (how do you explain the cross hairs behind the objects? and the Lines in the picture not not running parallel

These have been debunked over and over again. A little research just on this site will show you just how silly these claims really are.

[capeo]

I cannot wait until everyone finds out it was faked!

One of the more things that stands out to me about the moon missions is when you see a shot of Nasa's control room and its just a bunch of blinking lights and turn knobs. I mean it looks absolutly pre-historic. This was the time when a calculater was the size of a computer and the computer took up rooms.

You are very, very wrong. The firts minicomputer, the PDP-1 came out in 1960 (for a cool $120,000 if you wanted one). Honeywell released its first home computer, the Kitchen Computer, in 1969 ($10,000 in the Nieman Marcus catalog). The attorney general charge IBM with monopolization of the computer industry, which was in full swing, that year as well. The technology was very much there.

Edited December 30, 2006 by capeo

[Redtail]

I cannot wait until everyone finds out it was faked!

Of course not. It will never happen because it wan't faked.

One of the more things that stands out to me about the moon missions is when you see a shot of Nasa's control room and its just a bunch of blinking lights and turn knobs. I mean it looks absolutly pre-historic. This was the time when a calculater was the size of a computer and the computer took up rooms. The technology was simply not there, how can most of you people on this forum believe without any doubt that they had 11 succesful missions.

What specific pieces missing? Also who said all of the missions were succesful?

I suggest everyone who is sooooo sure about the landing being real watch the fox special they put out in 2003. It has alot of questions that cannot be answered.

Can you present 3 questions that haven't been answered?

Here are some youtube clips I want of the pro appolo people to look at and debunk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f7RDQ27pvo (how do you explain the cross hairs behind the objects? and the Lines in the picture not not running parallel

Here's an explanation for the cross hairs.

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

[postbaguk]

This article does a good job of explaining the alleged anomalies seen on the Fox special.

http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm

Specifically on the cross-hairs - using your argument based on the Fox special, this photo must prove the Shuttle is also faked.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021002041652/..._challenger.jpg

Edited December 30, 2006 by postbaguk

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Specifically on the cross-hairs - using your argument based on the Fox special, this photo must prove the Shuttle is also faked.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021002041652/..._challenger.jpg

Of course it's fake. If all the astronauts were onboard Challenger who took the photo?

[postbaguk]

Of course it's fake. If all the astronauts were onboard Challenger who took the photo?

Hmmm... and as the nose is pointed away from earth, surely it's travelling straight up? (I kid you not, there was a thread a few months ago when someone refused to believe that it was possible to orient a spacecraft in a direction different to that of it's direction of travel...!)

The photo also neatly demonstrates the difficulty of photographing stars in space, when your camera is exposed for a large bright object...

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The photo also neatly demonstrates the difficulty of photographing stars in space, when your camera is exposed for a large bright object...

Good point, no stars. Definitely, definitely a fake.

And is that supposed to be the Earth? That is obviously a fake. It is known that NASA own globes of the Earth so they could have faked the Earth in this picture using one of them. Here is a photo NASA didn't want you to see, it's a "real" picture of the Earth taken by the unmanned Aqua satellite and it looks nothing like the "Earth" in the shuttle picture.

Source: Earth Observatory - Image of the Day

That shuttle photograph was taken in 1983. Computers were primitive in those days, PCs were still using DOS, Windows was still 2 years away. The technology didn't exist for the space shuttle in the early 1980's.

And then there is the first flight. NASA had never tested the shuttle. There is no way they would have risked their valuable astronauts in an untried spacecraft. And it worked first time.. ridiculous! Are we really expected to believe that the worlds most complicated machine, which had never been tested, worked successfully for it's first 24 flights.

An obvious fake!

Edited December 30, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Lilly]

That shuttle photograph was taken in 1983. Computers were primitive in those days, PCs were still using DOS, Windows was still 2 years away. The technology didn't exist for the space shuttle in the early 1980's.

And then there is the first flight. NASA had never tested the shuttle. There is no way they would have risked their valuable astronauts in an untried spacecraft. And it worked first time.. ridiculous! Are we really expected to believe that the worlds most complicated machine, which had never been tested, worked successfully for it's first 24 flights.

An obvious fake!

[Picturesque Orion]

I hope you are being sarcastic Waspie. About the shuttle being a fake. Well, NO. The Challenger accident was fake? The Columbia accident was also fake? Oh, I know what you are going to say, " That was done on purpose to increase credibility". But the Soyuz docking with the shuttle also fake? The Rusian astronauts also fake? Because there are many photos of the Soyuz with the shuttle in the background. Are you going to accuse another gorvement for making fake docking, spacewalks, etc...... People are just making this hoax claims without thinking.

[Obviousman]

I hope you are being sarcastic Waspie. About the shuttle being a fake. Well, NO. The Challenger accident was fake? The Columbia accident was also fake? Oh, I know what you are going to say, " That was done on purpose to increase credibility". But the Soyuz docking with the shuttle also fake? The Rusian astronauts also fake? Because there are many photos of the Soyuz with the shuttle in the background. Are you going to accuse another gorvement for making fake docking, spacewalks, etc...... People are just making this hoax claims without thinking.

Yes, I am sure they wre being sarcastic. I doubt even our good friend Straydog thinks that the ASTP, Shuttle, Soyuz / Mir missions were faked.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I hope you are being sarcastic Waspie. About the shuttle being a fake.

I was illustrating how ridiculous some of the moon hoax claims are by applying the same arguments to that particular photo. Every single one of the claims that I used in my post has been used to "prove" that Apollo was faked and yet when applied to a photograph that only the Flat Earth Society could claim as fake they look rather silly.