Just a quick note.

Kipp Teague has recently released "all photographs taken during the historic first moonwalk on July 20, 1969. Images identified with the prefix AS11-40 are now seen for the first time in their clearest and most accurate presentation to date, and are a result of recent work by Johnson Space Center to digitally scan original Apollo film."

His site is here.

Looking at these high resolution photos destroys some of the HB arguments. The Buzz Aldrin hot spot disappears and the descent engine's effect on the lunar surface is apparent. I know the HBs will just say that NASA had to fix what they uncovered, but for the rest of the world, I'm sure you'll enjoy them.

No, it's still there, especially in AS11-40-5866 on Buzz's right boot.

The nice thing about these new scans is the new version of AS11-40-5866 where the edge of the frame cuts through Buzz's PLSS right where John Witts and I both said it would.

Also, AS11-40-5862 is a fantastic shot of Buzz leaving the LM. Excellent.

Ian.

Thanks for the heads up, JRK.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Let me reword this a little bit. The Buzz Aldrin hot spot, as shown in Percy and Bennett' book, disappears. It now looks the way it should.

Also, these new scans also show that the astronauts goofed up a fair number of photographs.

11-40-5905 certainly clearly shows the rod along the top of the flag. 11-40-5921 is fantastic. As stated though the woowoo's will say it is a fake made after the fact.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

Isn't that AS11-40-5903? Anyway, it does show that Aldrin's backpack is right up against the edge of the frame. Looking at this fabulous Hi Res image I can't imagine how anyone can now argue that the very top portion of the right hand corner of the backpack is not missing. WOO WOO! One of History's defining photographs was nearly ruined and I was the first to realise. In the World!

I need to get out more.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Great shots.

I've asked this before elsewhere. But these photos bring it all home again:

What kind of self-respecting Conspiracy doesn't take tons of photos of Neil Armstong in various heroic American poses on the moon? Wasn't that the point of it all for the "conspirators"? The lack of Neil photos could only happen in real life.

RBG

Because he was so wracked with guilt about his participation in the conspiracy that he refused to allow any photos of himself to be taken, of course. =D> A better question is, why did they choose someone who is so shy and retiring to be the first man to (not) set foot on the moon?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Sheesh, most of the photos aren't of recognizable people, what with the visors. Why wouldn't they just get some starving actor and take pictures of him, then say they're of Armstrong? That "no pics of Armstrong" argument is pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yeah, right, whatever - I expected the chief Apollo apologist (say that ten times fast) to come up with something like that.

These staged photographs, like AS11-40-5901 or AS11-40-5904, are all of such high quality and perfect composition that they were clearly made in a studio on Earth, by professsionals, not someone with bulky gloves and a camera on his chest.

This PROVES it was a hoax!! Look at the last Apollo 11 picture, S78-34135.

There is NO way that all of those men could have fit into those things!!!

Sorry gentlemen I just couldn't resist 8-[

I'm not following you, here. Maybe there is too much sarcasm floating around.

But if you are responding to my comment, then I may need to further explain that of course it would be irrelevant who might be in Neil's suit. Still, the Conspirators would naturally & absolutely require glorious photos of what appears to be the first man on the moon for propaganda purposes - the whole reason for the need to fake a moon landing in the first place. That's not engineering; that's marketing.

But that didn't happen. There are no "Time Magazine Money Shots" of Armstong on the moon. (Or anyone pretending to be Armstrong, for that matter.) Thus the Conspirators - the same ones who have supposedly seen to every conceiveable cover-up detail for over 30 years - appears to have screwed up royally on its most essential task. I think that would have been highly unlikely... if there had been a moon landing hoax propaganda machine. So no pix = no hoax.

Now the hum-drum reality, of course, was that the astronauts were just too busy for pretty poses. Their priorities were just the opposite of the needs of a hoax cartel: engineering first, marketing last.

It's not definitive, but I stand by my argument.

Hope this wasn't the second dumbest thing you ever heard. ;-)

RBG

These staged photographs, like AS11-40-5901 or AS11-40-5904

=D> =D> =D>

Don't forget AS11-40-5965 to 5970. "...absolutely perfect" as Bill Kaysing put it.

One of History's defining photographs was nearly ruined and I was the first to realise. In the World!

Before 5:30pm NZST (5:30am UT) on 13 June 1984?

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=297206#297206

I sat up until 2am on the 14th, thoroughly absorbed in my wonderful new book about the space programme and reading every word about Apollo.

That's par for the course, though: the alleged conspirators simulate lunar gravity perfectly but leave out the stars in the sky, put visible lettering on the rocks, and usual multiple lights where they should only use one.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

RBG, I think Jay was pretty much agreeing with you. If it were a conspiracy, there would have been lots of pretty pictures of "Armstrong", either the real guy or an actor. The fact that there aren't is not supportive of the notion it's because Armstrong refused (actor, why is he in the DAC film, etc). It does coincide with the Apollo as true theory - astronauts too busy for simple posing; photos meant for documenting tasks and not for publicity; publicity wasn't considered ahead of time and put in the plan, so it was just overlooked by Armstrong and Aldrin, who were busy working the plan.

I think Irishman got it right.

The conspiracists argue that we have few 70mm pictures of Armstrong because he refused to go along with that part of the hoax and had some moral objection to submitting to photography. But the inescapable fact is that none of the 70mm photographs taken during the Apollo 11 lunar EVA depict a recognizable human being. If it could be literally anyone behind the visor, then it doesn't matter if Armstrong were to suddenly become a prima donna. They'd just get some actor, shove him in a space suit, and tell people that those pictures were of Armstrong.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sorry, I just must be a little thick today.

Right, right. Jay's "no pix of Armstrong argument" wasn't referring to my blurb; he's referring to a standard conspiracy argument as to why there are so few Armstrong pix. (You're ok again, Jay. :wink: )

And while I'm at it... maybe Neil could change his name to Armstong so it works better with my above posts.

RBG

This is a most bizarre notion the Moon Hoaxers have; besides the astronauts having a job to do, it makes sense that Armstrong wouldn't be a ham for the camera. It doesn't fit his personality at all, which is known to be shy and intense since he was a child. I Googled "Neil Armstrong shy" and tons of stuff comes up about his shyness. It could be that he said, "No, I'll take one of you Buzz." Aldrin could have taken more bad pictures (I don't know), but after reading so many different anecdotes about Armstrong I'm not the least bit surprised that there aren't more pictures of him. Armstrong and Aldrin are two totally different personalites, and to me, it makes sense that we've seen more of Aldrin.

This is one of many articles that has the word "shy" a number of times. It also mentions this:

Armstrong got the first step. Buzz got the famous photo.

Jay is right--if Armstrong had a moral issue with his photo being taken and it was all a hoax anyway, then they would have got a stand-in. And if Armstrong had a moral issue with pictures because of the "lie," what difference does it make if the world thinks it's him. Puh-leaze!

__________________
The perception of the comic is a tie of sympathy with other men, a pledge of sanity. We must learn by laughter as well as by tears and terror. ~ R. W. Emerson

I was unable to find any online references to this, but several people here have mentioned the fact that Armstrong was a much better photographer than Aldrin.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor