http://www.geocities.com/maxim_recoil/moon.html

Here, someone has poked holes in badastronomy's defense arguments. There still is reasonable doubt.

i don't like the term "biblical proportions" used at the site. it's blasphemous to compare with the power of God.

I notice you do not mention www.clavius.org. Why not?

Also they had a telescope on at leats one mission. They did look at the stars.

What site?

Reasonable? You haven't looked at the lack of evidence of a hoax.

How many people were involved in the Apollo program? Literally thousands.

How many of them have ever come out and said they were part of a hoax? Zero.

How many of them are NOT living lives that would indicate they have been "paid off"? None that can't show real jobs and real income. No hidden income.

How many people who have been screaming "hoax" have ever disapeared under mysterious circumstances? None.

Go away and troll somewhere else. The only conspiracey there is is a bunch of undereducated people who refuse to learn enough science to know what they are talking about and want to see boogie men covering up something they are too small minded to give the human race cretid for acheaving. Self doubt is an evil that eats the sould.

__________________
---------------------------
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccessitatem."
William of Occam

I'll try to tackle a few things here:

from above site:I can clearly see a shadow hidden by a small uplift of ground.

The following paragraph talks about surfaces and the authors belief in it being flat. The ground is clearly not flat even from a short glance at it. Very evident from the left photo, harder to discern from the right photo.

This one made me laugh:

Its obvious the camera was rotated around the lander to get other angles. you are not looking at the same side. Notice the missing flag :-)
Another:
Its the same mountain range, just portions of the left frame have been cut off or camera moved over.


The rest is mere exposure of camera issues.

Now i would not i have absolutly no experience even close to Jays, but on a relative glance i could see many of his/her theories are absolutly...well baseless.

No new facts are given, nor explanations on anything else. Just picking and choosing facts and information.


[edited all image tags to save bandwith]

__________________
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."
G'Topia

One correction to your website sir/mam:

This image you list here: http://www.geocities.com/maxim_recoil/nocrosshair.JPG The web adress you have on the jpeg is incorrect. The real adress is: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/AS16-113-18282.jpg

Also after zooming in i think i have found the "missing" crosshair. Using a ruler i am prety sure that is the correct possition i have circled. I could be in correct, but it looks like it.
Link to my circled image to save bandwith

__________________
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world."
G'Topia

johnl285,

Welcome on board.

First of all, be very cautious when visiting the Hoax proponent sites, they like to use deceptive methods when providing their "proof" :roll: :roll: :roll: .

The first photo that Humphrey shows of Allan Shepard (it's actually Alan Shepard) does not tell you the whole story. First and foremost is that the astronaut that is circled is not actually at that location. You can see that in the original scan found here. Notice how this site has blended the circle portion to look like it should be part of the photo. Enlarged to just the right size so that the craters match just perfectly.

Second a common tactic is to use a low resolution scan to prove a point, like the shadow is missing. On the high level scan the shadow is there.

Bah. Im not even bothering anymore if the person photoshopped a image in. I understand bringing out features, but faking a image is just wrong.

Thanks jrkeller. :-)

I am going to disagree with you a bit, jrkeller. All they did was insert a zoom of the astronaut in the distance to more clearly show that he had no shadow. They do not mean to say there are 2 astronauts in the photo. I think you are misinterpreting.

Now then, I clearly see a shadow exactly as described by Humphrey.

I just find it odd that all of the other photos have an ID #, but not that one. The crater in the zoomed in portion just happens to fit in nicely with one on the original scan.

The original poster hasn't responded yet. I say it's a one shot wonder who has no real interest in learning anything other than how much traffic he can generate.

__________________
---------------------------
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter neccessitatem."
William of Occam

Hello, johnl285, welcome to Bad Astronomy. I'm glad you've taken the opportunity to come here yourself and discuss the matter, rather than just take the word of some anonymous website. Or just taking our word.

Now regarding that "maxim_recoil" page, it may surprise you to learn that it is not new, we've seen and discussed it here before. So if people seem to be blowing you off rather dismissively, it's because we've seen the page and already know it is maxim_flawed.

For instance, the guy has issues with multiple photographs from various mission landing sites, and how the foreground to background alignments appear to change. Somehow this person feels there are problems with these pictures. I don't know how someone can look at these examples and not immediately recognize the effects at work. There are two different effects demonstrated by the two examples, thus the apparent conflict with the provided explanation.

The first set that he agrees with involves the same background mountains and a different foreground. This is easily explained as a simple linear translation of the observer (i.e. move with the camera to the side, perpendicular to the viewing direction). You can easily demonstrate this yourself. Pick out some distant object and some near object - a background and a foreground. Now move to the side a reasonable distance and then look at the distant object. The near object will not be in line. This works with buildings and mountains or across a room or parking lot. Heck, ever looked out the side window on a moving vehicle? Notice how the road is whizzing by but the distant trees to the side seem to creep along at a leisurely pace? Same effect.

The second effect that supposedly contradicts the first example is simple, it's a different effect. Instead of moving linearly and looking at the same background, you move radially and look at the same foreground object. Look at those example pictures a little more closely and it is blatantly obvious that the angle of view is different. For instance, the placement of the flag in the foreground changes. Closer examination of the lander will show it has a different orientation - that is less obvious because most people aren't familiar with the lander details.
Again, this effect is commonplace and easily demonstrated in 10 seconds in your living room.

As you can see, that site has selective presentation and poor application of something observed but apparently not noticed by the author.

The disappearing crosshair over the Command and Service Module is simply the result of a low resolution digital image. A high resolution scan or especially an actual photograph duplication will show the crosshair is still there.

The non-right-angle shadows are misleading. This is a simple optical effect. Check out
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html .

Then there are the pictures of objects in shadow and a complaint about differences in what is viewable. But this complaint totally ignores the effect of differences in exposure settings or in amount of lit lunar surface in the foreground.

Sorry, but this site has failed to provide accurate rebuttal to the Apollo missions or anything said by Bad Astronomy, Red Zero, Clavius, etc.

That particular fiducial gets obscured by various factors, including the CM surface details which fall under it, the low quality of the scan, and JPEG artifacts. See this page for clearer scans. The fiducial is barly visible in the Low-Res image, but crystal clear in the Medium- and Hi-Res versions.

In fact, in the two larger images, you can see parts of the fiducial bled out by the bright white streaks on the CM hull, and emulsion bleed was what the HB page was attempting to discredit by referencing this image.

__________________
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby

Bearer of the highly coveted "I found Venus in nine Apollo photos" sweatsocks.

DataCable^2008 A+

I opened the hi-res image [in good ol' Microsoft Paint] and shrunk it down to 20% and guess what happened? The fiducial disappeared to the same degree as the image that HBs like to use. It was (and I mean ever-so-) slightly more visible. That, I believe, is due the hi-res image being an overall better quality picture and the image the HBs use appears to be a multigeneration [low-res] JPG (i.e., it gets opened and re-saved multiple times, creating more JPG artifacts, causing the fiducial to blend in more with the surrounding pixels.) And to top it off, the image is virtually gray-scale and the contrast is not great at said fiducial and CM. Each of these things compounds into a crappy picture that HBs present as an infallible picture.

And I love the Apollo 15 pictures [with the astronauts each saluting the flag] where the mountain in the back seems to have been substantially tilted. I guess HBs are not smart enough to determine that the "tilted" mountain is due to camera tilt. HBs fail to point out that if the angle between the [virtually level] mountain top and the [straight] flag pole (or the LM's [straight] leg) in either image measures the same. So, using HB logic, here is a new HB claim: "The tilted mountain was not caused by camera tilt. The cameraman must have been on a level surface and the astronauts must have been on a stage that is capable of tilting; hence the discrepancy between the two images. Even though there is no reason for NASA to have used a stage that tilts, they must have because it fits the theory." :wink:

[edit] I'm sure many of you have already seen what is at this link. It is funny because it is SO true.

That page is so easy to dismiss it's not even worth the effort. My favorite is always the two shots of the disappearing LEM. Completely ignoring the foreground which is oviously different and focusing on how the mountains look the same so the grips must have moved the LEM off stage.



P.S. I've been calling it LEM for over 40 years. I ain't changing now.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

it never ceases to amaze me how woo2s " wear " inclusion at crank.net as some sort of badge of honour

even the dimmest cannot fail to grap that we are laughing at them NOT with them

YRS - APE

ok, thanks, very interesting. woah, today's the first time i checked back! rofl. i'm surprised i got so many answers! i did not deliberately silence myself to make that replyer angry!

yes, the explanations make sense to me now. the words that jumped out at me was that he or she said on the site that badastronomy.com didn't even mention some of the photos, but it's clear to me now, especially that missing crosshair that was zoomed up!!! i've got a very, VERY interesting article that nasa is lying to us deliberately though! i'll make a new post.

I Will be ooking forward to it. :-)