While waiting for a bus, I spotted a copy of a local kook magazine entitled "Hard Evidence".

This issue as well as having an article that appeared to claim that 9/11 was an ILM special effect also covered the moon hoax.

The moon hoax article was effectivly anonymous, having an email address for an author and repeated most of the standard HB claims.

Accompanying the article were three poor quality photos of which only one was of interest, it showed the head of an astronaut with the photographer and what appeared to be a second astronaut reflected in his helmet.

The reproduction was too poor to determine if photoshop was used to manipulate the image, so I was wondering if this picture has appeared on any HB websites or been used in their claims.

Graham

is there any way you can scan the pic in, or give is the website of the paper? They will probobly have the same pic on their site.
Thnaks!
_________________
"Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia": The fear of long words
"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." by Dan Sandler(G99)2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-04 07:40 ]</font>

No doubt it was this image here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../alsj.trio.jpg

Yes, it is a digitally-altered image. But surprisingly it wasn't created by hoaxers. It is on of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal's Fun Pictures (titled The Real Secret of Apollo 12), created for the amusement of Apollo fans. But a few conspiracists have appropriated it as "proof" of a hoax, obviously without researching its origin.

Here's the original image:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...12-49-7278.jpg

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

If it is this image, it was done by David Harland, author of many spaceflight related books, among them "Exploring the Moon". Some time ago I saw this picture on a HB website and told David about it. His reply:

I derive a perverse sense of satisfaction in seeing my picture used by the nuts as evidence that NASA faked Apollo, because I KNOW that the 'evidence' image is a fake - I faked it. Their use of my image undermines their other 'evidence'.


Harald

[quote]
On 2002-11-04 07:40, g99 wrote:
is there any way you can scan the pic in, or give is the website of the paper? They will probobly have the same pic on their site.
Thnaks!

I don't have a scanner, but I am willing to buy the magazine and post all the details from the article.

Graham

Thanks alot. That would be nice. But be carefull. Don't quote the entire article, or givce the full reference so that we do not get in trouble for copyright infringement.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"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." - Dan Sandler 2002

It'll just be a descript of the pictures a summary of claims & the authors 'name'.

Graham

I have the issue of "Hard Evidence: Exposing the Truth" that has the moon hoax story.

It is Volume 2 Number six and costs US$6 and AU$7.95.

The moon hoax article is on page 24 under the heading of "Government Cover-Up, The Great Lunar Lie: How NASA Mooned the World!", it is two pages long.

The authors 'name' is "Transformation 2012", their email address is tran2012@ozemail.com.au.

The author cites Ralph Rene & David Percy and covers most of the usual topics:

1. The fluttering flag on an airless moon.
2. The 'fact' that only Apollo 13 had major problems.
3. The pictures are too perfect.
4. NASA had no direct link to the moon and the footage was screened "...from a TV screen in Houston...".
5. Inconsistant lighting of objects.
6. Radiation would have killed the Astronauts before they reached the moon.


Some specific claims made are:

1. That when asked at a banquet what it was like to be on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, left the room crying rather than answer.

2. The Apollo 14 golf 'slice shot' story.

3. The panning of the lunar rover camera on Apollo 16 is impossible without someone on the moon to control the camera.

4. That a NASA photo taken just after the Apollo 11 landing "...is looking up at Neil Armstrong...' before he sets foot on the moon & that the photographer must "...have been lying on the planet surface..."

5. That the internal suit pressure would have made it impossible for the astronauts to move.

6. That no obvious signal was made from the moon on arrival.

7. That one Julian Scheer a "NASA publicity officer" showed faked lunar footage to a 200 person audience and challenged them to "come to your own decision...".

The final paragraph refers to NASA's Project Outreach and finishes with a quote from Ralph Rene.

"Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics. Special effects were in their infancy in the 60s. This time round will(sic) have no way of determining the truth."

The article is accompanied by three pictures, One is of an LM & astronaut with a flag between them, the second is of a lunar rover & astronaut with parts of the image circled/highlighed. The last picture is the "Secret of Apollo 12" image I described at the start of this thread.

The first two pictures are in color while the third is black & white, all appear to have been taken from a site called http://www.dolphinocean.com.

Graham

thanks Graham. But what exactly is:
2. The Apollo 14 golf 'slice shot' story.


I have never heard of that before, what is it? What do they claim?

P.S. the link "www.dolphinocean.com" is broken.
_________________
"Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia": The fear of long words
"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." by Dan Sandler(G99)2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-11-04 23:06 ]</font>

Graham, is it this article by any chance?

__________________
~AstroMike

Hmm, that dolphinocean site seems to just be a big search page. Need more specifics to find the pictures.

I think most of the regulars here can answer pretty much all of those questions themselves.

The Buzz Aldrin story is unsubstantiated, so there's no way to counter it.

The golf shot story, if what I think, is an accusation that because someone called a shot a slice that couldn't have been a slice. So an astronaut on the MCC audio loop misused a golf term, that's hardly proof of a conspiracy. People misuse words all the time. Heck, dozens of people called Buzz Aldrin's punch of Bart Sibrel a right hook, when it clearly was a straight punch.

Panning camera - radio controlled, duh.

The photo of Armstrong's first step - the camera was mounted on the lander just for that purpose.

Internal pressure - 5 psia suit, and straps and joints specifically designed so they move.

No obvious signal - I assume they mean no signal visible to the naked eye. There were lots of obvious signals, including radio that were picked up by HAM operators worldwide. There are also laser reflectors that are still in use. To make a light source naked eye visible would require a nuclear blast of significant size.

Don't know anything about the "Julian Scheer incident".

Hi Graham. If the article really
contains David's fun fake, can you please
scan and send it to me so I can forward it to
David? He surely will enjoy it... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

My email address is
harald dot kucharek at gmx dot net

Thanks

Harald

Supposedly when one of the Apollo 14 astronauts hit a golf ball on the moon, the ground controller refered to it as a 'slice shot', these are supposedly only possible in atmosphere.

The 'dolphinocean.com' address was printed on two of the photos, I assumed that it was the site from which they were taken.

I couldn't get the entire article to appear, but from what did come through, it looks to be the same article.

The article suggests that magnesium flares would be enough, but your right, it would need a large explosion to be visible from earth, for a discussion on ideas to do just that check out:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...517&forum=3&17

That's David Milne's article. David Milne is an author who lives in Scotland and wrote the referenced article for a free newspaper published by the homeless there as a skill teaching exercise. Milne does not believe in the moon hoax. He did not expect the article to be taken seriously. He wrote it as a simple eye-catching story to boost the circulation of the paper. He is quite amused that the hoax crowd seems to have taken his work so seriously.

The article debunked on this (http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/moon.htm) page is similar to the one in "Hard Evidence". It would appear that the 'author' of the "Hard Evidence" version added the "three man" photo and the "Aldrin in tears" story. If anyone is interested I'll provide a full quotation of the text in both cases.

The article debunked on this (http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jsco...faked/moon.htm) page is similar to the one in "Hard Evidence". It would appear that the 'author' of the "Hard Evidence" version added the "three man" photo and the "Aldrin in tears" story. If anyone is interested I'll provide a full quotation of the text in both cases.

David also confirms it in this November 9, 2002 article from The Advertiser:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...452059,00.html

"Finally, there is the case of the "extra" astronaut. Professor Harland's answer: "This is a spoof photo. I know, because I made it, circulated it and waited for it to turn up as newly-found proof that Apollo was faked."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Debunker on 2002-11-10 18:11 ]</font>

It has not only been taken seriously, but his story is being added to as it passes from one HB to another, I've almost finished a Word Document showing the original article with the added parts highlighted. I'll post here when I'm done.

If you want to check, http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html contains the authoritative original text I received from Milne himself.

With regard to Buzz Aldrin and the banquet, I think this is another example of tautological reasoning. If Aldrin hadn't run out crying, it wouldn't change the conspiracists' claims. Either way, the event points to the conspiracy theory, implying it has little to do with it and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

Besides, how many times can an LMP be asked, "What was it like to walk on the moon?" without going completely insane?

If anyone is interested I have the full transcript of the 'Hard Evidence" version of the Dave Milne 'Moon Hoax' article. If you want a copy just get in touch at gndonald2001 at yahoo dot com dot au.

Sort of like Paul McCartney being asked to play "Hey Jude" all the time, eh?

Actually, the story is laughably implausible for this very reason. Does Aldrin react like this every one of the countless hundreds of time he's asked about the Moon landing? If so, why haven't we heard about it? If not, why was this supposed occasion any different? Maybe there was a freshly-cut onion on his plate...?

Robert Heinlein mentions the possibility of using rockets to spew black powder over the Moon in a large swath to put the logo of a soft drink company on the face of the moon in The Man Who Sold The Moon.

Read Jay's comments on the original article by Milne (referenced earlier in this thread) for a much more plausible hypothesis explaining Aldrin's behavior.

__________________
--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

After a careful reading of both versions of the David Milne Moon Hoax article I have determined the principle changes between the two.

The first is the addition of an entire paragraph related to a photograph purportedly showing at least three astronauts on the surface on the moon, a photograph which is one of a number of manipulated images available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

The Paragraph reads:

See http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi.../alsj.trio.jpg for the photograph in question.

The next change is in the 'Aldrin in Tears' paragraph, the original text reads:

In the 'Transformation2012' version, it reads:

(Italics Mine)

Similarly the paragraph in which Rene claims only the Apollo launches were real has been altered, the original reads:

In the 'Transformation2012' version, it reads:

(Italics Mine)

Without knowing anything more about the 'source', as 'Transformation2012' is referred to in 'Hard Evidence' I cannot speculate on where or when these changes occurred, but the individual(s) who made the changes seem to be trying to make the article more 'definite'. Anyone else care to comment?

What could the astronauts carry which, when set off, would be visible from Earth? How dangerous would it be? How big an explosion would the Saturn V's third stage make when it impacted?

And what's this Julian Scheer story? It's the first original hoax claim I've heard in nearly a year.

Most pre-apollo proposals for a visual signal involved the use of magnesium powder to make the flash. More extreme projects involved sending a nuclear warhead to the moon. The following discussion thread has links to two sites that cover these plans:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...517&forum=3&17

I am not sure where David Milne got the 'Julian Scheer' story, either it is something Ralph Rene claims happened or the tale was made up out of the whole cloth.

Below is the the 'Transformation 2012' version of the story.

For the David Milne version, check out:

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

I suspect that this was made up as there are no details as to when or where this supposedly took place. And if there were 200 guests surely one or more of them would have come forward with the details.

Tuckerfan, no disrespect to Heinlein, but do you realize how much "black powder" it would require to make an image visible from the ground? As was pointed out in the later link to Clavius, the Hubble Space Telescope can only resolve down to 200 ft. That's for one pixel. You're talking about a football field's worth of black powder to create an image barely visible by a telescope that wasn't built until 20 years after Apollo 11. And naked eye visible changes would have to be on the order of kilometers. (I'm sure someone will come along and point out the smallest craters naked-eye visible and their diameters.)

In short, it wouldn't be feasible for low weight missions that Apollo were.