gg

Look into my eyes and hate me.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Moon Landing Conspiracy - Apollo XI Mission

Here's a good link for more reading...

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

------------------


Here are some photographs of the Apollo XI mission and the various problems and questions that they raise...

------------------


1. The right side of the craft is in direct sunlight. The left side of the craft all black and lacking detail as it should. Aldrin is facing left, his back to the source of light. Yet in his visor can be seen the reflection of another source of light.
2. Take note of the radio antenna on his Personal Life Support System backpack. Keep that in mind.

------------------


1. Suddenly, the radio antenna has disappeared.
2. Look at the reflections in his visor...you can see another source of light in the sky that is similar to the final images I show.
3. Aldrin's shadow is cast forward of him. The shadows of the people/objects behind the camera are being cast towards Aldrin. The shadow of the object on the ground is being cast to the left of picture.

------------------





1. Even looking at the large picture you can see the anamolies more apparent in the blown-up ones.
2. On close examination, two distinct lines running the entire width of the picture, like a join, like separate images were spliced together badly, are clearly visible. The first line runs thru Aldrin's knees. On close examination, his legs do not join properly at the knee. The second line runs thru the foot of the craft - it separates the light areas from the dark ones. Magnifying the image, the pixels either side of the line do not match.

------------------




1. A small rectangular section of the picture has been inserted into the original picture. Looking at the closeup reveals more detail. The top of the rectangle, in the closeup, runs horizontally from left to right, from the bottom of the pad. It's easier to see on the left side of the picture. Another line is visible near the bottom of the picture. There is a distinct rectangle where the pixels do not match.
2. Note how the pad rests on a hard surface, it has not sunk into the powdery surface. Keep this in mind.

------------------




1. Suddenly, Aldrin's radio antenna has disappeared again.
2. Clearly visible is the imprint left by his feet. It would appear to be about 2 inches deep. Compare this with the craft's pad in the previous picture - the craft is considerably heavier than Aldrin.

------------------



1. Aldrin's radio antenna has again disappeared.

------------------



1. The shadow of the craft on the ground indicates that this side of the craft is not in direct sunlight. Comparing this with other pictures of the craft, it should be in complete blackness, but it isn't. Importantly, some areas of the gold foil are not reflecting any light, yet Aldrin's suit is well lit with no apparent shadows at all - in stark contrast to the other pictures.
2. Aldrin's radio antenna is back again.

------------------




1. These two pictures are just a selection of many that clearly show the very small 'set' that the whole Moon landing of Apollo XI takes place in. There is absolutely no distant crystal clear horizon. The horizon is far too close.

------------------




1. Compare all still photographs released post-event to what people actually saw 'live' on their television sets. Basically, the thing could have been shot anywhere, so poor were the televised images and lacking in utter detail that it would be easy for people to believe compared to the scrutiny of modern times.
2. Also, many of the black and white pictures (see the NASA image archives for examples) from the Apollo XI mission were of quite poor quality, yet the color images from the same mission are well focused and perfectly exposed. In the late 1960's, black and white film processing was more likely to result in a clearer, sharper image than a color print - yet this is not the case in any of the pictures released by NASA. Of a total of around 16,000 pictures taken on the Apollo XI mission, only a mere handful are available on the internet.

------------------




1. Again, note how in some pictures the radio antenna is there, and in others it is not.
2. Note how many shadows the flag pole is casting...or at least, casting in the opposite direction that Aldrin's shadow is casting.

------------------





1. In case you're wondering what they are, the first black and white image is taken from the Moon. The other two are simulation exercises taken in a studio set before launch, in order to run them thru their paces of what to do when they got on the moon etc.
2. If you notice in the studio simulation pics, if NASA were to touch up the sky and make it all black, as they have admitted doing with thousands of pictures of Apollo XI mission, it would look JUST LIKE all the actual color pictures taken from the moon.
3. As you can see, in the color images, the light sources they use are evident. The big beaming light gives off a claw-mark of light across the darkness in the back. As well as all these tiny spotlight looking dots of light littered across the 'sky'. If you then look at the black and white image of an actual moon shot, you can see the same claw-mark of light on the top left and one of these spotlight dots in the sky, the same kind of spotlight dot in the sky that's visible in the reflection of Aldrin's visor where you can see Armstrong and the craft etc in his visor. This claw-mark residue of light is also visible across the astronaut's shadow in the black and white pic.
4. Also, all these studio lights don't seem to be casting any obvious weird multiple shadows. There probably are, but just in those two simulation pics, you wouldn't be able to even tell.

------------------

Analyse this link...

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html

The interesting thing is that a huge percentage of unmanned and manned missions failed by both Russia and the USA from the beginning of the space age all the way up till today. The only period devoid of any failures are the manned flights to the moon by the USA. Back then especially tho, both nations were continually having craft fail. Such a 100% manned success rate given the regularity of failure and the immense risks involved, it seems highly unlikely in pure statistical terms.

------------------

Look at this video...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/mpeg/ap16_rover.mpg

In it is the moon dune buggy and the apparent parabolic effect of the moon dust.

Look at this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnlEy9zQp8&eurl=

In it is a dune buggy on Earth.

Take note of the specific manouvers that the Moon buggy performs, at the speed it's traveling, with a certain engine power, with a particular 'topographical/climate' type, and compare with the same manouvers, speeds and apparently similar topography/climate of the Earth buggy video. In other words, a certain video quality, video detail, distance/angle, background monochrome (blackness-blueness) can show that the dust created by the Earth buggy appears to have a parabolic quality too.

------------------

Look at this video...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/mpeg/ap16_salute.mpg

In it you will see an astronaut jumping up and down in salute of the American flag. Speeding this up 2x (roughly) or not, it wouldn't make a difference...the astronaut would weigh 1/6th of his normal weight (including spacesuit/backpack, it wouldn't matter) and should be actually going much much higher up than he does here. Only a person jumping inside an Earth atmosphere/gravity would reach those paltry heights.

Consider this fact: If you could jump a metre on the Earth, you could easily jump 5.5 metres on the surface of the Moon. That's almost six times as high (or six times as long - depending on your jump orientation). You would also be about six times lighter. 18 stone? On the Moon you'd only be about 3 stone.

------------------

Look at this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJql0uzDyRE&eurl=

Ignore the tacky video program itself, go to 2:05 minute mark in the footage and pay attention to the astronaut getting up. You will see that the other astronaut is NOT even putting any pressure upwards on him, not even really touching him. You will also see that all the weight on the astronaut on the ground is on his back with all the backpack equipment. Yet, in that sequence when he lifts off the ground, all the PULL (the force lifting him) is coming directly from his back, like, as tacky as it sounds, wires are taking his full weight ONLY at that center of all that weight - his back/backpack and not anywhere else, especially not anywhere else lighter and therefore should be far more weightless. Then watch how he regains his balance, unrealistically, as tho that pulling force from the weighty back is loosened enough to allow him to regain his feet under his own control. There's something suspicious about that sequence. I'm not saying it's wires, but it's 'wrong' physics to zero or near-zero gravity.

How the astronaut gets pulled up from the heaviest part of his body (his back/backpack) is illogical. His lightest extremeties - his feet/legs/arms should have pulled up first in a kind of backflip way seen in zero-gravity footage of astronauts orbiting our Earth. Instead the force is directly pulling upwards from the backpack, just like a rope tied around someone's torso would.

------------------

CONCLUSION
Given the video of the astronaut jumping, among many other videos of astronauts skipping and bounding, and the obvious lack of near-zero gravity heights of 5 or 6 meters, given the dodgy video sequence of the astronaut being pulled up off the ground, given the photographic inconsistencies (continuity mistakes with Aldrin's radio antenna), given the claw-marks and the spotlights of light that happened in the studio simulation, and how real that looked to actual moon pics, given that these spotlights appear in some images (the b&w one, and Aldrin's visor), given that in at least a few pics, how objects like astronaut's, flags, objects on the ground, etc, there appears to be multiple diametrically opposed shadows being cast), given how many discrepancies there are with detail in areas where it should be all black, etc, and given how there are no horizon images, but very small closed in sets, it is my suspicion that the Apollo XI was possibly faked in a studio, as is clearly evident how realistic those studio simulations look (if you add the NASA touch ups) and that all the color images which are so perfectly focused and exposed is an indication of this compared to the grainy black and white images from later Apollo missions.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,