Faked moonlanding picture or is there an explanation?

Greylandra

Member
tmp_21823-Screenshot_20161117-1805191801672807.png
Sorry for the quality here... Rather then post up the half hour long video this picture is taken from I just took a screen shot and posted. I'm trying to find an original from NASA (without luck). To my mind this is just completely faked or there must have been someone on or near the surface of the moon to take such a picture.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
yes very similar. How could that picture have been taken?
From the orbiter (or more correctly the "Command Module")


(Technically the Command Module is the cone at the front, the bit that eventually lands on Earth).
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
From the obiter - soon after the LEM seperated

the shot is in this video,at 9.01:


edited to include apollo 12 footage with exact shot instead of apollo 11 - here's a small screengrab from 9.02 of the video.....
Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:

Greylandra

Member
I suppose some people might think it's like 40 feet off the ground in the first photo. Is that what you think @Greylandra
At first glance, yes sure 40-4000ft but Very tough to even take a stab at the distance off the surface. Theres really no perspective here to make any reasonable assumption whatsoever. Could be hundreds of miles up tbh.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
At first glance, yes sure 40-4000ft but Very tough to even take a stab at the distance off the surface. Theres really no perspective here to make any reasonable assumption whatsoever. Could be hundreds of miles up tbh.
Yes, the lack of atmosphere makes things very hard to judge. We are used to getting cues for the sharpness of the ground as to how high we are are. If we can see the horizon in sharp relief in Earth then we can't be more than a fe hundred feet. But the moon has no atmosphere, so the clarity is the same no matter how high you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
But the moon has no atmosphere, so the clarity is the same no matter how high you are.
That and the fact that there are craters of all sizes, from dozens of kilometres down to a few metres (and even smaller). It's almost like a fractal pattern: the features don't change much at different scales, so unless you have other clues it is difficult to say whether you are looking at the surface from a couple of miles up or a couple of hundred miles.

(Also, I have to ask, even if you were going to fake moon pictures, what would be the point in faking an "impossible" photo? People knew what the mission involved, so a photo that wouldn't have been possible to take on that mission would immediately arose suspicion.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And another interesting difference is that because there is no atmosphere, you can orbit as low as you like. On Earth you have to get outside of the atmosphere (into "space"), to avoid drag, so you need to be over a hundred miles up. But you can orbit the moon just above the mountains.
 

Greylandra

Member
That and the fact that there are craters of all sizes, from dozens of kilometres down to a few metres (and even smaller). It's almost like a fractal pattern: the features don't change much at different scales, so unless you have other clues it is difficult to say whether you are looking at the surface from a couple of miles up or a couple of hundred miles.

(Also, I have to ask, even if you were going to fake moon pictures, what would be the point in faking an "impossible" photo? People knew what the mission involved, so a photo that wouldn't have been possible to take on that mission would immediately arose suspicion.)
Well I suppose if someone wanted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the missions a doctored photo, passed off as legitimate would do just that. Who knows... I suppose it's reasonable to ask; was the appropriate equipment available durring Apollo 11 to take the picture from this perspective?
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
Well I suppose if someone wanted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the missions a doctored photo, passed off as legitimate would do just that. Who knows... I suppose it's reasonable to ask; was the appropriate equipment available durring Apollo 11 to take the picture from this perspective?

Picture of Earth 1946



The same idea, just a handful of months later.



Humans had been taking photos from space for 20 odd years before the Apollo mission photos we're questioning even took place.

Just like the technology required to get into space advanced over the years (these pictures were taken from liberated V-2 Rockets, and took place before Sputnik was even launched), the advancement of photo technology similarly stepped forward.

The answer to your rhetorical questions would be a resounding yes.
 
The Apollo 12 image is one of a series of 10 images taken in orbit and the craters move under the CSM during that sequence. They were taken over the Ptolomaeus region.
 

Greylandra

Member
Picture of Earth 1946


The same idea, just a handful of months later.



Humans had been taking photos from space for 20 odd years before the Apollo mission photos we're questioning even took place.

Just like the technology required to get into space advanced over the years (these pictures were taken from liberated V-2 Rockets, and took place before Sputnik was even launched), the advancement of photo technology similarly stepped forward.

The answer to your rhetorical questions would be a resounding yes.
Sorry Auldy I can be more specific... Pictures taken of the Lander, on what looks to be landing approach for Apollo 11 were possible via remote control of camera gear aboard liberated v-2 rockets?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry Auldy I can be more specific... Pictures taken of the Lander, on what looks to be landing approach for Apollo 11 were possible via remote control of camera gear aboard liberated v-2 rockets?
No, they were taken from the CSM.
 

Auldy

Senior Member.
Sorry Auldy I can be more specific... Pictures taken of the Lander, on what looks to be landing approach for Apollo 11 were possible via remote control of camera gear aboard liberated v-2 rockets?
You may need to brush up on some reading on the Apollo missions and the spacecraft involved and its processes.

The photo shows the Lunar Module (or LM for short). One of these:



The photo was taken from a separate entity, the Command Module (or CSM), one of these:



There are crew aboard both sections of the ship. Together they work together as part of the typical Lunar Mission Profile.

The two seperate parts travelled too the moon together, but then separated so the lander could descend to the surface. For example, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin went down to the moon in the LM. Michael Collins stayed aboard the CSM.

There were many more impressive technical difficulties conquered in the Apollo missions than merely photography in space! Here's a good video on the technical feats involved in launching, separating, landing, launching, docking, flying home and landing, and hopefully how the CSM could take a picture of the LM.

 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, there are also photos of the LM from the CSM on Apollo 11, taken as it undocked. Here are a couple.





And this is one of several as the LM was approaching to re-dock after leaving the moon. Note the Earthrise, and also the different appearance of the LM, because it has left the descent stage down on the moon (as well as being in a different orientation).





Also Buzz Aldrin took several photos of the CSM as the LM was approaching it to dock after leaving the moon. This is one:




You can find all these photos at the Apollo 11 image library, which also has lots of descriptions and background information about who took the photos, when and how: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html

Magazine 44 is the one with the photos of the LM from the CSM.
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.


http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/a12_h_51_7507.html
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
There are better scans of these photos on the Project Apollo Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/72157658665465080

This is a full-size crop from image 7507. You can even see the landing probes dangling below the footpads.

upload_2016-11-18_13-18-41.png

Link to full-size image: (You should be able to scroll through the series of pictures using the arrows if you mouseover this thumbnail below)

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21515062310/sizes/o/
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
Well I suppose if someone wanted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the missions a doctored photo, passed off as legitimate would do just that. Who knows... I suppose it's reasonable to ask; was the appropriate equipment available durring Apollo 11 to take the picture from this perspective?
By the late 60's, professional film cameras were in a place that phone cameras still have not reliably matched, and phone cameras are already better than any cheap personal film camera ever was. They were very good - the only thing holding back your grandma's photo album is that she probably bought cheap grocery store film and her camera probably cost a few digits less than the ones Apollo used.

The primary cameras for still photography were three Hasselblad 500EL cameras. One stayed on the command module, and of the two on the lunar module, one was designated the "data camera" and its plate was etched with a grid pattern seen in many surface pictures.

These were some of the best professional quality cameras on the market at the time (not to mention the first SLR cameras), and were loaded with the highest quality film available. National Geographic (already renowned at the time for their incredible field photography) generally didn't use them because of cost. Variations on the model remained in production until 2006 and were among the last film cameras still outperforming the best digital cameras.

The total number of professional photographers launched during the Apollo program is 0, however, and these weren't exactly point-and-shoot cameras, so there's a lot of spotty focus and framing, but the good pictures are beyond stunning when they manage them.


The video cameras on Apollo, on the other hand, were awful. They carried a mix of RCA and Westinghouse cameras, and they were all low power slow-scan cameras that needed a bunch of processing equipment on Earth (not just to convert the signal, but because they often had to be set or mounted upside-down when not being held by an astronaut, and Armstrong's one small step is just plain silly that way.
 
Last edited:

jim oberg

New Member
Good discussion. But I suspect the end-on view of the LM above, with the circle around it, might have been just after heading to the moon, while it was still inside the 3rd stage 'garage' before the petals opened so the crew could dock and extract it. Let me look closer.

EDIT -- Confirmed, it was on Flight Day 1,
AS11-36-5310 (OF300) ( 28k or 511k ) 003:21:32 Transposition and docking.
From the Apollo 11 Flight Journal: "As the CSM approaches the LM, Buzz uses the Hasselblad camera to take seven shots. AS11-36-5310, 5311 and 5312 are relatively distant shots. A constellation of particles surround the spent stage. Frame 5313 is a well-framed shot of the top of the LM. 5314, 5315 and 5316 were taken at the final stages of the approach. On the last frame, the external orifice of the LMs optical system is visible top-right, while the overhead docking window is visible top-left."
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
Nandude Light Fall Off in Apollo Missions - American Moon Documentary Conspiracy Theories 16
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
Trailblazer Identifying: faked image of Earth from space (artwork, not "official") Flat Earth 4
derwoodii Debunked: Strange lights above Canberra: (Photoshop mistake) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Hevach Debunked: Philae Landing Faked Conspiracy Theories 20
Leifer Debunked: NASA cloud chart is faked Contrails and Chemtrails 31
AluminumTheory Claim: Census Bureau Faked Unemployment Numbers. Conspiracy Theories 23
Pete Tar Debunked: 9/11 impact footage was faked, shows 'layering' error. 9/11 38
qed Syria MacDonald Emails. Hacked and/or Faked? Conspiracy Theories 7
TWCobra Asiana Flight 214 crash "faked". Conspiracy Theories 4
Mick West How a UFO video is faked UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
B 2pac faked his death Conspiracy Theories 1
J Strange lights on picture of the moon during "Blood Moon" [Stuck Pixels] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
ManFrito Red Dragon, Cassini Picture Being Used As Nibiru Proof Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
L How did Tim Peake get full Earth in his helmet picture? [convex mirror illusion] Flat Earth 11
Harish Explanation needed for the decrease in size of USA in NASA's picture from space taken in 2012-13 Conspiracy Theories 2
derwoodii Clinton rally numbers manipulation of photograph, I'm seeking the source General Discussion 17
Inanaz93 Photo Anomaly - Missing my face. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
D Can you help with a picture? [Ballast Barrels] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Airplane passenger 'takes picture of UFO that was giving off bright lights and orbs' UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 28
D [NeedInfo]Persistent Contrails Picture Show Contrails and Chemtrails 2
derwoodii This picture is not a Fukushima related fish die off General Discussion 4
M Need help debunking a picture [Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 12
F Claim: Picture shows rock formation under WTC caused by nuclear device 9/11 5
Svartbjørn Debunked (sort of): Picture of LEO spraying a child with Mace General Discussion 1
derwoodii Photo shop. How to check if a picture has been Photoshopped Practical Debunking 5
Mick West Debunked: Shade, The Motion Picture - Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 24
BlindIdiots Please Debunk WeatherWar101s "Weather War Big Picture" Video Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Related Articles





























Related Articles

Top