ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: benparry on February 14, 2018, 10:55:30 AM
-
Good Afternoon All.
1 thing that has always been on my mind is when did Nasa actually release the original pictures. one of strongest arguments for me is if they did fake all this when did they fake all the evidence. somebody has said to me that nasa didnt release the pics until 1990 odd. is this true or were they released much earlier (and before photoshop was invented)
thanks again
-
Michael J Tuttle was the name of the person thrown in who faked the moon pictures. anybody heard that name before.
-
For anyone who says 'they didn't release pictures before xxx date', what they usually mean is 'I haven't found anything from before then yet, therefore I assume they didn't exist'. It's disingenuous at best.
Many of the photos were published as soon as they became available, i.e. once the film came back and was developed. There are magazines from the 60s that have several of them in, newspapers, newspaper supplements, Viewmaster slides, jigsaw puzzles etc. Naturally, being pre-internet days, unless you can lay your hands on a copy of the actual publication it's not just going to drop into your lap on an internet search.
There is another aspect to consider, in that most of the pictures were never intended for mass publication. The average joe in the street tends to forget that photography is a great scientific tool, and indeed most of the images were taken for scientific reasons. The astronauts didn't take cameras up to shoot some nice holiday snaps for the folks at home. They were primarily for the science. Documenting the locations of geological samples, showing the striations in the sides of Hadley Delta, capturing images of the regolith and its compressibility (which is, incidentally, what the famous bootprint photo is actually for: it's not the first print, contrary to popular myth). Of the thousands of images taken on the moon, only a small handful are of interest to the public, therefore only a small handful were published right away for everyone to look at.
Now, in the age of digital scanning and online archives, all of them are available, but that doesn't mean they haven't always been available. You just had to actually go and ask to see them rather than being able to call them up onto a screen at home.
The question to counter anyone who claims the pictures didn't exist before a certain date is to ask them what they have done to prove that. Their failure to find any is not proof they aren't there to be found. More likely it is proof they didn't know where to look.
-
Ah ok thanks a lot for that Jason.
-
There was a gazillion webpages that recently banged on about NASA releasing thousands of photos. What they were on about was a FLICKR page that collated already available photos into a single place.
-
A few weeks after each mission a photo index was published, containing the catalog number of each photo with a brief description. Universities and research institutes could order any photo they wanted. These photo indexes are available now at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. You can x-ref any published Apollo photo with the relevant index. No photos have been published in recent years that aren't mentioned in the appropriate index, as far as I'm aware.
-
I own actual paper copies of two NASA documents which have (admittedly in low quality) every single photo taken by Apollo 8 and 10, published in 1969 and 1971 respectively. There are other nice volumes such as "Apollo the view from orbit", and one that has views from Apollo 8, 10 and 11 in orbit (I forget its title and I can't see it on my shelf just now). Then there are the preliminary science reports that anyone could buy (I have them for Apollo 14-17), the conference proceedings (I have lots of volumes), the slides and photograph sets that you could get either from NASA or from the numerous periodicals doing cash in publications. All these things were chock full of Apollo images.
The images that appeared on the front pages of newspapers usually did so within week, sometimes much less, of them landing back on Earth.
The photos were not hidden away, they were splashed all over the world's media and published in all manner of general interest and specialist publications.
-
Tuttle, incidentally, to my recollection, was the guy who first put the Apollo images online. THis was back when bandwidth was limited and image sizes had to be minimised, so he scanned them and then digitally did such things as maybe sharpening the images a bit, digitally painting out dirt and dust, and 'blacking out' the sky (because when you do a colour scan areas of black are never just black, there's noise in it, in the form of other coloured pixels, and this noise pointlessly takes up bandwidth when compared to a truly monochrome black digital area). This was simply a bit of processing to make the images available, but HBs assume that any kind of processing is tantamount to faking or fabricating, therefore they decide that since he openly explained what he did he was actually saying he made up the photos entirely. One hell of a leap of logic there....
-
Near the back of the December 1969 (http://archive.nationalgeographic.com/?iid=53483#folio=Ad34) edition of National Geographic, there is, among with several photos from Apollo 11 itself in the magazine proper, including two page spreads, there is an advertisement for Apollo 11 images in slide, print, and poster form. I can confirm this with my own print copy, which I will scan from if requested.
-
Excellent example. Threads like this make me wish I'd kept my scrapbook of Apollo-related newspaper clippings I bought from ebay years ago. I only donated them to my local astronomical society, though, so maybe I should get hold of them again and see just what was published when.
-
Hi Raven
no thats ok my friend. i had no doubt my debater was incorrect it just was something i had thought about.
thanks again
Ben
-
Near the back of the December 1969 (http://archive.nationalgeographic.com/?iid=53483#folio=Ad34) edition of National Geographic, there is, among with several photos from Apollo 11 itself in the magazine proper, including two page spreads, there is an advertisement for Apollo 11 images in slide, print, and poster form. I can confirm this with my own print copy, which I will scan from if requested.
...and you can find many of these commercial products on eBay, such as ;
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ZEISS-FOCUS-From-Outer-Space-Photo-Slide-Books-NASA-Apollo-Gemini-Vintage/401492514006?hash=item5d7ad194d6:g:nkAAAOSwALtagjms
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1969-NASA-Apollo-11-Moon-Landing-Slides-Armstrong-Collins-Aldrin/323070501189?hash=item4b3880a145:g:6MkAAOSwZA1agaXB
-
You could order any picture you wanted from the JSC photo library, back then, back before the IBM PC, let alone Photoshop. It is an ignorant and frankly lazy and idiotic claim.
-
You could order any picture you wanted from the JSC photo library, back then, back before the IBM PC, let alone Photoshop. It is an ignorant and frankly lazy and idiotic claim.
I once asked a photoshop-conspiracy guy exactly what seventies-era computer equipment was used for the photoshopping, and he told me to "ask the guy that did it."
-
Near the back of the December 1969 (http://archive.nationalgeographic.com/?iid=53483#folio=Ad34) edition of National Geographic, there is, among with several photos from Apollo 11 itself in the magazine proper, including two page spreads, there is an advertisement for Apollo 11 images in slide, print, and poster form. I can confirm this with my own print copy, which I will scan from if requested.
I have the same issue in print. Does yours still have the vinyl phonograph sheet?
-
Near the back of the December 1969 (http://archive.nationalgeographic.com/?iid=53483#folio=Ad34) edition of National Geographic, there is, among with several photos from Apollo 11 itself in the magazine proper, including two page spreads, there is an advertisement for Apollo 11 images in slide, print, and poster form. I can confirm this with my own print copy, which I will scan from if requested.
I have the same issue in print. Does yours still have the vinyl phonograph sheet?
Sadly no. I found it used at a thrift store in not terribly great condition. More than readable, but definitely the worse for wear. Mind you, I didn't then and still don't have any way of playing back such a thing, so it's no great loss for me, but it would be nice to have it.
-
For what's it's worth...........I have the same issue.....Sadly, the "record" was gone when I got it.
Phil
-
Dunno if I have the issue, but I do have the record, "Sounds of Space." Sooner or later I'll digitize it.
Fred
-
You could order any picture you wanted from the JSC photo library, back then, back before the IBM PC, let alone Photoshop. It is an ignorant and frankly lazy and idiotic claim.
I once asked a photoshop-conspiracy guy exactly what seventies-era computer equipment was used for the photoshopping, and he told me to "ask the guy that did it."
Heh. It has to be a hoax because we didn't have the equipment to fake it. That's...logical.
-
Michael J Tuttle was the name of the person thrown in who faked the moon pictures. anybody heard that name before.
This is one of the odder crank claims.
The original photos were on traditional film. All the way back in the 60s/70s. What else do you think might be used?
There was no internet back then. Where would anyone post the files?
When the internet turned up, somebody had to scan those photos to disk and then post them on the internet. How else could that have happened?
That person had a name. How could they not have one?
That person had to use some imaging software in order to perform that task. How else could they have scanned the images?
What is the goto software for such a task? Photoshop.
The only mystery here is that cranks cannot figure out such simple things.
Sometimes I shudder at the thought that there are people in this world who have no memory of a time before there was an internet or digital photography or cell phones. Such technology is so ubiquitous, they simply assume that it always existed.
Back in the early days of satellite photography, the actual film was plonked in a re-entry vessel and physically returned to earth. The Ranger missions used fax tech. Who uses fax nowadays?
-
The entire plot from the book "Ice Station Zebra" was based on retrieving such a film.
-
It was actually used until quite late in the piece, until the quality of transmitted images matched the quality that could be obtained by film.
-
It was actually used until quite late in the piece, until the quality of transmitted images matched the quality that could be obtained by film.
Many (though not all) early probes and satellites that transmitted their pictures still used film which was then developed and scanned on board to be transmitted, the very first example being Luna 3. The prosaically named Lunar Orbiter series also took this approach.
-
Many (though not all) early probes and satellites that transmitted their pictures still used film which was then developed and scanned on board to be transmitted, the very first example being Luna 3. The prosaically named Lunar Orbiter series also took this approach.
Despite being bathed in deadly radiation, they still managed to take pictures and return them unfogged. Amazing how they did that. In all seriousness, it was fairly incredible given the time.
-
Despite being bathed in deadly radiation, they still managed to take pictures and return them unfogged. Amazing how they did that. In all seriousness, it was fairly incredible given the time.
Even better, from the former perspective, are Zond 5-8 , which sent film cameras to the moon and back. The only one that got fogged by radiation was Zond-6, and that one crash landed. ;)
-
Even better, from the former perspective, are Zond 5-8 , which sent film cameras to the moon and back. The only one that got fogged by radiation was Zond-6, and that one crash landed. ;)
Have you any idea for the fogging? Had the Zond been compromised before it crash land and the fogged prior to the crash landing, or had the films been damaged in the crash land?
In any case. The films would have travelled each way through the van Allen belts. I'm not sure of the Zond orbits, do we know what part of the belts the Zond's traversed?
-
Even better, from the former perspective, are Zond 5-8 , which sent film cameras to the moon and back. The only one that got fogged by radiation was Zond-6, and that one crash landed. ;)
Have you any idea for the fogging? Had the Zond been compromised for it crash land and the fogged prior to the crash landing, or had the films been damaged in the crash land?
In any case. The films would have travelled each way through the van Allen belts. I'm not sure of the Zond orbits, do we know what part of the belts the Zond's traversed?
They fogged (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) because it crashed and visible electromagnetic radiation fogged the film.
I don't know the exact details of Zond-6's trajectory, sadly, and haven't had much luck as of yet with Google.
-
They fogged (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) because it crashed and visible electromagnetic radiation fogged the film.
I should have guessed really, it's the most obvious scenario, but I did wonder if the films would have survived a crash landing at all. I know little about films, but given how little they fogged surely is proof that radiation in space isn't a region of seething death.
I don't know the exact details of Zond-6's trajectory, sadly, and haven't had much luck as of yet with Google.
I was trying to find it when TF introduced Orion versus Apollo.