Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch

[Von_Smith]

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance?

It takes some belief in your own position to seriously postulate that someone would build a Rover (even for a hoax scenario) with one wheel bigger than the other.

Yup.  I once read (I think it was here) that the toughest question for hoax proponents is:  "What do you think actually happened?"  Apparently, jr. Knowing thinks that what happened was that they deliberately built a rover with one wheel *significantly* larger than its opposite number for some reason, with all the design and fabrication challenges that poses.

[ineluki]

Hi Jay,
 I never suggested the actual LM landings were hoaxed.

But, to me, it appears EVA 1 was done first and then the landing site. The site was re-dressed somewhat and the tire tracks were just literally walked over.

So, you actually think that the landings are real, but then there were additional "movie sets" that were  faked? And the LM should have looked different...

P.S.
could you also explain if you believe that the fakers were morons who didn't ask engineers how the hardware should look, or that the engineers were morons and you  (and a few other Hoaxers) are the only ones noticing it?

[jfb]

Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

Per the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, this image was taken with the 60mm lens, which for the 70mm film format is slightly wide angle, roughly equivalent to a 35mm lens on 35mm film or full frame digital sensor.  The will translate into a slightly exaggerated perspective. 

There's also the fact that the LRV is parked at an angle relative to the camera.  That, combined with the slightly exaggerated perspective, is plenty to explain why one side looks smaller than the other. 

Both rear wheels are definitely on the ground; the left is resting on a slight rise (like halfway up a speed bump).  The LRV is parked on a slight downward incline, and the camera is aimed slightly below the centerline, so yeah, you're looking at that antenna from underneath. 

[AtomicDog]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

[AtomicDog]

Hey! I'm Mars now!

[bknight]

Hi Peter B,

The left tire is at least thirty percent bigger than the right. How is that possible if the pic is taken from this distance? Download the hi resolution photo of the LR pic.  Zoom into the rear wheels. Both tires are off the ground. Not only will you will see there are no tire tracks but there a footprints instead (especially right tire) I have also attached a marked photo pointing to the rear axels. One is pointing outwards and the other is much smaller pointing inwards. With regards to the rear antenna (the name escapes me) the antenna normally looks flat. ie the wires are flat, horizontal. The only way you can see this design is from below.

What I and others have concluded your image analysis lacks a great deal.  In addition your timeline analysis is in error.  Perhaps instead of looking for "anomalies" you should enjoy the images for what they are a successful end to a great program that landed 6 crews on the Lunar surface and returned them safely.

[JayUtah]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Same here.  I can certainly do a full photogrammetric rectification of the photo in question, if it becomes necessary.  But it won't as long as the people questioning the authenticity of these photos can't work out the basic principle that different parts of the image represent different lines of sight.  Even simple concepts like barrel distortion seem lost on some of these people who try to be image analysts.

[jfb]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?

[Obviousman]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

It didn't bother Jack White; why should it bother others?

LOL!

[AtomicDog]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?

Obviously to the person who thinks, that for some arcane reason, someone would put rear tires of two different sizes on a LRV, and that EVEN IF THEY DID, it was somehow proof of a hoax.

[jfb]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Talking to me or Jr?

Obviously to the person who thinks, that for some arcane reason that someone would put rear tires of two different sizes on a LRV, and that EVEN IF THEY DID, it was somehow proof of a hoax.

Okay.  Gotta check, 'cause occasionally I get things very wrong. 

I don't expect most people to be familiar with issues related to exposure (why aren't there any stars) or technical details of medium format cameras (such as detachable film backs) or the film used on the Apollo missions (Estar base, capable of operating in a lunar environment), etc. 

I do like to think that in this era of zoom lenses on everything, most people have at least a subconscious understanding of the various distortions introduced by both short and long focal lengths, but obviously a few don't for whatever reason. 

[Luke Pemberton]

Probably.  I never figured out some of these claims.

I struggle figuring out the people that make the claims in the first place. I sometimes feel they arrive here to try their hand at geek taunting. Sometimes they genuinely just need educating. If I recall, it was the Tim Finch thread where Jason explained quite concisely, and with clarity, that we do need to have benefit of the doubt initially, as there are those that may have genuine questions. I think that is the rightful and fair approach. Rarely do they arrive with honest intention though. It is not my experience.

Then there are the anti-science types such as cambo, and dare I say the king of the pseudo-scientists -  Rene. These types are so entrenched in their anti-establishment views, I do wonder what has happened to make them function in such a way, it is almost bitterness that they accuse credentialed professionals as sheeple that could never think freely, while disputing millennia of human knowledge out of hand with dubious claims. I've learned to pass on those sorts. I remind myself when they put forward their arguments on the internet, the irony is they are use a platform that is the culmination of the combined knowledge of thousands of scientists, engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians (and those of other disciplines). How can they even begin to dismiss the collective knowledge of so many with such sweeping arrogance?

[Zakalwe]

. How can they even begin to dismiss the collective knowledge of so many with such sweeping arrogance?

Frustration and feelings of inadequacy because deep down they know that they can never make such achievements.
A desire to feel special and clever as they think that they held special knowledge.

[Luke Pemberton]

I wish that people would learn at least a little photography before attempting to analyze photographs.

Absolutely. That's why I leave it to others. I have attempted photography with varied success. I have one of the DSLR kits Jay mentions. I've had some moderate success and do understand some of the basics, but it's a superficial knowledge which explains why my output is hit and miss. I sometimes produce photos that make me feel like Ansel Adams, but these moments are rare.

The other aspect is knowing the Apollo photographic record, the associated technologies used in gathering that record, and the context of the mission time and goals. I have seen many rebuttals by experts here, and am continually astounded by their encyclopedic knowledge of the missions and how they apply this deep knowledge to support the coherency and consistency of the photographic record.

Welcome the Mars.

[Abaddon]

Late to the thread but however.

The latest in the current gish gallop seems to be One wheel larger that the other (A. A stupid idea and B. Photography)

No tracks (Gene scuffed them removing the fenders for return to earth. Both are on display)

Wheels in different directions (All four LRV wheels were independently steered)

An antenna "looks wrong" (no idea which or why. They all look normal/as expected)

So where's the beef?