NASA photographic record of Manned Moonlanding:Is there evidence of fabrication?

[gillianren]

You know, every once in a while, I just wonder if they can even read my posts.

Every once in a while I wonder if they can even read anyone else's posts.  As I recall, at Bad Astronomy he even demanded that the moderators keep everyone else but me from posting, so that he could have free reign to play out his obsession.  While I don't dispute the likely sexist overtones in his disregard for you and Andromeda, and the general trend of sexism (for which you should feel genuinely offended) in these debates, I really think he's ignoring you mostly because you're not me.

At least this guy isn't as bad as the one who told me and Laurel to let the menfolk get on with talking, asked her if she was hot, and posted something so vile--while, as I recall, he was under moderation!--that LO deleted it and banned him immediately.  That last directed at me.  I'd still, I'll freely admit, rather have the occasional guy like that than the level of bizarre obsession you deal with from ninety percent of the HB crowd that's left these days.

[JayUtah]

...the level of bizarre obsession you deal with from ninety percent of the HB crowd that's left these days.

Indeed it seems the only ones left are the obsessives.  This topic used to be a discussion of science, technology, and history.  Now it's just mainly dodging blobs of spit.

[nomuse]

It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.

[Bob B.]

An example of Apollo surface photograph with shadows at angles with great differences of at least 45 degrees that cannot be explained in any other manner than the light source being much closer to the subjects than the Sun:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg
In this example we see shadows   with angles with differences of at least  45 degrees.

The shadow of the LM is to the front-right of it, just like the rocks in the foreground.  The only difference is that the LM is viewed from the side while the rocks are viewed from a higher angle.

That's the other interpretation I pitched to Mythbusters.  I believe the shadow of the LM falls farther toward the viewer than is at first apparent.  Whether by the natural effect of distance (which tends to render all marginally transverse shadows closer to apparent horizontal the farther away they are), or by the combined effect of distance and terrain, I believe the shadow of the foreground rocks more closely represents the true illumination azimuth.

In the photo referenced by Romulus...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-68-9486.jpg

he claims that the LM's shadow extends straight out to the right.  Note that the LM is turned about 45 degrees in relation to the camera position.  Let's say that, relative to the LM, the front landing gear (the one with the ladder) is at the 12 o'clock position.  If Romulus is correct, then the LM's shadow is cast in the 10:30 direction relative to the LM (in the direction of Quadrant 1).

However, when we examine other photos...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9276.jpg

we see that the Sun in behind the LM and the shadow is cast in nearly the 12:00 direction (maybe bout 11:30).  This supports the argument that in photo A14-68-9486 the shadow is actually to the front-right of the LM, consistent with the shadows of the rocks in the foreground.  It is simply the perspective that is fooling the eyes.  Also note that in photo AS14-66-9276 we see that the shadow is cast on a slight uphill slope.  This further enhances the illusion that the shadow in 9486 is to the right rather than the front-right.

There is no anomaly here that I can see.

[gillianren]

It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.

I didn't laugh, but I did smile wryly.

[AtomicDog]

Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

[Dr.Acula]

Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.

[frenat]

I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.

[Dr.Acula]

I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.

Oh yes, we saw it here. My famous points are: "NASA didn't publish the TLI trajectory" and "Apollo capsule was white at the launch pad, not reflective" 

[smartcooky]

Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.

Not only that, it was changed to LM before it ever even flew into space. LEM was only used by NASA prior to around 1967 when Apollo was still in development (LM's first flight was on Apollo 5 in January 1968).

What I have read is that NASA's Public Affairs Office thought that "Excursion" sounded like the astronauts were going to the moon on a jolly jaunt, so they shortened the name to "Lunar Module" (LM),

The Apollo 9 crew nicknamed their LM "Spider", a name which was used as the title for an episode of "From Earth to the Moon". "Spider" was one of my favorites in that series.... must be the closet aerospace engineer in me coming out!

[nomuse]

It's all about ethics in lunar journalism.

I didn't laugh, but I did smile wryly.

Good, that's how I meant it. Could have been taken wrong so easily I hesitated a lot before posting it.

[smartcooky]

I figure they are just copying their arguments from various hoax sites, they likely copy all the terminology too.  And most of them haven't bothered to do any actual research on their own.

Oh yes, we saw it here. My famous points are: "NASA didn't publish the TLI trajectory" and "Apollo capsule was white at the launch pad, not reflective" 

I missed that. Oh, that is priceless!!

[Bob B.]

What I have read is that NASA's Public Affairs Office thought that "Excursion" sounded like the astronauts were going to the moon on a jolly jaunt, so they shortened the name to "Lunar Module" (LM)

The story I heard is that NASA was arguing for funding to develop a lunar rover.  They didn't want anyone in Congress to get the wrong impression about the lunar module's capabilities, so they took the word "excursion" out to avoid the possibility that someone would mistakenly believe the LM had lunar surface mobility.  To have the mobility to go on an excursion, the lunar rover would have to be approved and funded.

(ETA)  Despite the change in abbreviation, the pronunciation "lem" had already become ingrained among those at NASA and in the media, so it remained.
   

[sts60]

Why do Hoax Believers insist on calling the Lunar Module a "LEM"?

Maybe they can't understand, that this is only a former labelling. They don't get it, that labels/names/etc. can change.

Not only that, it was changed to LM before it ever even flew into space. LEM was only used by NASA prior to around 1967 when Apollo was still in development (LM's first flight was on Apollo 5 in January 1968)...

To be properly nitpicky, I've seen a few later NASA/contractor documents which used "LEM".  And, of course, in conversation it was often pronounced "Lem", so I suppose it might get transcribed that way.

[dwight]

  Now it's just mainly dodging blobs of spit.

"Spit" if you are lucky...