collapse

Author Topic: The Hills of Apollo  (Read 5575 times)

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19910
  • Gold 879
The Hills of Apollo
« on: December 16, 2013, 04:35:35 PM »
The Hills of Apollo

Looking at the Hills of Apollo in the NASA archives...

There are many issues with them.

1) If they didn't go to the moon, then it is a moot point and they are fake :P

2) If they did go to the moon and these are real images then they need to be expalined

So for this thread lets say they did actually go :D

Now NASA tells us they sent the Lunar Orbiters up to map out the Moon for future Apollo Missions.  The first Lunar Orbiter was launched in Nov 1966, the rest into 1967

Oddly enogh a couple points to mention here...

a) Sgt Karl Wolf of Disclosure project claims he was show Lunar Orbiter images in June 1965 when he worked at Langley as a photo machine repair tech for a few weeks....

 ::)

b) USGS has high resolution and perfect detail Topographical maps of the Moon... the claim is that they were created using Lunar Orbiter data yet most of those maps are dated pre Lunar Orbiter launch

 ::)

Now the gist of the thread...

Lunar Orbiter images of the Apollo landing sites show jagged mountains and sharp craigs and valleys and rocks strewn all over the place. The images show sharp pointy shadows...

Yet when we see the Apollo surface images the hills in the background are SMOOTH and rounded... even blurry when they should be crystal clear. Heck even on Earth where we have a heavy atmosphere we still have sharp cliffs and jagged peaks and I can get a clear shot of distant mountains on a clear day

So SOMETHING is wrong

Perhaps THIS is the reason :D



I will add some of the Apollo Reality images here later but I wanted to get this thread started.

What we need to do is match Lunar Orbiter images of Apollo landing sites with the Apollo surface shots.

I would also appreciate someone finding the two videos that show the same hills on two different missons  I have a still shot comparison somewhere I will try to find it

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19910
  • Gold 879
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2013, 04:42:31 PM »
That photo I posted was from a REMAKE of the Moon landing done in IMAX  We do have all the stages and earth crater zones they used in the Apollo Reality section... but if you look closely at that image with the green screen it explains exactly why there are no stars in the sky and why the hills of Apollo look added in :D

Just had to add THIS after I saw the HH Schmitt video on TV last night of him falling and getting up un assisted at a really weird angle. I will find that original film... but lets keep this to the hills and not a 'did they go" discussion

[youtube]K1Zy2BkRv9Q[/youtube]

Offline stealthyaroura

  • searcher of truth
  • The Roundtable
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Gold 63
  • open minded student of truth.
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2013, 05:39:00 PM »
The famous 'moving mound' taken from Apollo 17 (supposedly)
[youtube]OzH4iSRZYgI[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OzH4iSRZYgI
Nikola Tesla humanitarian / Genius.
never forget this great man who gave so much
& asked for nothing but to let electricity be free for all.

deuem

  • Guest
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2013, 07:52:32 PM »
As usual I can not see any of the vids, they just come up blanks in the post. i will say one thing. On some of the pictures from Apollo I have processed black skies that are washed out, [by man], I have seen some with stars and I have seen a lot of them where you see nothing yet I process stars in the sky. Some back grounds have been altered. YES. some have not. It all depends on what they want to hide from us. 
 
I can only process photos, not vids so if anyone wants me to look at something you need to post a photo or a vid frame grab.  So I still take option 3, Yea they went and Yea they found stuff and yea the photos are altered, but not all. Just some of them. And yea I have always had a problem matching the look of the mountain but never the locations. The locations on the A17 mountain photos back calculated vs the USGS topo maps are perfect. Just look different in the photos. All nice and rounded off. Like we could go snow sking on them.
 
deuem

Offline RUSSO

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1702
  • Gold 401
  • Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    • PEGASUS RESEARCH CONSORTIUM
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2013, 10:50:20 PM »
First of all... happy birthday Ron... (better late than never  :P)

Quote
Apparently identical backgrounds in Apollo 15 photographs taken at different locations



Quote
AS15-82-11057: View of Apollo 15 Lunar Module from the nearby ALSEP site (Station 8) during the third EVA.[27]



Quote
AS15-82-11082: Later photo with same hills in the background near Hadley Rille (Station 9) during the third EVA, approximately 1.4 km west of the Lunar Module.[27]

sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs

Also, i found this very informative website:

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_11.html


Quote

        Editor's Comments: 1. The conclusion has to be that either the LM was repositioned or the backdrops were moved around, or both. See also Doing the twist during Apollo 15 below, and a later Apollo 16 study.

        2. The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA. During his panorama research Jack White has found a number of anomalies, other than the visual problems he discusses within these studies. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they CANNOT be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations.



Quote
Editor's Note: Another version of the Apollo 15 study: LEM does turnabout with same background. See comments above and Doing the twist in a later Apollo 16 study.

Quote
Same background - different spur


Quote
Apollo 15 - multiple use of sets and backdrops


Quote
Editor's Note: There can only be one LM in any given setting, see also the study below. It would appear that once again either the LM was repositioned, or the backdrops were moved around, or both. It is not a question of the background and setting varying depending on the camera viewpoint. In this case the LM is in a different position and orientation against the same run of backdrop.

Quote
Multiple use of sets and backdrops 2


Quote
Editor's Note: Of course although the backdrops match, the foregrounds are different. This was propbaly to help disguise the fact that the setting has been used for both a general scene, (photo AS15-82-11082) and an alternative setting for the LM (photo AS15-82-11057). It is highly likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery.

And more moving hills

Quote
   

 
Apollo Investigation
Examples of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo photography

It is the opinion of Aulis, as well as expert photo analysts like Jack White BA, that the numerous inconsistencies in the Apollo photographs encode deliberate mistakes. Therefore the Apollo record may not be a true and accurate account of the manned landing(s) on the Moon. Evidence for these conclusions falls into a number of categories:

    Background mountains located just metres away, not kilometres
    Physicists and Professors of Mathematics conclude Apollo fakery
    Use of multiple overhead light sources
    Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
    Lighting units visible 'in shot'
    Incorrect size of the 'sun'
    Impossibly high camera positions
    Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
    Mutually exclusive images
    Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
    Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the 'lunar' dust
    Footprints in the 'lunar' dust not belonging to Apollo astronauts

Examples of the above are to be found on the various Apollo Investigation pages, here is a selection:

Photo compositing

Here are two photos of the flag allegedly taken during the Apollo 11 EVA:

Fags from Apollo11
AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

as11-40-5905 and 5886_2
Flag close ups from AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

as11-40-5905 and 5886_1
The same two images – the flag from the right photo mirrored/flipped for comparative purposes

The flags in these two shots are suspiciously similar. For example, compare the shadows just back from the leading edge of the flag – and there are numerous other points of correspondence. (We will address the matter of the differential heights of the camera taking these images a little later.)

These side-by-side comparisons reveal the startling fact that BOTH flags are billowing positively towards the camera. But these two pictures were taken on opposite sides of the flag. When photographing the 'front' and the 'back' one flag should be billowing positively towards the camera while the other should be billowing negatively away from the camera.

In other words, the areas of the flag that are convex (towards) the camera in one image must be concave (away) in the other. But this was not the case during this Apollo photography.

The frame grab below, taken with the data acquisition camera from the LM, provides a view of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera:

Reverse view of AP11 flag
View of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera, taken from the LM

As image AS11-40-5886 (right) does not have the flag correctly oriented, the two pictures cannot depict truly reverse views of the same scene.

AS11-40-5905+5886
AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886 – both images shown full frame

This finding suggests that the flags were added to the scenes afterwards, with the same side of the flag used in both pictures. This error in compositing may have occurred inadvertently – or even intentionally by whistle-blowers – totally disregarding the fact that each scene was photographed 180 degrees to each other.

To clarify further, it appears that the compositors deliberately inserted the flag into the scene billowing the wrong way – i.e. billowing/furling towards the viewer in both cases.

Another photograph taken on this same magazine of film – AS11-40-5874 on Mag 40 – reveals that the flag and pole in that image casts no shadow whatsoever – see also Jack White's study.

High camera positions

AS11-40-5903
AS11-40-5903 as analysed by Dr David Groves

Returning to the differences in the camera height, we know from the famous picture AS11-40-5903 that the position of the camera above the lunar surface was at the same level as the line of the horizon extrapolated across the visor of the astronaut imaged in the photograph. The centre reticle is over the subject’s right ankle, indicating a camera position much higher than the Hasselblad chest-bracket level.

Apollo 11 camera heightDr Dr David Groves’ analysis of the camera height indicating that the photograph was taken from eye level and NOT from the chest bracket (full report see Dark Moon Appendix)

The photographer reflected in the gold visor is neither standing on an object/rock to give him extra height, nor is he holding the camera at eye-level.

David Groves has determined that the terrain does not undulate more than a few inches where the subject was standing, so the conclusion must be that the reflection in the visor (with the camera at chest height) is not that of the photographer of the main image.

AS11-40-5905+5886
AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886

It would appear that the left picture (AS11-40-5905) was probably taken from around chest height, but that AS11-40-5886 was photographed from a far greater height.

AS11-40-5886 depicts a viewpoint that is far too high – the flag is mostly below the horizon. There is no elevated position in this location from which to take such a photograph with a chest-mounted camera. See also Jack White’s study A Matter of Perspective.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs that happen to be on the same roll of film that allegedly commemorate mankind’s first landing on the Moon.

Extra lighting used on the Moon

There is clear, irrefutable evidence that lighting was used in the still photographs, yet no lighting equipment was taken to the Moon. Consider the sequence of pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder on the shadow side of the LM during Apollo 11. Dr David Groves and David Percy have analysed the ‘hotspot’ on the heel of Aldrin’s right boot and found that a directional light was used – apparently placed just to the right of the camera position. This finding regarding the location of the light source is supported by a process known as 'ray tracing' – see below. Full details of this analysis can be found in the Appendix of Dark Moon.

Hotspot on Aldrin's boot
AS11-40-5866 (close up)

Heel protector study

Serious shadow anomalies: multiple light sources

Multiple sources
AS17-145-22172 example of multiple overhead light sources – cannot be sunlight

imagesfurther /as14-68-9486+7l
AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly

To the casual observer the rock shadows in the lower right foreground fall in a different direction to the horizontal background shadow of the LM, due to the rocks being located on 'higher ground' in this part of the image. This conclusion would be correct, if there was a distinct rise in the right foreground level, it would throw the shadows in different directions to any shadows cast elsewhere on the relatively flat 'terrain'.

HOWEVER in this case, ALL the rock shadows fall on the same diagonal in the picture. For example, after close observation of the distant, central rocks (see enlarged image below) the shadows are unquestionably on the diagonal – these rocks are not on higher ground. The only exception to these diagonal shadows in this photograph is the shadow cast by the LM itself. THIS IS THE PRIME REASON WHY THIS IMAGE IS ANOMALOUS.

as14-68-9486+7section
AS14-68-9486/7 (close up section) demonstrates direction of shadows

One possible scenario is that the LM's shadow was 'painted in'. In any event, the inescapable conclusion is that the entire scene was illuminated by artificial light sources because natural sunlight cannot result in shadows as seen in AS14-68-9486/7.

Moreover, if the 'sun' was out of frame to the left of the image, generating the LM's shadow, it could not result in lens flare in this photograph. It is the combination of factors that makes this image anomalous. Whilst the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM.

The anomalies and the proof are, as always, in the detail. (Lens flare is discussed elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.)

Anomalous footprints

Among the out-of-place, tell-tale footprints here is an interesting example – no doubt carefully placed by a whistle-blowing stage hand in the hope that it would be noticed one day.

Anomalous footprint
This detail is from an Apollo 15 photo AS15-86-11670

Apollo boot
Side view of Apollo boot to show horizontal ribs

See also Big Boot Sighting Where We Are Now.

Mutually exclusive images

The following two images are good examples of what we consider to be multiple utilisation of foregrounds and backgrounds, probably to maximise the investment in studio settings.



Quote
This policy of doubling-up on sets only becomes apparent when a number of individual images are combined to make a panorama, as above. Viewed singly, the elements of these montages look totally convincing.

The large mountain is undoubtedly the same in each case, as well as features 'B', 'D' and 'E'. The small crater in the left foreground is also common to both images. One might conclude that the LM, as seen in the top image, was physically uplifted and moved into the foreground prior to photographing the lower image, or the whole thing was put together in the NASA photo lab.

For more examples see Jack White's Apollo 12 studies and Apollo 17 studies.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs and not a true and accurate record mankind’s visits to the Moon. Further examples of anomalies in the photographic record are to be found elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.

Quote
AS17-134-20511, 20512 & 20513 EVA-3 at the LM & flag
Who moved the mountain, flag and foreground rocks – but not the LM?


For WAY more info... check this out:

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 10:58:02 PM by RUSSO »
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

"It's time to treat people with the same degree of importance they treat you."

"The slyness when too much, grows, get bigger, turns into a beast and eat the owner."

Offline astr0144

  • The Roundtable
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3980
  • Gold 307
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2013, 12:24:11 AM »
Nice one Russo !

I know this topic has been covered on PRC in other threads..


A Few other links off interest..

Moon landing conspiracy theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Marcus Allen has done some good research on the subject and I seen a presentation of his last year that I found very interesting.

He gave me a website that shows much of the photos he referred to that I did once post on PRC but I cannot find or recall  it.. :(





Offline astr0144

  • The Roundtable
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3980
  • Gold 307
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 12:28:34 AM »
Sorry I missed your link to it Russo ... Thank you  :)



For WAY more info... check this out:

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm


Quote
He (Marcus Allen) gave me a website that shows much of the photos he referred to that I did once post on PRC but I cannot find or recall  it.. :(




deuem

  • Guest
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2013, 02:20:47 AM »
Most of this stuff is perspective, distance and change of lenses.  I have gone up against a lot of this stuff before. It is very easy to cut and paste a mountain where you want it to go to make it look good for the photo. A little re-sizing and off it goes. FAKE. The problem with me is that in order to do a project like this, each one of the shots is now a project. I have to get so many sources out and the entire thing into cad and triangulate so much data that it is overwhelming.  The amount of work I need to put in is not worth the results.  This is also why NASA stopped all comments. They were being hounded by cut and paste artist. The bottom line is what you believe. Simple.
 
Most people make up their minds on what ever is presented first and to change it is very difficult unless they do it for themselves. It takes a very long time to run down exact data for people just to tell me it is NASA data and the data I am working with is also fake.  So the incentive to do these projects is not there.
 
By the way, this is not the hill problem I thought was going to be in this thread. I thought the picture shapes vs the USG was the thread. But that also takes weeks of work for each mountain.
 
Don't be lead down the C&P people path that are out for 5 minutes of fame by blasting NASA. Please ask them for some Math and see what happens. Compare topo maps and set distance photo frames to the picture and see what should be there. Perspective and lenses mean everything. There is no depth in a moon photo like there is on earth.
 
If you calculate that a mountain should be 3 inches long in a photo that is 5 miles away and then go and measure it, then you have something. If that mountain is 1km long reset the photo frame to 1km. Now do that on the compare photo and see if they match. I never got one to even come close. Unless it was taken from the same spot with the same camera lens. If you take one photo of the lem 300 meters away from it and it in the photo, then you move 500 meters to the back side and snap again the photo will change. They just C&P and Size to get what they want to show and then say Ohhh, see they screwed us again.
 
I am not some love NASA person, I just like to see the facts presented fairly. I can cut, paste and size anything to my advantage. But when the Math is presented people are bored and go away. They want tabloid news not school.
 
Deuem
 

DLensman

  • Guest
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2014, 05:06:27 PM »
If we did set foot on the moon, why no return trip? Yeah I hear them on the budget thing but why waste a chance to funnel more money into the "Black Opps", that they claim isn't there? I think it's one of two things. Either a trip was made during the Shuttle series of journey's, or they found a form of life they're not ready to deal with. The topic does leave plenty of room for the mind to wander..... :-\

Offline Vulhala

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gold 1
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2014, 05:13:17 PM »
If we did set foot on the moon, why no return trip? Yeah I hear them on the budget thing but why waste a chance to funnel more money into the "Black Opps", that they claim isn't there? I think it's one of two things. Either a trip was made during the Shuttle series of journey's, or they found a form of life they're not ready to deal with. The topic does leave plenty of room for the mind to wander..... :-\

I find it strange that we haven't been back, too. The Chinese will be there soon enough, though!

Offline Sgt.Rocknroll

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
  • Gold 320
  • ROCK On!
    • Sgt. Rocknroll
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2014, 05:39:59 PM »
Haven't been back 'officially'... ;)
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam

Offline Vulhala

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Gold 1
Re: The Hills of Apollo
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2014, 05:43:42 PM »
Or that  ;)

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: Alinsky's guide to control... by ArMaP
[Today at 09:42:49 AM]


Re: Mars Structure Examined by Eighthman
[Today at 08:23:27 AM]


Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by starwarp2000
[Today at 07:48:10 AM]


Re: Mars Structure Examined by starwarp2000
[Today at 07:34:16 AM]


Re: Alinsky's guide to control... by starwarp2000
[Today at 07:26:35 AM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[Today at 02:59:07 AM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by petrus4
[Today at 02:32:20 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by petrus4
[Today at 02:28:36 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by hoss58
[Today at 01:02:50 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by Gigas
[January 20, 2018, 08:07:32 PM]


Re: I think im the reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[January 20, 2018, 06:39:47 PM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by The Seeker
[January 20, 2018, 05:09:02 PM]


Re: Mars Structure Examined by ArMaP
[January 20, 2018, 03:25:50 PM]


Mars Structure Examined by Eighthman
[January 20, 2018, 12:47:39 PM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[January 20, 2018, 11:28:25 AM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[January 20, 2018, 10:13:20 AM]


I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[January 20, 2018, 09:59:22 AM]


Re: Jim Marrs Rest In Peace - really sad :-( by micjer
[January 20, 2018, 06:35:22 AM]


Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by petrus4
[January 20, 2018, 02:45:25 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by petrus4
[January 20, 2018, 02:14:05 AM]