Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
apollo2.pdf

apollo2.pdf

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Published by chetangs17
truth about apollo
truth about apollo

More info:

Published by: chetangs17 on Nov 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
Who Mourns For Apollo?Part II
 byMike BaraCONTACT INFORMATION:MICHAEL BARA lunaranomalies@uswest.netSTEVE TROY malibu57350@yahoo.comhttp://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htmLinked from http://enterprisemission.com/Since the publication of our initial report debunking the accusation that the ApolloMoon landings were hoaxed, the Fox television network has broadcast a special called"Conspiracy Theory -- Did we Land on the Moon?" Because this Special raised someadditional issues we did not specifically cover in our previous article, in the interest of closure I have decided to address them here. Make no mistake, I was so unimpressed withthis laughably stupid presentation initially that I was quite willing to let the previous piece be our final statement on the matter. I felt that we easily showed that a good 90% of the claims are totally without scientific or rational merit. Further, I felt we made it quiteclear that the issues raised were so unutterably inane, and so easily explained, that theindividuals making them had absolutely zero intellectual credibility left concerning the"un-addressed" claims in the program. With Richard Hoagland and Steve Troy workingon detailed follow-up's of some key points, I was ready to move on to other, moresubstantive issues. Still, the idea that some of these idiotic claims had not beenspecifically refuted was eating at me. I kept thinking: "... there are a sizable number of  people in the United States who believe that the Holocaust never really happened; or thatChurch's Fried Chicken truly has a 'secret ingredient' in it to sterilize Black men ..."So I guess I can't resist. Hopefully, these next few articles will put all these"smokescreen" claims around Apollo permanently to rest -- clearing the way for a seriousdiscussion of what NASA's really been hiding all these years vis-à-vis the Moon. Thatsaid, let's now address those additional "dumb" issues -- brought up on the Fox ApolloSpecial -- as we did before: one by one.
1. - There are cross hairs on pictures taken on the Moon that appear to be behind objects, rather than in front of them, where they should be.
The crosshairs, called reseau marks, were geometric indicators specifically put inthe Apollo cameras by the vacuum deposition of a set of whisker-thin aluminum"crosses" on an optical glass plate, subsequently placed just in front of the film plane.The purpose of this (according to NASA) was to enable the NASA-Houston developersof the film to align multiple image panoramas vertically and horizontally, so that theymight appear geometrically correct when printed.
 
The Fox special showed four examples of the crosshairs appearing behind objects in the pictures. One example each from Apollo 11 and 16, and two from the same frame onApollo 12. In addition, I found another example on the Project Apollo image archive,AS16-117-18818. The four that were presented on the show are the same ones that seemto make the rounds of all the Moon Hoax sites, and I have not seen any other examplesalthough, as I just demonstrated, it seems fairly easy to do so.From AS16-107-17446 From AS11-40-5931From AS12-47-6897From AS12-47-6897The argument made by the Moon Hoax advocates (primarily, James Collier,David Percy, Bill Kaysing, "brilliant lay physicist" Ralph Rene, and SPSR's Dr. BrianO'Leary) is that these obscured reseau marks "prove" that the photos taken on the Moonare "faked." They imply that the marks were added after the photos were taken to make it
 
appear that they were taken on the moon but that NASA "screwed up" some of these"fake" marks.It's hard to follow this convoluted "logic." If NASA were faking these pictures ina movie studio at Area 51, as Fox and Kaysing allege, why wouldn't they simply haveused cameras with the same aluminized, pre-marked plates in them that were used on the"real" Apollo cameras? Wouldn't that be easier than painstakingly adding the marks one by one by hand to every single Apollo hand held photograph? And if the pictures were allfaked, why add the marks at all? Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid the whole hassle byskipping the reseau marks completely? Now, in fairness, some of the "Hoax crowd" have claimed that these apparent"retouches" aren't truly just "stupid NASA mistakes" after all, but a deliberate code; thatcertain "patriotic Americans" working in the NASA photo lab, outraged by the huge hoax being perpetuated by Apollo, deliberately made "little mistakes" in placing the crosses onsome photographs ... to telegraph the fact that the whole Moon program "was as fake asthe photographs themselves." As ingenious as this "explanation" might appear to some,there is a far simpler and more likely solution (see below).So, if these pictures are not faked, what "gives" with the obscured reseau marks?Actually, there are a couple of very good, very logical (and completely non-conspiratorial) explanations.For one thing, in all the pictures presented, the marks are obscured by white areasof the pictures. Be they the white stripes of the American flag, the white covering of ascientific instrument, or an astronauts' spacesuit. Anyone who has ever developed color film will tell you that white tends to bleed a bit into other colors, and given that thecrosshairs are only few thousands of an inch across, it's easy to assume that this is theexplanation. As far as I know, none of the Moon Hoax advocates has ever actuallyexamined the the negatives of these frames, either. Certainly, if the blotting out of thecrosshairs is an anomaly of the printing process, then the negatives should probably havethe full reseau marks visible and we will have our explanation. It is also probable that thehighly reflective white surfaces just got slightly overexposed in some photographs,simply blotting out the razor thin marks.But, failing in that, there is another, even better explanation. The pictures weredeliberately altered.Wait a minute, doesn't that imply just what the Moon Hoax advocates are saying?That the photos are really are faked -- and for over thirty years someone's been trying to"blow the whistle?" No. Of course it doesn't.There is a huge, huge difference between "altered" and "faked." It's a fairly safe bet that numerous Apollo pictures were altered, and there is nothing sinister at all aboutit.In each case that I have seen, including the one that I personally found, the alteredcrosshairs (if that's what they are) are from the NASA press release collection for theApollo Program. It is an entirely common practice for press release photos to be "cleanedup" before publication, and there is no reason at all to think that the Apollo Missions tothe Moon were excluded from this practice. It is difficult for us, in this digital age, toappreciate the importance of print media in the days of the Apollo Program. MostAmericans got their view of Apollo not from TV, but from newspapers and magazines

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->