The Hills of Apollo - An Enigma

[Elvis Hendrix]

Its just yet another example of the same backdrop being used in multiple photos, with the Lander in a completely different position. I guess they had to get there monies worth.

[Elvis Hendrix]

[ArMaP]

Its just yet another example of the same backdrop being used in multiple photos, with the Lander in a completely different position.

It's more another example of how some people don't understand camera lens and perspective. When you have a mountain some miles back, if you move some hundreds of metres and point the camera in the direction of the mountains you will get a similar background, as there's not enough parallax to make the difference noticeable on the mountains but you will get, obviously, a different foreground.

[ArMaP]

The panorama with photos AS17-134-20437 to AS17-134-20433 was taken some 150 metres to the East of where the LM was, and where the panorama made with photos AS17-147-22494 to AS17-147-22521 was made. The mountain in the back and to the right (South Massif) was 6 km southwest from the LM in both photos, as 150 metres is not much when compared with 6 km.

Even with such small difference, you can see that there's a difference in the background, if you look at the original photos instead of that small image.

[zorgon]

Even with such small difference, you can see that there's a difference in the background, if you look at the original photos instead of that small image.

Would you not get the same effect if the background hills were a projection on a green screen instead of real hills?

[ArMaP]

This is a good example of ignorance or bad intentions, as any photo can show the sky or not, you just need to point the camera up or down. Another difference is that photo AS17-139-21204 they were using a camera with a telephoto (500 mm) lens and were 3 km from the LM and 9 km from the mountain, while in photo AS17-141-21514 they were using the other camera (with the 60 mm lens) and were in the same place where they took the panorama with photos AS17-134-20437 to AS17-134-20433, 150 metres east of the LM.

[ArMaP]

Would you not get the same effect if the background hills were a projection on a green screen instead of real hills?

They would need a non-fixed projection, projecting a movie instead of a fixed image, and it would have to be synchronized with the movement of the camera in relation to the LM.

[zorgon]

They would need a non-fixed projection, projecting a movie instead of a fixed image, and it would have to be synchronized with the movement of the camera in relation to the LM.

Ah!  using something like THIS perhaps?

[ArMaP]

Ah!  using something like THIS perhaps?

No, for at least two reasons:
1 - it's too small for the parallax needed;
2 - it's not a view from the ground at a specific place.

The only way I see it for something like that to work would be to have something filmed before with the same changes in perspective performed by the astronauts, so, basically, they would need to do exactly the same movements before, film it and project the film at the same the astronauts were doing their job, so all the changes (including light) matched.

PS: those specific models can only fool a blind person, they look clearly artificial.

[zorgon]

PS: those specific models can only fool a blind person, they look clearly artificial.

So why are the hills so SMOOTH when we all saw the Jagged Peaks in the Lunar Orbiter pictures. Since there is supposed to be no atmosphere up there... how did those hills transform from sharp jagged crags to smooth Apollo trademark hills between the time of the LO launches 1966-67 and the Moon landings 1969-72

[ArMaP]

So why are the hills so SMOOTH when we all saw the Jagged Peaks in the Lunar Orbiter pictures. Since there is supposed to be no atmosphere up there... how did those hills transform from sharp jagged crags to smooth Apollo trademark hills between the time of the LO launches 1966-67 and the Moon landings 1969-72

I don't know why, but that's no reason for them to be artificial, as they had the LO photos, so they could have made hills that looked the same, right?

If you were going to fake something why would you do it with something that didn't look like what people were expecting?

[RUSSO]

It's more another example of how some people don't understand camera lens and perspective.

Let me introduce you to someone that understand camera lens and perspective.



If this guy made that movie in 1968. I can assume that they had the technology to fake the moon landings the way they presented to us.

Dont get me wrong, i do think they went there. But the images they released to general public does not represent reality.

[Elvis Hendrix]

Has anyone seen this before?
I cant vouch for its authenticity of course , but it looks like another astronauts hand comes round the camera.. Meaning 3 men when we all know there was supposedly only 2 ??




http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14.clsout2.html#1351957

Scroll to real video clip 3min 27 secs


Apollo 14 EVA-2

[ArMaP]

If this guy made that movie in 1968. I can assume that they had the technology to fake the moon landings the way they presented to us.

I don't think had, movie or no movie, as what was presented to us was much, much more than what we see on that movie, and of a much higher quality, several times.

PS: I had to do a quick search and download to look for some scenes, as I have never watched 2001 in full, and I have no intention of doing it, it's one of the most boring movies I know.

[Sinny]

2001, Took me about 15 attempts to watch in full.

Got there 3 years later lol.

Well worth it, Kubrick was a genius don't you know