An Epistemological Study of Apollo 15: What If We Never Went to the Moon?
How much of our knowledge of the material world is derived from the authority of others as opposed to of our own investigation? Perfect certainty of truth in the material world is impossible; we simply approximate the greater odds that the knowledge we hold is correct versus not and believe accordingly.
As the old adage goes, we see through a glass darkly. But we see enough. This is why criminal justice in many nations is served upon knowledge that guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to by perfect certainty. There's always room for doubt, because knowledge of events in the material world can never be perfectly certain. To require perfect certainty before acting would paralyze all our activity. Thus, we never require it to take action.
Even our most certain knowledge, like what we had for dinner last night, can't be held in perfect confidence. Our memories can fail us. While mathematics may be known with absolute certainty, as equations have objectively correct answers, that kind of knowledge is abstract. Once we map mathematics onto the material world, we can't know with perfect certainty that the addition of two objects to two we see make four even if we can know that two plus two make four in the abstract, because our senses can fail us. This isn't to say we can't rely on our senses, but that we must always admit the possibility that we might be wrong about any knowledge we hold of the material world, even if we can approximate a confident probability our investigation into a question has revealed a correct answer.
And yet, we don't even derive most of our material knowledge from our own investigation. Much of what we know is what we rely upon by the word of those in authority. If you've never been to all the countries, how would you know that one specific country exists? What are the odds the media, maps, history text books, and Google-approved websites in our searches are all incorrect about its existence? We say it must be real not because we've been to that country or met anyone from there, but because the probability that all the sources proclaiming its existence are wrong must be exceedingly low. We calibrate our belief accordingly. Thus, we believe a country exists even if we have never been there.
Is a belief in the Apollo missions, alleged to have landed men on the Moon, that same kind of knowledge? We can't point a telescope to the Moon and see the Apollo artifacts on the landing sites for ourselves [*1]. The "retroreflectors," allegedly placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts, where laser beams from Earth can be bounced off of, can't be distinguished from bouncing the same laser off a flat surface of the Moon [*2]. One of the alleged "moon rocks" brought back by Apollo was revealed by the Dutch as petrified wood [*3] and another, from Apollo 14, revealed as an Earth rock that (millions of years ago) bounced from Earth to the Moon (presumably by meteors knocking debris into orbit) [*4]. It is illegal to independently send even an unmanned craft to verify the landing sites without explicit U.S. government permission [*5]. The Apollo telemetry data, original tapes containing spacecraft positioning, health conditions of the astronauts, among other data, has been destroyed (taped over) [*6]. We can only "know" men landed on the Moon based on (1) the authority of others and (2) photographs and second-hand videos (recall, original data tapes destroyed). Countless authorities in the governmental, scientific, and academic communities accept the Apollo missions as real. Do we bother to question their validity by conducting our own investigation? Why would we? What are the odds that all those authorities are wrong?
Or, as Dave McGowan put it: "What primarily motivates [people into not questioning Apollo] is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what the lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for [over five] decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything [*7]."
While all the Apollo missions feature startling photo and video anomalies [*8], I'll respect readers' time and limit my scope here to one mission, Apollo 15. I've relegated sources and discussion of other Apollo anomalies to the footnotes.
Apollo 15 was the fourth mission to allegedly land men on the Moon, historically dated July 30, 1971, nearly fifty years ago. What would it take to prove to you that it never happened? If the Apollo 15 photography was proven fraudulent, what are the odds NASA faked the photography but went anyway? If Apollo 15 was a fraud, what does that say about the odds the other Apollo missions were also frauds?
Let's begin with a startling revelation, originally discovered by Jack White [*9].
Upon my review of all the thousands of photos in the Apollo record, uploaded in 2015 to NASA's public Apollo Archive Flickr account (where NASA tells us to go for the highest-resolution photos) [*10], AS15-86-11670 and 11671 are the only photos to show a footprint with a curved tread. How would you explain its origin? Your Google-fu, in a panicked search for an answer, will reveal gaslighting, a pretense of confusion for the anomaly's relevance. [*11].
NASA currently has AS15-86-11671 on its public website as well, but cuts off the anomalous footprint unless you download the actual photo [*12]. Curious. There's plenty of space to show the full photo next to the caption. Why cover up part of the photo?
Alas, perhaps some Moon dust kicked over onto half of a lunar rover wheel tread print, and the gravitational properties of the airless vacuum of the Moon caused the tread to curve for just this one print in two photos as opposed to what we see in the angular wheel tread prints in other photos [*13]. Possible? Only to the extent we may believe anything is possible. But improbable.
Let's examine another startling Apollo 15 revelation, also originally discovered by Jack White (with some additional context I've added). This is supposedly Mount Hadley, which NASA informs us is nearly a mile (0.902) high or 4,765 feet [*14], despite that jarring continuous line of separation between the foreground and mountain (perhaps it's the lip of an edge cutting off more unseen terrain).
Let's look at Mount Hadley using the photos from the Apollo Archive record.
Note how the mountain is lit in the bottom sequence but not the top. What's so odd about this? We can observe the Moon's 29.5-day cycle as it rotates around the Earth via its phases. We always see the same side of the Moon, because its orbit is tidally locked with one side always facing Earth. Thus, a day on the Moon is about two weeks in Earth time. Even with the Sun low on the lunar horizon, which infers faster changes in shadows, we must expand the timeframe for shadows to change from roughly twelve hours on Earth to the approximately 354 on the Moon. Thus, the time it takes shadows to move on the Moon is almost thirty times longer (29.5) compared to Earth. In the approximately 67 hours Apollo 15 spent on the lunar surface, would the Sun's relative position change that much between two film magazines (82 and 85)?
Shadow behavior is curious on the Moon [*15].
The Sun, being 90 million miles away, casts parallel shadows on objects. Closer light sources cast shadows proportional to the location and size of the light or lights. Let's pretend the Sun can cast one shadow at 12 o'clock and the other at 10 o'clock. Why, in one photo, would it cast at 10 o'clock and the other 2 o'clock [*13]? Also, note (1) how clearly focused and composed the photos are while also (2) how blurry just the edges of the astronaut shadows are (negating a "focusing issue" argument). Take a light and place it close to an object to produce this blurring effect on shadows. Contrary, a far-away light source, like the Sun being 90 million miles away, casts sharp well-defined shadows.
Alas, the authorities who assure us the Apollo missions were genuine events must be correct. Surely, someone who participated in the fraud (ignoring compartmentalization; like those who worked on the atomic bomb, Manhattan Project, most don't know the big picture) would have blown the whistle by now, right? The Russians would've told us if the missions were fake, right [*16]?
As an aside, I'd enjoy reading an authority (or, perhaps, the Russians) answer my captioned questions below.
A little design consistency/continuity would render us a little more amenable to the authorities insisting on the scientific glory of the Apollo missions. Why Apollo 15 featured a taped-up backside (aft) of its lunar module, while Apollo 16 didn't, is a question I'll likely never get a good answer for. Does adhesive tape work that well in a vacuum? It must, because the Apollo missions proved it in the photographic record!
Let's continue down this rabbit hole with another curiosity from Apollo 15, yet again found by Jack White (with further analysis I've provided).
We're looking at the Apollo 15 lunar module that allegedly landed on the Moon. Note the continuing line of separation between the foreground and background. More of the supposed mountain range is shown in the left photo, AS15-82-11081 compared to the right photo, AS15-82-11057. Thus, the left photo was taken further back. Maybe the lunar module is far enough away, where it has disappeared in the background [*17]. Further investigation is warranted.
First, let's get a sense of location and direction for these photos. The Lunar Planetary Institute documents Apollo 15's landing site [*18]. Note the southern and eastern views.
Compare the above to the American Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) image of the Apollo 15 landing site [*19].
A 360-degree panorama would also be helpful, but NASA is a bit shy with this information. Below, is the most recent iteration of a panorama they give us [*20].
The caption placed by NASA for the above panorama is particularly amusing: "This digitally stitched [sic] panorama shows [Dave] Scott examining a boulder on the slope of 3.5 kilometer high [sic] Mons Hadley Delta to the left of their electric-powered, four-wheel drive vehicle." Does that mountain look 3.5 kilometers high to you? Sure. Let's go with it. As Neil Armstrong of Apollo 11 revealed in his 1970 BBC interview, "The optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar. … We had difficulty guessing how far the hills on the horizon might be [21]." Rather than rely on NASA's panoramas, we can stitch together our own by using individual photos from their record.
Let's examine some photos from Apollo 15's magazine 82 and 92, showing a panorama of what should be gradually angling 90 degrees from east (left) to south (right). Note the continuous line of separation between the background and the foreground before the mountains.
How do we know these photos must be gradually angling between the three? Match the topographic features of the mountains in the two left photos above with the left photo directly below this paragraph. Likewise, match the topographic features of the mountains in the two right photos with the right photo directly below this paragraph. The left photo purports an eastern view. The right one purports a southern view. To make sense, the Apollo photo sequences of three would need to be angling east to south about 90 degrees between the shots.
Let's examine another sequence of photos from Apollo 15, AS15-87-11815 through 11817. Pay special attention to the darker patch of soil. Note how the foreground is not angled. The photos were taken steps aside, not by gradually turning the field-of-view 90 degrees.
Let's compare the above to a sequence of outdoor photos I've taken. Note, below, how the snow patch gradually angles about 90 degrees as I turn the camera between each shot. Compare the above photo sequence to the below one. Note how the snow patch in my photos shifts from a top-down to a left-right perspective as the camera gradually angles its field-of-view between shots. Why doesn't the darkened patch of soil in the Apollo photos similarly shift perspective from top-down to left-right?
Also, note how the mountain range in the Apollo photos shifts between each shot despite the camera not gradually angling 90 degrees. Let's compare the Apollo mountain range shifting to a far-away building in a parking lot when photos are taken steps aside and not by gradually angling the field-of-view [*22].
Now, let's compare the Apollo 15 photos, sequence AS15-82-11057 through 11059 to the sequence
with the darkened soil patch, AS15-87-11815 to 11817. Note the orientations of the lunar lander in the top versus bottom photo sequence. In the top sequence, we see the entrance or "front" of the lander. In the bottom one, we see the side of the lander with the back or "aft" facing left in the photo.
Are the two left photos facing south or east? We see the mountain range slowly transition from what the Lunar Planetary Institute alleges are eastern and southern perspectives. But the darkened patch of soil remaining consistent in orientation proves the camera angle has not changed direction.
If the photos in both sequences were taken by angling the field-of-view by 90 degrees, then the positions of the lunar module shown above could both be correct. The back (aft) of the lunar module is facing east in both photos.
But, if the photos are instead taken steps aside, then the two positions shown of the lunar module are mutually exclusive. First, the Lunar Planetary Institute's claim of south and east views would be incorrect. Second, if we presume the camera field-of-view is merely shifting as we move away, the lunar lander's differing orientations would be mutually exclusive. We see its side facing left in the left photo and its back (aft) facing left in the right photo.
Because the record states the lunar module never rotated or took off and relanded, we can't credibly believe the sequence of photos in question could have been taken steps aside as opposed to by being angled 90 degrees. But because the bottom sequence shown was taken steps aside and we know the lunar module never rotated, we can't accept the sequence as genuine.
Simply stated, the photography in Apollo 15 is taken from mutually exclusive positions. Thus, we can't accept the photography as a genuine representation of men photographing the Moon. If this batch of photos on the fourth Apollo mission to "land" on the Moon are proven fraudulent, what does that say about the photography in the other Apollo missions? And if all the photography was faked, what are the odds NASA "faked the photography but went anyway?"
I understand the instinct to simply accept the Apollo record as perfect knowledge like you might accept the existence of a country you've never been to or met anyone from. What are the odds all those articles you find on Google, history text books, the media and scientific community, etc. proclaiming the existence of that country are wrong? Yet, we can confirm the existence of a country by speaking with the millions of people who live there. Apollo's existence can only be verified by a few remaining astronauts. As I've shown, the photographic record, which is the most visually detailed of the records derived from Apollo, is fraudulent. That leaves second-hand videos published by Spacecraft Films [*23] (recall, the original telemetry data tapes were destroyed), which have been thoroughly questioned by many others [*24].
How much of our knowledge is derived from a compounding effect of everyone's snowballing belief in the word of those in authority, as authorities build on information from other authorities, versus from our own investigations? All it takes is one authority at the top to fib for a lie to function, as decreasingly lesser authorities all rely on the original authority. Confidence in the event is a result of a snowballing of belief from a false foundation.
But to function in an organized society, we can't independently verify most knowledge of the material world with our own investigations. We don't have the time. We must rely on authorities that are skeptical of each other (and not build on false foundations) to function in any social or political system. We can't all be experts in everything. We build on each other's foundations. How do we know the foundations we're building upon are correct?
If authorities are lying about this, what else are they lying about?
UPDATE: I added another comparison photo-analysis meme, using an angling street, to illustrate my point.
-------
FOOTNOTES
[*1] One cannot see the human artifacts allegedly left by Apollo with an Earth-based telescope. Multiple sources tell us this. https://www.space.com/20739-apollo-moon-landing-sites-telescope.html Some may bring up the American Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) satellite having taken images of what are purportedly the Apollo landing sites. Such evidence, like the Apollo photographs, is still second-hand, and we rely on the testimony of the photographer or technician taking images to authenticate it before believing. The Apollo surface photography, if real, is certainly better evidence. If the Apollo photographs were fake, the probability that the white pixels you are looking at in the later-taken digital image below are farcical photoshop-style alterations skyrockets.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html
UPDATE: The LRO image is a photoshop file. That doesn't mean the image was "photoshopped" per se, as some justified manipulation was done to place arrows and text to identify alleged artifacts we're looking at in the image (e.g., LRV, "lunar rover vehicle") But it is curious:
[*2] For context, here's NASA's explanation for the Apollo 15 retroreflector, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html
What's the difference between bouncing a laser off something like this (Apollo 11, AS11-40-5952) and bouncing off the bare surface of the Moon you might ask?
According to a paper by Andreas Marki, nothing. https://www.aulis.com/PDF/lunar_ranging2.pdf
And Apollo 11's "retroreflector" wasn't even angled appropriately according to David Percy in his excellent book with Mary Bennet, Dark Moon (kindle location 8999 of 14853), a flat placement, not a 28-degree titled one, would bounce back to the Earth.
[*3] This could have been a mistake by the American government when it gifted a Moon rock to the Dutch for display in their museum, accidentally giving them the wrong rock. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ But how would you know the difference between a Moon rock versus an Earth rock? Apparently, there are ways. Regardless, some Moon rocks have fallen to Earth as meteorites. How do we know we're not looking at one them as opposed to a genuine rock brought back by an Apollo mission?
[*4] An Earth rock that fell to the Moon, brought back by Apollo. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/01/earths-oldest-rock-found-on-moon-get-facts-apollo-14-zircons/ Or, the Apollo rocks could simply be fake. The explanations to justify the anomalies grow increasingly absurd.
[*5] I'll translate the legalese below for you. Nobody is allowed to send a craft to the Moon that can fly over or near the Apollo landing sites without explicit permission from the United States government (international agreements to enforce this policy are strongly emphasized and encouraged under the law). Why would a law be needed to prevent someone from going near the old Apollo equipment? Considering nobody has landed men on the Moon since 1972 (nearly 50 years ago), is the concern that some punks may go to vandalize it... or is this more likely a means to prevent third parties from verifying the landings?
Here is the policy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Protecting-and-Preserving-Apollo-Program-Lunar-Landing-Sites-and-Artifacts-2.pdf
Here is the law: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1694/text
[*6]. First they were reported missing. Then they were reported as taped over (destroyed). Apollo 11's tapes are the ones in question here. But no telemetry data on any Apollo mission can be examined to verify the landings (e.g., the positioning and speed of each Apollo craft as originally recorded in real-time on the data tapes as the missions occurred). NASA's official report on the matter: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
[*7] Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I (October 1, 2009) http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
[*8] For more Apollo photo studies, see my collection of analyses riffing off the works of Jack White, David Percy, Marcus Allen, Bart Sibrel, and Leonid Konovalov. More detailed analysis is available at Aulis.com.
I'll leave Bart Sibrel's famous smoking gun here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4 (original footage is posted on Seb Menard's channel). A collage of smoking gun evidence from the footage used in his film:
For more excellent video analyses, also see American Moon, Moon Hoax Now, and What Happened on the Moon.
[*9] Jack White's photo studies are published on the Aulis site here (page 6 containing most of his Apollo 15 findings): https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies.htm
[*10] https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums Some of the photos found here have origins in Adobe photoshop (see footnote 16 for example). Others do not. Nonetheless, if you want the highest resolution Apollo photos, this is the site NASA directs you to.
[*11] We can always pretend there's nothing to see here, like this forum commenter trying to gaslight us: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/page/7/ This Mr. McGoo-like burying of the lead, is particularly amusing:
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/15431.pdf No official explanation of the curved-tread footprint by NASA presently exists.
[*12] https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-86-11671.html
[*13] Curiously, the tread patterns of the lunar rover in other Apollo photos don't match.
[*14] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/images/apollo_image_17.html
[*15] Examples of anomalous lighting from other Apollo adventures:
[*16] Russian cinematographer, Leonid Konovalov has published some excellent work on Aulis disputing the photographic and video records: https://www.aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm Perhaps the Russians would've of told us if Apollo was fake. And, since they didn't, Apollo was real, but, also, to the extent the Russians told us America didn't go to the Moon, they are lying to us out of sheer jealousy. Thus, I replicated Konovalov's findings with my own analysis of Apollo 17, AS17-134-20384. As an American myself, I concur with his opinion with my own investigation below:
[*17] However, we can spot the lunar module from some impressively far distances in Apollo 17. Other curiosities are revealed in the process:
[*18] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/landing_site/
[*19] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html
[*20] http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160805.html
UPDATE: I checked the record and identified two photos, AS15-85-11437 and 11438, representing the right side of this section of the panorama I've cropped, revealing another curiosity:
[*21] The BBC interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o An analysis by an FBI interrogation trainer, Peter Hyatt, revealing likely deception by Neil Armstrong: https://www.richplanet.net/astronauts.php
[*22] UPDATE: I've confirmed the same issue with the mountain ranges of Apollo 17. Note the top images the Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) allege as views of south and west from the "lunar lander." Compare to the three photos at the bottom. Note how the foreground's orientation of the rock and hill prove the camera has not angled 90 degrees, as would be required for us to believe the LPI's alleged views are "south" and "west."
[*23] It is incredibly difficult to purchase these DVDs, alleged as the unaltered original video footage of the Apollo missions. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26288.0
[*24] See footnote 8.
As the old adage goes, we see through a glass darkly. But we see enough. This is why criminal justice in many nations is served upon knowledge that guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to by perfect certainty. There's always room for doubt, because knowledge of events in the material world can never be perfectly certain. To require perfect certainty before acting would paralyze all our activity. Thus, we never require it to take action.
Even our most certain knowledge, like what we had for dinner last night, can't be held in perfect confidence. Our memories can fail us. While mathematics may be known with absolute certainty, as equations have objectively correct answers, that kind of knowledge is abstract. Once we map mathematics onto the material world, we can't know with perfect certainty that the addition of two objects to two we see make four even if we can know that two plus two make four in the abstract, because our senses can fail us. This isn't to say we can't rely on our senses, but that we must always admit the possibility that we might be wrong about any knowledge we hold of the material world, even if we can approximate a confident probability our investigation into a question has revealed a correct answer.
And yet, we don't even derive most of our material knowledge from our own investigation. Much of what we know is what we rely upon by the word of those in authority. If you've never been to all the countries, how would you know that one specific country exists? What are the odds the media, maps, history text books, and Google-approved websites in our searches are all incorrect about its existence? We say it must be real not because we've been to that country or met anyone from there, but because the probability that all the sources proclaiming its existence are wrong must be exceedingly low. We calibrate our belief accordingly. Thus, we believe a country exists even if we have never been there.
Is a belief in the Apollo missions, alleged to have landed men on the Moon, that same kind of knowledge? We can't point a telescope to the Moon and see the Apollo artifacts on the landing sites for ourselves [*1]. The "retroreflectors," allegedly placed on the Moon by Apollo astronauts, where laser beams from Earth can be bounced off of, can't be distinguished from bouncing the same laser off a flat surface of the Moon [*2]. One of the alleged "moon rocks" brought back by Apollo was revealed by the Dutch as petrified wood [*3] and another, from Apollo 14, revealed as an Earth rock that (millions of years ago) bounced from Earth to the Moon (presumably by meteors knocking debris into orbit) [*4]. It is illegal to independently send even an unmanned craft to verify the landing sites without explicit U.S. government permission [*5]. The Apollo telemetry data, original tapes containing spacecraft positioning, health conditions of the astronauts, among other data, has been destroyed (taped over) [*6]. We can only "know" men landed on the Moon based on (1) the authority of others and (2) photographs and second-hand videos (recall, original data tapes destroyed). Countless authorities in the governmental, scientific, and academic communities accept the Apollo missions as real. Do we bother to question their validity by conducting our own investigation? Why would we? What are the odds that all those authorities are wrong?
Or, as Dave McGowan put it: "What primarily motivates [people into not questioning Apollo] is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what the lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for [over five] decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It's not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything [*7]."
While all the Apollo missions feature startling photo and video anomalies [*8], I'll respect readers' time and limit my scope here to one mission, Apollo 15. I've relegated sources and discussion of other Apollo anomalies to the footnotes.
Apollo 15 was the fourth mission to allegedly land men on the Moon, historically dated July 30, 1971, nearly fifty years ago. What would it take to prove to you that it never happened? If the Apollo 15 photography was proven fraudulent, what are the odds NASA faked the photography but went anyway? If Apollo 15 was a fraud, what does that say about the odds the other Apollo missions were also frauds?
Let's begin with a startling revelation, originally discovered by Jack White [*9].
Upon my review of all the thousands of photos in the Apollo record, uploaded in 2015 to NASA's public Apollo Archive Flickr account (where NASA tells us to go for the highest-resolution photos) [*10], AS15-86-11670 and 11671 are the only photos to show a footprint with a curved tread. How would you explain its origin? Your Google-fu, in a panicked search for an answer, will reveal gaslighting, a pretense of confusion for the anomaly's relevance. [*11].
NASA currently has AS15-86-11671 on its public website as well, but cuts off the anomalous footprint unless you download the actual photo [*12]. Curious. There's plenty of space to show the full photo next to the caption. Why cover up part of the photo?
Alas, perhaps some Moon dust kicked over onto half of a lunar rover wheel tread print, and the gravitational properties of the airless vacuum of the Moon caused the tread to curve for just this one print in two photos as opposed to what we see in the angular wheel tread prints in other photos [*13]. Possible? Only to the extent we may believe anything is possible. But improbable.
Let's examine another startling Apollo 15 revelation, also originally discovered by Jack White (with some additional context I've added). This is supposedly Mount Hadley, which NASA informs us is nearly a mile (0.902) high or 4,765 feet [*14], despite that jarring continuous line of separation between the foreground and mountain (perhaps it's the lip of an edge cutting off more unseen terrain).
Let's look at Mount Hadley using the photos from the Apollo Archive record.
Note how the mountain is lit in the bottom sequence but not the top. What's so odd about this? We can observe the Moon's 29.5-day cycle as it rotates around the Earth via its phases. We always see the same side of the Moon, because its orbit is tidally locked with one side always facing Earth. Thus, a day on the Moon is about two weeks in Earth time. Even with the Sun low on the lunar horizon, which infers faster changes in shadows, we must expand the timeframe for shadows to change from roughly twelve hours on Earth to the approximately 354 on the Moon. Thus, the time it takes shadows to move on the Moon is almost thirty times longer (29.5) compared to Earth. In the approximately 67 hours Apollo 15 spent on the lunar surface, would the Sun's relative position change that much between two film magazines (82 and 85)?
Shadow behavior is curious on the Moon [*15].
The Sun, being 90 million miles away, casts parallel shadows on objects. Closer light sources cast shadows proportional to the location and size of the light or lights. Let's pretend the Sun can cast one shadow at 12 o'clock and the other at 10 o'clock. Why, in one photo, would it cast at 10 o'clock and the other 2 o'clock [*13]? Also, note (1) how clearly focused and composed the photos are while also (2) how blurry just the edges of the astronaut shadows are (negating a "focusing issue" argument). Take a light and place it close to an object to produce this blurring effect on shadows. Contrary, a far-away light source, like the Sun being 90 million miles away, casts sharp well-defined shadows.
Alas, the authorities who assure us the Apollo missions were genuine events must be correct. Surely, someone who participated in the fraud (ignoring compartmentalization; like those who worked on the atomic bomb, Manhattan Project, most don't know the big picture) would have blown the whistle by now, right? The Russians would've told us if the missions were fake, right [*16]?
As an aside, I'd enjoy reading an authority (or, perhaps, the Russians) answer my captioned questions below.
A little design consistency/continuity would render us a little more amenable to the authorities insisting on the scientific glory of the Apollo missions. Why Apollo 15 featured a taped-up backside (aft) of its lunar module, while Apollo 16 didn't, is a question I'll likely never get a good answer for. Does adhesive tape work that well in a vacuum? It must, because the Apollo missions proved it in the photographic record!
Let's continue down this rabbit hole with another curiosity from Apollo 15, yet again found by Jack White (with further analysis I've provided).
We're looking at the Apollo 15 lunar module that allegedly landed on the Moon. Note the continuing line of separation between the foreground and background. More of the supposed mountain range is shown in the left photo, AS15-82-11081 compared to the right photo, AS15-82-11057. Thus, the left photo was taken further back. Maybe the lunar module is far enough away, where it has disappeared in the background [*17]. Further investigation is warranted.
First, let's get a sense of location and direction for these photos. The Lunar Planetary Institute documents Apollo 15's landing site [*18]. Note the southern and eastern views.
Compare the above to the American Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) image of the Apollo 15 landing site [*19].
A 360-degree panorama would also be helpful, but NASA is a bit shy with this information. Below, is the most recent iteration of a panorama they give us [*20].
The caption placed by NASA for the above panorama is particularly amusing: "This digitally stitched [sic] panorama shows [Dave] Scott examining a boulder on the slope of 3.5 kilometer high [sic] Mons Hadley Delta to the left of their electric-powered, four-wheel drive vehicle." Does that mountain look 3.5 kilometers high to you? Sure. Let's go with it. As Neil Armstrong of Apollo 11 revealed in his 1970 BBC interview, "The optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar. … We had difficulty guessing how far the hills on the horizon might be [21]." Rather than rely on NASA's panoramas, we can stitch together our own by using individual photos from their record.
Let's examine some photos from Apollo 15's magazine 82 and 92, showing a panorama of what should be gradually angling 90 degrees from east (left) to south (right). Note the continuous line of separation between the background and the foreground before the mountains.
How do we know these photos must be gradually angling between the three? Match the topographic features of the mountains in the two left photos above with the left photo directly below this paragraph. Likewise, match the topographic features of the mountains in the two right photos with the right photo directly below this paragraph. The left photo purports an eastern view. The right one purports a southern view. To make sense, the Apollo photo sequences of three would need to be angling east to south about 90 degrees between the shots.
Let's examine another sequence of photos from Apollo 15, AS15-87-11815 through 11817. Pay special attention to the darker patch of soil. Note how the foreground is not angled. The photos were taken steps aside, not by gradually turning the field-of-view 90 degrees.
Let's compare the above to a sequence of outdoor photos I've taken. Note, below, how the snow patch gradually angles about 90 degrees as I turn the camera between each shot. Compare the above photo sequence to the below one. Note how the snow patch in my photos shifts from a top-down to a left-right perspective as the camera gradually angles its field-of-view between shots. Why doesn't the darkened patch of soil in the Apollo photos similarly shift perspective from top-down to left-right?
Also, note how the mountain range in the Apollo photos shifts between each shot despite the camera not gradually angling 90 degrees. Let's compare the Apollo mountain range shifting to a far-away building in a parking lot when photos are taken steps aside and not by gradually angling the field-of-view [*22].
Now, let's compare the Apollo 15 photos, sequence AS15-82-11057 through 11059 to the sequence
with the darkened soil patch, AS15-87-11815 to 11817. Note the orientations of the lunar lander in the top versus bottom photo sequence. In the top sequence, we see the entrance or "front" of the lander. In the bottom one, we see the side of the lander with the back or "aft" facing left in the photo.
Are the two left photos facing south or east? We see the mountain range slowly transition from what the Lunar Planetary Institute alleges are eastern and southern perspectives. But the darkened patch of soil remaining consistent in orientation proves the camera angle has not changed direction.
If the photos in both sequences were taken by angling the field-of-view by 90 degrees, then the positions of the lunar module shown above could both be correct. The back (aft) of the lunar module is facing east in both photos.
But, if the photos are instead taken steps aside, then the two positions shown of the lunar module are mutually exclusive. First, the Lunar Planetary Institute's claim of south and east views would be incorrect. Second, if we presume the camera field-of-view is merely shifting as we move away, the lunar lander's differing orientations would be mutually exclusive. We see its side facing left in the left photo and its back (aft) facing left in the right photo.
Because the record states the lunar module never rotated or took off and relanded, we can't credibly believe the sequence of photos in question could have been taken steps aside as opposed to by being angled 90 degrees. But because the bottom sequence shown was taken steps aside and we know the lunar module never rotated, we can't accept the sequence as genuine.
Simply stated, the photography in Apollo 15 is taken from mutually exclusive positions. Thus, we can't accept the photography as a genuine representation of men photographing the Moon. If this batch of photos on the fourth Apollo mission to "land" on the Moon are proven fraudulent, what does that say about the photography in the other Apollo missions? And if all the photography was faked, what are the odds NASA "faked the photography but went anyway?"
I understand the instinct to simply accept the Apollo record as perfect knowledge like you might accept the existence of a country you've never been to or met anyone from. What are the odds all those articles you find on Google, history text books, the media and scientific community, etc. proclaiming the existence of that country are wrong? Yet, we can confirm the existence of a country by speaking with the millions of people who live there. Apollo's existence can only be verified by a few remaining astronauts. As I've shown, the photographic record, which is the most visually detailed of the records derived from Apollo, is fraudulent. That leaves second-hand videos published by Spacecraft Films [*23] (recall, the original telemetry data tapes were destroyed), which have been thoroughly questioned by many others [*24].
How much of our knowledge is derived from a compounding effect of everyone's snowballing belief in the word of those in authority, as authorities build on information from other authorities, versus from our own investigations? All it takes is one authority at the top to fib for a lie to function, as decreasingly lesser authorities all rely on the original authority. Confidence in the event is a result of a snowballing of belief from a false foundation.
But to function in an organized society, we can't independently verify most knowledge of the material world with our own investigations. We don't have the time. We must rely on authorities that are skeptical of each other (and not build on false foundations) to function in any social or political system. We can't all be experts in everything. We build on each other's foundations. How do we know the foundations we're building upon are correct?
If authorities are lying about this, what else are they lying about?
UPDATE: I added another comparison photo-analysis meme, using an angling street, to illustrate my point.
-------
FOOTNOTES
[*1] One cannot see the human artifacts allegedly left by Apollo with an Earth-based telescope. Multiple sources tell us this. https://www.space.com/20739-apollo-moon-landing-sites-telescope.html Some may bring up the American Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) satellite having taken images of what are purportedly the Apollo landing sites. Such evidence, like the Apollo photographs, is still second-hand, and we rely on the testimony of the photographer or technician taking images to authenticate it before believing. The Apollo surface photography, if real, is certainly better evidence. If the Apollo photographs were fake, the probability that the white pixels you are looking at in the later-taken digital image below are farcical photoshop-style alterations skyrockets.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html
UPDATE: The LRO image is a photoshop file. That doesn't mean the image was "photoshopped" per se, as some justified manipulation was done to place arrows and text to identify alleged artifacts we're looking at in the image (e.g., LRV, "lunar rover vehicle") But it is curious:
[*2] For context, here's NASA's explanation for the Apollo 15 retroreflector, https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100413-apollo15-LRRR.html
What's the difference between bouncing a laser off something like this (Apollo 11, AS11-40-5952) and bouncing off the bare surface of the Moon you might ask?
According to a paper by Andreas Marki, nothing. https://www.aulis.com/PDF/lunar_ranging2.pdf
And Apollo 11's "retroreflector" wasn't even angled appropriately according to David Percy in his excellent book with Mary Bennet, Dark Moon (kindle location 8999 of 14853), a flat placement, not a 28-degree titled one, would bounce back to the Earth.
[*3] This could have been a mistake by the American government when it gifted a Moon rock to the Dutch for display in their museum, accidentally giving them the wrong rock. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32581790/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moon-rock-museum-just-petrified-wood/ But how would you know the difference between a Moon rock versus an Earth rock? Apparently, there are ways. Regardless, some Moon rocks have fallen to Earth as meteorites. How do we know we're not looking at one them as opposed to a genuine rock brought back by an Apollo mission?
[*4] An Earth rock that fell to the Moon, brought back by Apollo. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/01/earths-oldest-rock-found-on-moon-get-facts-apollo-14-zircons/ Or, the Apollo rocks could simply be fake. The explanations to justify the anomalies grow increasingly absurd.
[*5] I'll translate the legalese below for you. Nobody is allowed to send a craft to the Moon that can fly over or near the Apollo landing sites without explicit permission from the United States government (international agreements to enforce this policy are strongly emphasized and encouraged under the law). Why would a law be needed to prevent someone from going near the old Apollo equipment? Considering nobody has landed men on the Moon since 1972 (nearly 50 years ago), is the concern that some punks may go to vandalize it... or is this more likely a means to prevent third parties from verifying the landings?
Here is the policy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Protecting-and-Preserving-Apollo-Program-Lunar-Landing-Sites-and-Artifacts-2.pdf
Here is the law: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1694/text
[*6]. First they were reported missing. Then they were reported as taped over (destroyed). Apollo 11's tapes are the ones in question here. But no telemetry data on any Apollo mission can be examined to verify the landings (e.g., the positioning and speed of each Apollo craft as originally recorded in real-time on the data tapes as the missions occurred). NASA's official report on the matter: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
[*7] Dave McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I (October 1, 2009) http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
[*8] For more Apollo photo studies, see my collection of analyses riffing off the works of Jack White, David Percy, Marcus Allen, Bart Sibrel, and Leonid Konovalov. More detailed analysis is available at Aulis.com.
I'll leave Bart Sibrel's famous smoking gun here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4 (original footage is posted on Seb Menard's channel). A collage of smoking gun evidence from the footage used in his film:
For more excellent video analyses, also see American Moon, Moon Hoax Now, and What Happened on the Moon.
[*9] Jack White's photo studies are published on the Aulis site here (page 6 containing most of his Apollo 15 findings): https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies.htm
[*10] https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums Some of the photos found here have origins in Adobe photoshop (see footnote 16 for example). Others do not. Nonetheless, if you want the highest resolution Apollo photos, this is the site NASA directs you to.
[*11] We can always pretend there's nothing to see here, like this forum commenter trying to gaslight us: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5911-jack-whites-aulis-apollo-hoax-investigation-a-rebuttal/page/7/ This Mr. McGoo-like burying of the lead, is particularly amusing:
https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/15431.pdf No official explanation of the curved-tread footprint by NASA presently exists.
[*12] https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-86-11671.html
[*13] Curiously, the tread patterns of the lunar rover in other Apollo photos don't match.
[*14] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/images/apollo_image_17.html
[*15] Examples of anomalous lighting from other Apollo adventures:
[*16] Russian cinematographer, Leonid Konovalov has published some excellent work on Aulis disputing the photographic and video records: https://www.aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm Perhaps the Russians would've of told us if Apollo was fake. And, since they didn't, Apollo was real, but, also, to the extent the Russians told us America didn't go to the Moon, they are lying to us out of sheer jealousy. Thus, I replicated Konovalov's findings with my own analysis of Apollo 17, AS17-134-20384. As an American myself, I concur with his opinion with my own investigation below:
[*17] However, we can spot the lunar module from some impressively far distances in Apollo 17. Other curiosities are revealed in the process:
[*18] https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/landing_site/
[*19] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html
[*20] http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160805.html
UPDATE: I checked the record and identified two photos, AS15-85-11437 and 11438, representing the right side of this section of the panorama I've cropped, revealing another curiosity:
[*21] The BBC interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtdcdxvNI1o An analysis by an FBI interrogation trainer, Peter Hyatt, revealing likely deception by Neil Armstrong: https://www.richplanet.net/astronauts.php
[*22] UPDATE: I've confirmed the same issue with the mountain ranges of Apollo 17. Note the top images the Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) allege as views of south and west from the "lunar lander." Compare to the three photos at the bottom. Note how the foreground's orientation of the rock and hill prove the camera has not angled 90 degrees, as would be required for us to believe the LPI's alleged views are "south" and "west."
[*23] It is incredibly difficult to purchase these DVDs, alleged as the unaltered original video footage of the Apollo missions. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26288.0
[*24] See footnote 8.
You can even see numbers on the "Mount Hadley"
ReplyDeleteThe photo numbers were often written on the sides of the photos, and you can see them in many of the scans. The scans I use come from NASA's public Flickr account, which is purported as the place to get the highest-resolution scans of the photos. Are you seeing numbers on the actual mountain background itself etched in the background? If so, can you identify more specifically where you see them?
Deletehttps://ligaspace.my1.ru/news/2008-07-21-84
DeleteGo to figure 10