An Epistemological Study of Apollo 17: A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Proving Photo AS17-134-20384 Is Fraudulent

As a hobbyist Moon-landing denier, I write for different types of audiences open to the reality that Apollo was a comical fraud, Santa Clause for the boomer generation. For those who enjoy getting straight to the point, I have a series of photo analyses [*1]. For those who enjoy pondering the philosophical implications of the fraud, I have a lengthier analysis [*2]. And for those who want something in between, I have you covered too [*3].

The best type of knowledge is foundational. You know what you had for dinner last night, because you ate it. You know what your neighbor had for dinner last night, because that's what he told you. Absent faulty memory or broken senses, the former is known with certainty. The latter you believe as a symbol of your trust in your neighbor, but you don't know for sure.

Let's say your neighbor sends you a picture of himself on vacation, but you discover the image he sends is fake (perhaps he's standing by a convincing cardboard cutout of the Eiffel Tower). It's still possible your neighbor vacationed where he claimed. But it isn't likely. Why would he send you a fake photo? 

The image he sent you brings inductive foundational knowledge, as much as it is possible to prove a negative. That is: the photo proves that wherever your neighbor went for vacation, it almost certainly wasn't where he claimed.

Can we do the same with the Apollo Moon-landings? A piece by Leonid Konovolav conducting the same analysis I'm about to engage in is linked here [*4]. But, seeing as foundational knowledge is superior (even if Leonid's excellent piece is far more detailed and eloquently written), allow me to guide you, step-by-step, so you can know for yourself that a particular Apollo photo from the very last mission, Apollo 17, is a fake. Follow along with the links and instructions in a separate window, if you're bold enough for the ride.

First, let's take a trip to Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/GPN-2000-001137.



Let's examine the page a little closer.



Note that the photo was once on NASA's website, grin.hq.nasa.gov. The GRIN portion, which is now retired, stood for Great Images in NASA. The photo is labeled GPN-2000-001137, added to archive.org on December 8, 2009.

Download the photo from the archive. Visit https://29a.ch/photo-forensics. Upload the photo. Click "noise analysis," which will separate the shades of black for "space" in the background.



Let's take a closer look.



Why are there grainy areas around the pitch-black ones surrounding the astronaut in the exact same positions we would expect a scissors to be cutting around him? Note the sharp cut from left to right and then down to up, to ensure the antenna is cropped in with the picture. The "noise analysis" tool merely illuminates what you might be able to deduce from your own eyes if you examine the photo hard enough. This is evidence of composite photography, taking two photos and splicing them together to create one photo.

Maybe the photo was too difficult to take on the Moon in one shot, and some NASA department decided to splice two separate photos taken on the Moon together. But the extensively-detailed record in the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal makes no reference of this [*5]. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a NASA product, but hedges its bets on its welcome page by giving a gmail address you can send "factual errors" to in order to update the "living document":
The Journal is, in Neil Armstrong's words, a "living document" and is constantly being modified and updated. Please don't hesitate to let us know about errors. We want to get it right, but sometimes that can take a while. We would like to thank everyone for their help and patience. You may email the editors concerning typos, factual errors, or with general comments at: apollolunarsurfacejournal@gmail.com

One wonders, after fifty years, what we plebs could possibly add to "get it right."

Anyway, click "string extraction" and observe. This will be important for comparison later.



Now, let's visit NASA's current iteration of the photo. Visit: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20384HR.jpg. This can be found on NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for Apollo 17: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagB



We see the same NASA photo, this time by its official photo number: AS17-134-20384. This means Apollo 17, magazine 134, photo number 20384. Download the photo. Upload it to https://29a.ch/photo-forensics. Click "noise analysis."



What's this? The evidence of composite photography is gone. Click "string extraction."



Note the 2009 version archived from grin.hq.nasa.gov (GRIN now retired) did not show evidence of photoshop. The new version does.



Now, assuming this historic photo was too difficult to take in one shot and was a composite, why did NASA take down the old photo and replace it with a new version that was altered in photoshop?

Your neighbor sent you a fake photo to show you where he went on vacation. You discovered it was fake. He then photoshops the image and resends it to you. What do you think? Did he really go where he claims he went?

-----
FOOTNOTES
[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2019/10/on-musty-boomer-lunacy.html
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/06/an-epistemological-study-of-apollo-11.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/03/an-epistemological-study-of-apollo-15.html
[*4] https://www.aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm
See also: https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm
[*5] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagB


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Analysis of the Moon-Hoax Confession Made by Eugene Ruben Akers

What You Should Know Before Opposing U.S. Employer-Mandated COVID-19 Vaccination (Especially in Illinois)

An Epistemological Study of Apollo 11: Is There a Noble Lie?

Exposing Lyndon Johnson's Apollo Fraud and Big Tech's Censorship of Bart Sibrel's Book, Moon Man

When U.S. Republicans Will be Allowed to Win Again

An Epistemological Study of Apollo 15: What If We Never Went to the Moon?

COVID-Vaccine Deaths Represent 75.13% of All Vaccine Deaths Reported on CDC's VAERS System Since 1990 (As of June 3, 2022)

Adverse Effects from COVID-19 Vaccination Represent 62.12% of U.S. Vaccine-Related Deaths (and 67.03% of All) Reported to the CDC, 1990 - November 5, 2021

The Broken Thumb: Heuristics in the Fall of Civilization

When They Realized They Could Get Away with Anything...