12 of 23 people found the following review helpful
Don't waste your money on this Establishment tosh,
This review is from: The Moon Landing Hoax: The Eagle That Never Landed (Paperback)
This book is not a serious attempt to discuss the anomalies in the Apollo hoax but rather it is an attempted hatchet job whose sole intent is to raise straw-man arguments and then shoot them down. It is not scholarly or well researched but instead resorts to the same tired old polemics and circular logic that all pro-Establishment hatchet jobs employ, and it doesn't do a very good job of debunking anything apart from itself. There is a very very simple way to see for yourself if the Apollo record can be believed. Use your own judgement in this easy 2-part test.
Go to the Apollo Image Atlas at [...], select 70mm Hasselblad, Apollo 11, Magazine S, image number AS11-40-5930. At the bottom of the page click on the link to see the Hi Resolution Image(s), then save the image to your PC. Open the image in Windows in Paint Shop Pro or PhotoShop or similar, or open it in Linux with Gimp. Create a negative of the image, then zoom in to the rocks in the right and the left of the image. You will see indisputably, especially clearly in negative as the shadow shows up as stark white, that in the left of the image the shadows are on the right side of the rocks, and on the right side of the image the shadows are indisputably on the left of the rocks. In the foreground they go from south to north. Additionally, there is a very obvious "hot spot" around the astronaut shadow's head, which again can be more clearly seen in negative. This is indicative of multiple light sources, as in a studio set; if the sun is the only source of light then ALL shadows should run parallel and there should be NO hotspots.
Another major flaw with the imagery is to be found in the very first magazine from Apollo 11. As you scroll down the images showing the earth getting ever further away look closely at the images numbered from AS11-36-5382 to AS11-36-5399. These all show bright blue light coming through the windows. This is surely not possible if the craft is in deep space halfway to the moon.
If you cannot answer why these effects are possible given what we are told you need to seriously re-examine everything you think you know about the subject. But this book is not a good place to start: don't waste your money. Try instead Dark Moon: Apollo & The Whistle-Blowers by Bennett & Percy, or One Small Step? : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space by Gerhard Wisnewski.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 17 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 18 Jan 2011 01:23:11 GMT
Amazon Customer says:
I agree with you based on that somebody else is on the moon. However, I obtained the book called Penetration by Ingo Swann. This book is very well written at academy level. I concluded that the artificial moon propaganda e.g. Space 1999 and Star Wars Death Star under the science fiction category to ensure the moon could be not naturally constructed is crazy idea.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jun 2011 16:09:18 BDT
How did we find out someone else is on the moon? We haven't been there - the radiation dosimetry data proves that beyond all doubt (Apollo missions average around the same as Space Shuttle missions and far lower than Skylab missions - none of which left Low Earth Orbit). We still don't have telescopes with resolution high enough to be able to see small objects on the moon. So unless we actually went there (which we didn't) we cannot know unless the "visitors" left signs that everyone on earth could see. To the best of my knowledge they haven't done that.
Posted on 28 Mar 2013 14:55:01 GMT
Checked out the image you refer to (AS11-40-5930)... the shadows appear to be from different sides of the rocks because the sun is directly behind the viewer/cameraman and low on the horizon causing long shadows to be projected out on to the lunar surface- what you are seeing are long parallel shadows converging on a vanishing point not shadows cast from different light sources. The uneven surface means the vanishing point is not an exact point shared by all the shadows but a vanishing area.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2013 16:16:13 GMT
Take a photo of some trees with the sun behind your head, and see for yourself the result. Regardless of which angle you take your photo at, all the shadows are as perfectly parallel as it's possible to measure. I've tried this on many occasions, every time the result is the same. That's because the sun is approximately 93 million miles away, not just behind the subject's head. There is no "vanishing area" for naked sunlight. Sorry, your explanation holds no water.
See for instance Jack White's work on the Apollo photography; his computer-enhancements show clearly that the "original" photos have been liberally tampered with.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2013 16:39:13 GMT
Quote my original post; 'what you are seeing are long parallel shadows converging on a vanishing point'. I also said 'directly behind' not 'just behind'. I was referring to the 'angle' that the sunlight is coming from not the position of the sun itself. The shadows will of course be parallel but will converge on a vanishing point due to perspective. The trees in your example will also converge on a vanishing point due to perspective. Ironically if you had a light placed 'just' behind you the shadows would radiate outwards and counter the effects of perspective (To a lesser or greater degree depending on the position of the light).
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2013 03:12:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Mar 2013 04:34:15 GMT
Please, where exactly is the "vanishing point" of sunlight?
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 11:00:07 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Apr 2013 11:00:48 BDT
Just for you:)
Perspective and Other Optical Illusions
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2013 15:42:05 BDT
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of this. I work with optics. But we are not talking about an "optical illusion" - we're talking about an optical effect.
Compare the first picture on the blog website to AS11-40-5930. It is impossible that shadows caused by sunlight would converge towards the centre of an image in such a limited field of view (maybe 50m to the lander's leg). At the top of the lighter portion of the image the fainter shadows are pointing almost directly in towards the centre of the image. That's some mighty weird sunlight, when it is apparently affected by the viewer's perspective whilst being outside the perspective field of the viewer.
Sorry, but your blog debunks your own point.
Do you have an explanation for the "hot spot"? I've heard some corkers, from wet grass (!!!) to reactive particles in the surface of the moon. Everything apart from what it very clearly is: a powerful artificial light source directed at the subject's head.
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Apr 2013 09:57:42 BDT
You work with optics ...oh well, I guess you must be right then.
Here is someone infinitely more qualified than me talking about it