California Woman Who Tried to Sell a Moon Rock Wins Round Against NASA

San Jose Mercury News ^ | April 14, 2017 | Liam Truchard

[Ultra Sonic 007]

There are Wikipedia articles that give a thorough treatment to the subject (articles that appear to be well-sourced):

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

3rd-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings

Regarding the 'C' on the rock, here's a brief treatment that is expanded on in my first link:

xxxx

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.

• The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.^[99][101]

Original AS16-107-17445 photograph 

Original AS16-107-17446 photograph 

Close-up of later generation prints of AS16-107-17446 

[rx]

The backdrops were apparently considered reusable, even though no Apollo mission visited any of the previously-visited Apollo sites.

was easier to do that that everything involved with actually successfully landing six times in a row without a major failure:

[rx]

...and that's why NASA felt the appropriateness to doctor the image, to remove the "coiled hair" without contemporaneously telling anyone about it? They clearly were inclined to do the fakery and executed the fakery, in bald contrast to what your youtube guy said was not possible.

Fail.

How many more times did they do things like this, yet haven't told us?

[StolarStorm]

I'm just going to laugh at all of this. JUST last night I attended an event with Apollo era mission control folks. I know these people and have since childhood. I know what they went through and overcame, directly. And fyi, EVERY mission was risky and had problems.

Hell, every Space Shuttle mission had problems (they just didn't get discussed in the media). and I know THAT part from direct personal experience as I followed in my father's footsteps for a while and was part of the program. YOU KNOW NOTHING.

[rx]

How convenient to say the "coiled hair" didn't occur on the original, to which no one else would have access!

The enlargement below shows it could not have been a coiled hair, as the thickness of the C-tracing seems to vary through the curves, where a hair would not.

The preponderance of evidences does not favor NASA at all!

[rx]

Boy, that really slayed me with your facts and showed everyone how you’re willing, apparently on the basis of personal acquaintances, to believe such an “argument” should overcome any logical counter-argument!

[Hot Tabasco]

I miss Michael Rivero!

[StolarStorm]

If someone insisted that the sky is green instead of blue, would you waste your time trying to find a way to explain it to them?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

So in your particular scenario, given how glaringly obvious the ‘C’-artifact is on certain production runs of that photo, you mean to argue that it was not caught before being released?

Because the whole idea of a Moon Landing hoax involves mitigating or removing anything that would indicate that it was a fake, yes?

Then, if the intent was to sell the hoax, why release something that is so glaringly obvious?

[Kickass Conservative]

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, Lois Lerner and Susan Rice walk free.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The "reused backgrounds" objection is also answered (at least as regards Apollo 15, but I imagine a similar argument holds for Apollo 17):

xxxx

There are issues with Apollo 15 photos having identical backgrounds.

AS15-82-11057: View of Apollo 15 Lunar Module from the nearby ALSEP site (Station 8) during the third EVA.^[27]

AS15-82-11082: Later photo with same hills in the background near Hadley Rille (Station 9) during the third EVA, approximately 1.4 km west of the Lunar Module.^[27]

• Detailed comparison of the backgrounds said to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites.

Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items.

Furthermore, as there is only an extremely tenuous atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10–20 kilometers away. Changes in such very distant backgrounds are quite subtle, and can be mistaken for no change at all.

As the Moon is also much smaller than the Earth, the horizon is significantly nearer in photographs than Earthbound observers are used to seeing (an eye 1.7 m above completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7 km away on Earth, but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to confusing interpretations of the images.^[28]

One specific case is debunked in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.^[29]

• While it is true that there is no haze to assist in judging distance, the maximum distance to the horizon is much closer than on Earth, due to the smaller size of the Moon. This limits the scope for the same objects to appear in different shots taken at different locations.

For a flat area of the Moon, the distance to horizon ≈ sqrt ( 2 * radius of Moon * height of observer )^[30]

The Moon's average radius is 1,080 miles, and assuming generously that the astronauts held the camera 5 feet, or 0.000947 miles above the surface (the cameras are shown in photographs as having no viewfinder, and the astronauts seem to hold them in the centre of their chest, so five feet is generous).

These figures give distance = sqrt (2 * 1080 * 0.000947) = 2 miles.

It seems that this would be far enough for terrain features to appear in shots taken from locations some distance apart, but perhaps not "miles apart." Without having specific information as to which shots and the terrain they are purported to contain, there is no definite answer.

[Imnidiot]

Whatever you do-—Don’t mention chem trails!!!!

[Fightin Whitey]

Your friend is very wise.

Don't tell anyone.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Regarding the issue with the equipment landing and the apparent lack of a 'crater':

xxxx

1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.^[124]

• No crater should be expected. The 10,000-pound thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing.^[125] The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).^[126] Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander's exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".^[127] A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.^[128]

2. The second stage of the launch rocket and/or the Lunar Module ascent stage made no visible flame.

• The Lunar Modules used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically – upon contact – without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.^[129] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan II rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen, enhancing the visible flame. This cannot happen in a vacuum.

• Play media

  Apollo 17 LM leaving the Moon; rocket exhaust visible only briefly

• Play media

  Apollo 8 launch through the first stage separation

• 

  Exhaust flame may not be visible outside the atmosphere, as in this photo. Rocket engines are the dark structures at the bottom center

• 

  The launch of a Titan II, burning hypergolic Aerozine-50/N₂O₄, 430,000 pounds-force (1.9 MN) of thrust. Note the near-transparency of the exhaust, even in air (water is being sprayed up from below)

• 

  Atlas uses non-hypergolic kerosene (RP-1) fuel which gives a bright and very visible exhaust, 340,000 lb_f (1.5 MN) of thrust

• 

  Bright flame from first stage of the Saturn V, burning RP-1

3. The Lunar Modules weighed 17 tons and made no mark on the Moondust, yet footprints can be seen beside them.^[130]

• On the surface of the Earth, Apollo 11's fueled and crewed Lunar Module, Eagle, would have weighed approximately 17 short tons (15,300 kg). On the surface of the Moon, however, after expending fuel and oxidizer on her descent from lunar orbit, the lander weighed about 2,698 pounds (1,224 kg).^[131] The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander's approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads.^[132] Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of regolith compression. In some photos, the footpads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under Apollo 11's footpads, with the lander being about 44 times the weight of an EVA-configured astronaut, would have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts' boots.)^[133]

[TheCipher]

A classic !!

[coloradan]

My concern is that if someone doesn’t understand that one can see more of the earth the farther away one is, that stars don’t show up in pictures that are correctly exposed for daylight levels, that perspective makes lines that are actually parallel (such as shadows cast by parallel sunlight) look like they converge (or, like they point in ‘different directions’) and that the objects in the shadow of one’s head are all “full” (in the sense of the full moon) and therefore brighter than other objects elsewhere in the photo which reveal partially shaded regions, and hence look darker, then the necessary physical insight about how physical reality actually behaves will be too lacking to have a useful and productive discussion about less obvious things.

[PA Engineer]

You have far more patience than I.

Sometimes people adopt a conclusion and work backwards to prove it. The proof is always supported by the avoidance of any dissenting facts. This is a psychological problem devoid of logic. Simply, you cannot argue logically a person out of a position that was not arrived at logically.

It was however worth reading your posts as a reminder of the greatness of the Apollo endeavor.

Thanks for your hard work.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

The North American size discrepancy is simply due to proximity:

A treatment on how the Blue Marble pictures were taken is provided here.

[Chode]

that's exactly what the Russians said... wait, no they didn't

[rx]

I didn't say what you're trying to put in my mouth. Neither are you addressing the concerns I mentioned. The coiled hair excuse does not withstand visual scrutiny of the existing evidence. Many things only become "obvious" once someone has pointed them out.

All can see that the billions NASA has had in its budget for decades can buy lots of PR-savvy and well-crafted turn of phrase. It also has bought a lot more, including a James Hansen, who is superbly-well versed in fakery and one of the leading proponents of the hoax of Global Warming.

Why do criminals invariably trip themselves up? By your logic, we would never see their slip-ups, because they would have been trying,...oops, "mitigating or removing" anything that would tip off the detective.