The recent release of Apollo landing sites snaps, captured by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), was a serious kick in the 'nads for the black helicopter brigade and their tiresome insistence that the good old US of A faked the Moon landings. American astronauts did indeed walk on the lunar surface, and that would seem …
This is fake as well
1) No member of the trilateral commission is there
2) Al Gore created moon landings
3) No evidence of Jackie Gleason, who was there first as seen in the documentary The Honeymooners.
[All seriousness aside, well done]
Wait a sec... you had me sold on items 1 and 3, however, I have it on good authority Al Gore invented the moon, as well as the Saturn V, as well as most of the analog circuitry used in the LEM and Command Module.
Lest we forget, Al Gore is to inventiveness as Chuck Norris is to. um.. being Chuck Norris.
Lester: You are now my hero!
What is fake?
You got one wrong:
2) Al Gore faked the moon landings.
> 2) Al Gore faked the moon landings.
Minor correction: That would be Tipper Gore.
Am i missing something?
Surely nasa faked the photos in the first place, you'll never silence the conspiracy theories!
(merely provide proof that mutates them...)
Ah, but don't forget...
... there's the new documentary Apollo 18 which has just been released which blows all the old conspiracy theories away and substitutes entirely new ones!
Of course they had to pretend it was all just a movie to get it past the censors, but now we know the truth!!!!!
(Oh and tell the gentlemen in the white coats that mine's the one with the long canvas sleeves and the tinfoil hat in the pocket...)
Forensic analyses of your 'undated photograph' shows it's hidden timestamp set to the exact time my system clock was on when I downloaded it. Coincidence? I doubt it! Clearly, this is not a still photograph but an embedded live feed from the lunar surface.
I'll quickly write a GUI interface in Visualbasic for a bi-directional transceiver and upload it to the Internet. Then you can open a two-way comms channel and interview the king before he leaves the building again.
Me luvs moon pictures.
Good one Lester.
From the flawless outline of that B-52...
..I'd say it was Star-Trek Transported there.
I'd recommend some the the World Weekly News photoshoppers. They're probably looking for work.
What no skid marks?
Even that faked lunar lander at least had blast marks when the supposedly top separated carrying away the astronauts ...
Oh wait, that one was real. :-P
Anti-grav vertical landing capability, evidently.
Anti-grav wasn't working back then...
They only had some 'controlled inertia' systems, and they didn't work as well for the larger planes; losing engines or wings as the part in question still had full inertia while the fuselage didn't and the pilot took a slightly too sharp turn...
Worked well in the Spitfire, though.
A fully-functioning anti-grav system for larger planes wasn't put into production until the advent of the B2 Stealth bomber.
So many mysteries cracked in one short article. More beer for you.
It's right here on the Reg. therefore it MUST be true!
If I'd been driving on the moon, I'd have been writing my name !
Oh Reg please, for God's sake you do realise that some people will........
........take this seriously?
If a lot of people take this seriously, then all of us, Lester included, will have more people to make fun of.
Beer icon, because is friday night and I really need one
It's not April, so....
IT MUST BE TROOOOOO!
Slow news day?
Oh right, it's Friday
Comment is mandatory and must contain.................................
Brilliant. SImply brilliant!
Have one on me!
New keyboard please
Damn it I think you owe me a whole new laptop.
We all knew these "new photos" from NASA were a fake. Photoshop is cheaper (but only slightly) than even low cost moon shots.
I saw Elvis.
I saw John.
But no Jimi or Janis?
It's Friday and we have Playmobile! What more can a commentard ask for! (well, ok, maybe some more BOFH, please)
And this is why I love the Reg...
That photo reminds me of the classic Sunday Sport article of a few years back. When they first printed the picture (of a Lancaster iirc), it bore the headline "WWII Bomber found on moon." A week or so later, they published the same picture without the aircraft under the even better headline "WWII Bomber on moon disappears."
I have no doubt at all that astronauts walked on the moon
As a photographer myself, what is more dubious is the astonishing clarity of the photographic evidence - perfectly framed shots, all in focus - and all taken from chest mounted, manually focussed cameras, by blokes in space suits who couldn't see the viewfinder, in extreme conditions of heat and cold and dust. And with astonishing depth of focus - foreground, background all crisply in focus.
Let's get real here - a lot of these images are not genuine. Try it yourself - go outside with a DSLR, hold and fire it at chest level, manually focus and see how many perfectly composed 'keepers' you get.
Setting aside the various debates about shadows and lighting etc, there is very clear evidence of a lot (not all, but a lot) of these pictures having been taken in some kind of giant studio, with a 'set' and the backdrop of the mountains projected. There's frequently a clear line showing where the set ends and the backdrop starts. Look at any of the 'good' moon photos with the astronauts featured and see it for yourself....
oh. my. god.
pop quiz. how many photogr0hs were released for publicity puposes? how many were actually taken? IF you are a real photographer and not just an idiot with a camera you will know that they will have taken hundreds and used perhaps a dozen that turned out well enough. the "perfection" issue is only an issue to those ignorant about photography. I'm not even going to dignify the rest with a response.
Re: I have no doubt at all that astronauts walked on the moon
Had you considered the possibility that not every photograph was published? Just a thought.
Also, didn't Mr Crabbe also double as Flash Gordon?
@I have no doubt at all that astronauts walked on the moon
Honestly, you must be piss-poor with a camera!
Firstly they had adapted Hasselbald medium format cameras, and they were capable of astonishing quality.
Secondly I remember as a 12 year old getting a Christmas present of a FED-IV camera (a Russian copy of the Leica) and with low ASA B&W film developed at home I got amazing resolution out of a all-manual range-finder camera. Really, it was not until I got a D300s over 3 decades later that I felt a digital camera was worthy of replacing my moist process photos (and a lot of that reason is due to convenience).
"chest mounted, manually focussed cameras"
Less chest mounted, more held there being the typical Hasselblad medium frame type. Oddly enough, chosen as it's damned sight *easier* to compose with when in a spacesuit than yer more typical viewfinder.
Strong sunlight (much stronger than anyhing you'll see down here) = high shutter speeds *and* large depth-of-field (enough to make manual focussing pretty much a non-issue) at the same time, especially when combined the larger lens and film frame size of the camera format which already capture more light than yer "bog" 35mm SLR. Thus it's waay more forgiving in use.
The things were built specifically for the extreme environment on a money no object basis, so it's not surprising they worked in same.
Of course, if you really were a photographer you'd know most of that. Were you faked by NASA?
An example of photographic ignorance on parade...
...since you claim to be simultaneously surprised by (a) things being in focus and (b) large depth of field. If you set up the camera for (b) then does (a) not happen pretty much automatically?
For example, I took a film photo of a seagull flying at me in perfect focus less than 10 feet away, with DOF to infinity, 1/1000 sec exposure. How on Earth did I set that up as the seagull flew straight at me? I didn't; I set it up before and hey presto! the seagull flew past and an amazing photo resulted.
You might also want to consider that the lack of atmosphere will only help the sharpness and focus.
I've said it before
But obviously someone who has just piloted a spacecraft across 300000 km of space and put it down safely at the designated landing site wouldn't have the technical ability to take an in-focus and properly-framed photograph.
Re: I have no doubt at all that astronauts walked on the moon
Well gaging by the replies to your post it looks like back to photography school for you as seem to know a lot less on how your camera functions than you claim.
Which about sums up all conspiracy theorists..a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...
The fact we went to the moon is Indisputable, for on reason only. It was tracked all the way there and back by the Americans, British, Aussies, Russians and in fact anybody with a decent knowledge and access to relevant radio equipment.
Unless you are suggesting we were all in on it as well...
Focus is improved due to lack of atmosphere? Are you sure?
Lester, you're a genius.
No BofH? No problem!
"Yet another BOfH-less Friday morning?" I asked to myself today while taking the second coffee cup of the day... the soul crushing thought was almost unbearable.
But then, a title in my RSS feed drew my attention, like a hobo to cheap beer...
And just like that, 1800 x 635 pixels of pure win changed my mood, and kept me (relatively) sane till pub o'clock.
All of those images are obviously Photoshopped.
No way those were Photoshopped. The last moon landing was in 1972. Photoshop didn't come out for another 18 years! Man, do your research before making wild accusations.
No one uses 'shops' anymore!
...during a rendezvous in an underground car park in Basingstoke
Let me guess, that's just wrong on so many levels.
i always knew there was more than they were telling us
N'ah has to be fake
For one the shadows don't match ;)
And secondly, no sign that Wallace and Gromit got there first.
Did you miss the reference to Pizza?
What's with this crap new system? Post is in the title. FFS
You're new here aren't you stranger?
How did he get in here?
You are obviously new here so first of all let me welcome you to the Reg, and secondly bring you up to speed.
Friday is bootnotes day. Friday Bootnotes are not necessarily technical. They may involve BOFH, LOHAN, Playmobil or (oh be still my beating heart) all three.
This is expected. If it doesn't happen then dozens, nay hundreds of beer starved/stuffed commentards will descend on elReg and demand what is theirs by rights.
You forgot Verity. How could you?
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? I need a password to BRAKE? What? No! STOP! Aaaargh!
- Episode 13 BOFH: WHERE did this 'fax-enabled' printer UPGRADE come from?
- Vulture at the Wheel Ford's B-Max: Fiesta-based runaround that goes THUNK
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity