Objection!
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Technical Writing · Non-fiction Creative Essays · Grammar and Usage of Standard English · The Structure of English · Analysis of Shakespeare · Analysis of Literary Language
Advanced Professional Papers · The History of the English Language · First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop · Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing
Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) · Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) · Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology)
UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" · UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" · Introduction to Journalism · Feature Writing · Science Writing Papers
Exposition & Argumentation 1 · Exposition & Argumentation 3
Objection!
Introduction
 |
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project... will be more exciting, or more impressive to mankind, or more important... and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish..."
President John F. Kennedy, May 1961
Source: http://www.nasm.edu/galleries/attm/nojs/md.html
These words, spoken shortly after Kennedy was sworn in as President, created a powerful and binding commitment with America. Not only did he place restrictions on this achievement by creating a target date, but he also mentioned the reality of the complexity and costly implications this mission would entail. The current rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union called for a swift course of action on our part. Prior to the Apollo mission, the Soviets had already achieved several milestones in the space race. This suggested that Soviet technology was superior to the United States' technology. At the height of the Cold War, America was under extreme pressure to prove its military strength through the means of technological capabilities; this pressure led to the Apollo missions, with hopes that Americans would be the first to explore the Moon.
The timing and the speed of the launched mission have caused skeptics to wonder whether or not we actually did land on the Moon. Such a cover-up would be enormous in size but easy to carry out. Nevertheless, conspiracy theorists have pointed out several valid arguments based on the Apollo photographs taken on the moon in an effort to debunk the Apollo landings. What these images indicate is a number of discrepancies with the laws of physics, as experts understand them. The light shadow directions and lengths all seem to contradict commonly understood ideals about the physical nature of a shadow's existence. In addition, identical backgrounds in photos supposedly taken at different spots of the Moon challenge common sense. These photos all provide a crisp and stunning appearance of the Moon and the astronauts, which is surprising considering the cameras used and the fact that the live feed from the Moon was almost indiscernible and grainy. As a result, the impression is that these Apollo pictures were not the actual space photographs, but rather snapshots enhanced within a photo lab or re-created within the confines of a studio setting, say an airplane hanger, in order to improve the image of America's accomplishments.
To the Moon for National Security
When we look back at events leading up to the U.S. lunar landing of 1969, one can appreciate how success in the Apollo missions was critical for national security.
After World War II there were many events that led to ever increasing tension and competition with the U.S.S.R. First there was the blockade of Berlin, Germany in 1948, preventing access in and out of Berlin by the French, British and Americans. The U.S.S.R. claimed the eastern half of the city as their spoils of war with Germany. In 1961, the Soviet government erected the Berlin Wall, sealing off half the city from the Western European nations. Russia also created an eastern block occupying Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania in order to further isolate or impede occupation by the west.
 |
In 1949, it was discovered that Russia developed their first hydrogen bomb test, which was a shock to the western world. At the time it was believed that the Russians were no where near having such capability. Russia performed their first above ground test on August 12, 1953. The successful launching of Sputnik I on October 4, 1957, added tension to the situation in which the U.S. government foresaw the next technological step being intercontinental deployment of nuclear weapons aimed at the United States. Again it was believed that the Russians were not technologically advanced enough to launch a payload into space.
It was not until many years later after the downfall of the Soviets that we learned that the Russian space program had many failures before successes. In addition, the Soviets were willing to take tremendous risks with no regard for life, human or animal, in the name of being one step ahead of the U.S. space program. Unaware of this tactic, the American government was under the impression that the Soviets were far more advanced in space technology and so began the space race between the U.S. and Russia.
 |
On October 24, 1962, then President John F. Kennedy was faced with a standoff with the Soviets which has come to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, when it was discovered that the Russians had ships on its way to Cuba to supply Fidel Castro with missiles capable of reaching the mainland United States. This action was in retaliation of the failed attempt by President Kennedy to attempt the ousting of Fidel Castro from power in Cuba in what is known as the Bay of Pigs on April 16, 1961. It was John F. Kennedy that made the commitment to the American public in a speech on May 25, 1961 that the United States would put a man on the moon before the end of the decade or in other words, before 1970.
With the treat of nuclear attack so prevalent, the Apollo missions to the moon were a costly but necessary step to take in order to insure the long-term prosperity of America.
To the Moon for National Pride
 |
The 1960's were a very difficult time for Americans. As mentioned on the previous page, the Cold War and Nuclear Arms Race were in full swing between Russia and the U.S. This created a severe sense of paranoia and fear among many Americans.
Other events creating upheaval in the United States were a series of assassinations of political and civil rights leaders. First being John F. Kennedy in November 22, 1963, Malcolm X in February 21,1965, Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy on June 4, 1968 all added further tension in the American political system.
At this time the Vietnam War was in full swing. During Johnson's Presidency, the Viet Nam conflict began to escalate with the event of the Tonkin Gulf incident. On August 4, 1964, the North Vietnamese who were receiving armaments and technical assistance from the Soviet Union and other Communist countries torpedoed ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The North Vietnamese were alleged to have attacked, without provocation, U.S. destroyers that were reporting intelligence information to the South Vietnamese. President Lyndon B. Johnson and his advisers decided upon immediate retaliation through the use of air attacks on North Vietnam; he also asked Congress for a mandate for future military action. On August 7, 1965, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution drafted by the administration authorizing all necessary measures to repel attacks against U.S. forces and all steps necessary for the defense of U.S. allies in Southeast Asia. The resolution gave President Johnson the authority to take any action necessary to protect existing American troops in Vietnam. President Johnson was convinced that South Vietnam was about to succumb to Communist forces, so he ordered the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965. Within thee years, President Johnson had increased American forces in South Vietnam from 20,000 to over 500,000 troops.
 |
"Then in late January 1968, on the first day of Tet, the lunar new year holiday previously observed with a truce, Viet Cong units attacked five of South Vietnam's six cites, most of its provincial and district capitals, and fifty hamlets. In Saigon they assaulted the airport, the presidential palace, and the ARVN, Army of the Republic of Vietnam Headquarters, and broke into the U. S. embassy compound. The U.S. and ARVN forces, though caught off guard, responded quickly and within a week had regained most of the ground the attackers had won. Only in Hue did the Viet Cong hold on; by the time that city was retaken on February 24, thousands had died. 100,000 Vietnamese had lost their homes and there was little left of the ancient capital but rubble" (Foner and Garraty, 1991).
"American spokespersons initially described the Tet offensive as a failure for the Viet Cong, pointing to their rapid retreat and terrible casualties (estimated as high as forty thousand). But when General William C. Westmoreland reported that completing the Viet Cong's defeat would require 200,000 more American soldiers (necessitating a call-up of the reserves, a step President Lyndon B. Johnson had long avoided), even steadfast supporters of the war began to feel that changes, at least in strategy, were essential. To a growing segment of the American public, as well as a number of senior policymakers, Tet demonstrated the unimpaired resilience of the Viet Cong and the fragility of South Vietnam's control over its own territory" (Foner and Garraty, 1991).
This action eventually aroused widespread opposition in Congress and among the public. A vigorous antiwar movement swept across the nation in response to his decision to escalate the undeclared war. As the cost of the war increased, Congress scuttled many of President Johnson's domestic programs. "Riots began in the African-American ghettos of large U.S. cites, such as the race riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago 1968, Detroit, MI in 1967, Mobile, AL in 1967, which also tarnished the luster of Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency" (Foner and Garraty, 1991).
"By 1968, President Johnson was under sharp political attack from all sides. After Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy began campaigns seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Johnson was now well worn for wear due to civil unrest in the nation's streets, daily war protests, daily televised body counts from the fighting action in Viet Nam, film footage of actual fighting in the jungles of Nam, and criticism from all political spheres. In March 1968, Johnson announced that he would not run for reelection. At the same time, President Johnson called for a partial halt to the bombing of North Vietnam. Two months later peace talks began in Paris. When Johnson retired from office January 1969, he left the nation bitterly divided by the war" (Foner and Garraty, 1991).
There is little wonder why the 1969 landing of Apollo 11 on the moon was such an important accomplishment. It gave Americans a welcome distraction in this time of turmoil and restored faith that good times were ahead.
To the Moon for NASA Self-Preservation
 |
Besides the obvious political and social motivations of an Apollo mission, the young NASA agency had a lot riding on the Apollo 11 lunar landing.
To further increase the pressure of a lunar landing there was the horrible fire of the first Apollo command module unofficially known as Apollo 1, commonly referred to as AS-204, on January 27, 1967, when astronauts Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White II, and Roger B. Chaffee died on the launch pad. "How much the lunar landing would be set back no one knew. Throughout 1966 the office of Manned Space Flight had been working towards two unmanned test flights of the Saturn V rocket starting in 1967, to be followed by three manned flights to check out the launch vehicles, both the spacecraft, and the complex support system for the lunar landing. NASA's public position was that "lunar flights," orbital or landing would begin before the end of 1969. Planning schedules showed several "simulated" lunar missions - which might orbit the Moon but not land - the first of which might be flown as early as October 1967 on AS-503 or late as August 1968 on AS-506. The initial landing might be assigned to AS-506, but the earliest mission unambiguously categorized in OMSF's master schedules as a "lunar mission" and not a "simulation" was AS-507, scheduled for November 1968" (OMSF).
"The fire wrecked that timetable. For four months afterward, all monthly OMSF launch schedules were stamped "UNDER REVIEW." At the end of May 1967, a new master schedule showed only four Saturn V flights preceding the first lunar landing; two unmanned, to check out the launch vehicle; one earth-orbital flight to gain experience in simultaneous operation of the command/service module and the lunar module; and one lunar mission simulation. The Saturn V flights were interspersed among eight Saturn IB missions; as many of these would be flown as necessary to discover and correct flaws in the spacecraft and operations. The May schedule still showed the first landing in the last quarter of 1968, but no one was authorized to mention any date more specific than "before the end of 1968" in public" (OMSF).
Since its inception, NASA has always documented every second of their space missions. For this reason, it is strange that there are no publicly available pictures of the Apollo 1 disaster. NASA has released pictures before and after the disaster, but even 30 years later, the moment of the fire has been purposely excluded from the public's eye. This is fascinating because photos of the Challenger are within the public domain. This may be due to the nature of the times. In 1967, all film may have been confiscated at the site in the name of national security. In 1986, with the advent of privately owned camcorders, confiscation of all recorded footage would prove to be much more difficult especially off-site. With the break-up of space shuttle Columbia upon re-entry there will be increased resistance by the American public for continued manned space flight, which is the problem that NASA was obviously trying to avoid back in 1967. This placed NASA in an ethical dilemma of either fly straight or don't fly at all and could have been easily squelched by a public opposition to manned space-flight quickly ending any federal funding for a lunar landing. Therefore NASA had a great deal at stake and was in a position that it just might do whatever was necessary to convince the American public that a lunar landing was possible to the point of contemplating the staging of a fictitious lunar landing.
It is a well known fact by physicists the best way to send and receive radio transmissions that cannot possibly be intercepted is to send radio transmissions from some location on Earth and bounce the transmission off the Moon to some other location on Earth. Not only is it possible but was already being currently done in order to prevent highly sensitive transmissions from being intercepted by the Russians during the Cold War. In addition, by doing this, the essential graininess of live film would be kept intact. This could have been easily done between the Cape Canaveral and Houston control centers with only one official being aware of what was actually being done. To everyone else on the team, other than the astronauts themselves, all transmissions could be from the spacecraft. The only ones who would know the "real truth" would be one commanding officer in the control center and the three astronauts themselves creating a conspiracy of four. This could easily be covered in the name of National Security and the secret could easily be taken to their graves. It should now be obvious that in order to beat the Russians at their own game, in order to ensure continued funding by the federal government, to ensure NASA's survival as a federal agency, and to increase the nation's sense of pride, the staging a lunar landing was a very enticing possibility. A great deal was at stake if NASA did not make President Kennedy's dream a reality.
Apollo 1 was just the start of a series of missions plagued by photographic "anomalies" and "inconsistencies that have forced many to wonder exactly what is NASA hiding.
NASA History - Truth or Art?
On July 20, 1969, one fifth of the world's population tuned in their black and white televisions to view the greatest moment in human history - the moment Apollo 11 landed on the moon and mankind took its first step on the lunar surface. But the live video the whole world saw was less than stellar - nowhere near the quality necessary to give this moment the respect it deserved.
 |
 |
In a day where the majority of people received their news from the printed media, these poor quality images were unsuitable for publication. For this reason NASA took the "artistic liberty" to doctor the photos in a way they found more suitable. If the photos deemed "critical" were unable to be enhanced and re-colored, NASA had the motive and capabilities to recreate the moon scenes on a movie set that would make Hollywood jealous.
The final result was near perfect images that place the Apollo missions on the pedestal it deserves.
 |
 |
Unfortunately, skeptics now wonder if these photos are "too perfect." How much of what we have come to believe is truth and how much is art? How much work was really done on the Moon, and how much was simply recreated in an Earth-based studio?
The Camera Equipment
The Apollo missions carried a variety of cameras, each serving a separate purpose - be it for data collection or recording the numerous features of the mission. Cameras were mounted on the command module (stationed in orbit around the Moon), the lunar module (used to transport the astronauts to and from the Moon surface), and to the chest of each astronauts' space suit.
 |
These space suit cameras, 70mm Hasselblad Cameras (as seen in the photo to the left), were responsible for taking most of the popular lunar surface photos we see today.
The most distinguishing feature of the Hasselblad camera was the fact that each was fitted with a Reseau plate. This plate, made of glass and assembled very close to the camera's film plane, was engraved with numerous crosshairs that formed a grid. When a photo was taken, these crosshairs automatically appeared on the image (as seen in the photo to the lower right). NASA scientists used these crosshairs to determine angular distances between objects in the photo. As you will learn in Evidence section #6, the conspiracy theorists have used these crosshairs as evidence of photo doctoring by NASA.
 |
A debate still rages about what type of film was used in these cameras. NASA claims that the high quality images were possible due to the fact that the astronauts used a "top secret" XRC film developed by Kodak. However Kodak stated in 1969, and again in 1997, that the film used by the astronauts was actually ordinary, high speed 160ASA Ektachrome film - nothing "top secret" or hi-tech (http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm).
While NASA has tried hard to argue the use of "top secret" film, they have yet to truly justify how the cameras were able to perform under the harsh conditions of space. Factors of light exposure, intense cold, and solar radiation were never truly discussed by NASA until skeptics began to question the authenticity of the photos - especially considering the big difference between the live camera images and the still shots. The photos take by the still cameras represented vivid and astonishing images, far more beautiful than the grainy black and white images sent by television camera. Why, if the technology existed, did NASA not use similar "top secret" equipment to make the live camera feeds appear vivid and astonishing?
Some critics believe that NASA, embarrassed by the low quality photos and live video produced, wanted to re-create images of higher quality to leave a greater lasting impression on the American public - to further implicate a greater pride grounded in our achievement. NASA wasn't necessarily trying to trick us, but rather increase the American standard - to bring gratification to a society that felt lost within the political confines of the Viet Nam War. Maybe NASA believed that beautiful pictures would execute greater satisfaction and patriotism in America and allow them briefly to forget the harrowing deaths of many fellow citizens in Viet Nam. Or maybe it was to get the American public on NASA's good side to ensure continued federal funding for other space flight projects. This would be hard to justify in the American psyche if all NASA had to show for its efforts was a bunch of grainy photographs and a handful of rocks, regardless of where they came from.
Unfortunately, photographic technology was not at its height and the original photos were disappointing at best. In order to accomplish their patriotic goal and ensure their continued survival, these lunar pictures needed resuscitation - with the only source of life being that of an Earth-based studio.
Evidence #1 - The Lack of Shadows
Based on the cameras and the film used on the Apollo missions, it is clear that the Apollo crewmen could not have created the perfect images that we see today without the help of a doctoring or re-creation process back on Earth.
The environment of the Moon is further proof that the photos taken by the Apollo crew could not have been of the pristine quality that NASA would like us to believe. The first piece of evidence that raises an issue about the Moon landing is the discrepancies in the shadow light. On the Moon, there is only one light source, the sun. Furthermore, NASA claimed that no additional lighting was sent with the astronauts into space - there was no flash photography or lights on the lunar module, so we must conclude that the sun was the only light source casting shadows.
The photos below are typical examples of the shadows on the moon. Logically, when the only light source is blocked, a pitch-black shadow is created.
 |
 |
Any objects photographed in these dark shadows would logically be uv-viewable. Taking photographs in the shadows on the Moon would be like taking pictures of a cave while standing outside the entrance in bright sunlight. The cameras of the 1960's, and even today, can not handle pitch-black to bright light environments.
Despite this fact, the NASA photos are quite vivid and clear even in the presence of shadows. As can be seen in the picture below, as the astronaut descends the steps of the lunar module, he is clearly visible despite the fact that he is in the pitch-black shadow of the module. This raises suspicion as to why the shadow effect does not apply to man on the Moon (http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm).
 |
Additionally, some photos (such as the one below) show the sun directly behind the astronauts and directly in front of the camera. Any photographer will tell you never shoot directly into the sun. There's no way you can get a quality image, yet NASA's photographs defy the laws of optics.
 |
As with the earlier photos, it was evident that the obstruction of light causes a dark shadow, one that makes discernment difficult. How is it possible that, with the sun being the only source of light, a dark shadow is cast in front of the astronaut, yet the front of the astronaut's suit is still so vivid and clear, plus there is a reflection on the astronaut's mask? How is it possible that the camera is pointed directly at the sun and there is no sun glare? This raises the suspicion that these photos were taken using a second light source back at Earth, or the images have been touched up.
The following sets of images are "before and after" photos. Photo 1 is the NASA published photograph featuring clear vivid images devoid of shadows. Photo 2 is a photograph produced by conspiracy theorists to demonstrate what NASA's Photo 1 probably looked like before they were touched up to eliminate shadows.
Notice in Photo 1 (the NASA enhanced image) that not only is his image brighter, but his shadow has been changed as well. The bulk of that suit would probably create a thinker shadow rather than the one portrayed. The second photo shows a more true-to-life scenario, where the astronaut in enclosed in darkness and his shadow reflects his form more accurately. It is interesting to note the inconsistency of the two photos, when they are in fact, the same pictures.
 |
 |
Here is another set of "before and after" pictures showing the commemorative plaque mounted beneath the lunar module.
 |
 |
Certainly, NASA has an image to uphold, not only to the American public but also to the rest of the world, and they weren't going to allow this image to be covered in shadows. With the swipe of an artist's pen, the shadows are removed and the true glory of the moment has been brought to light.
Evidence #2 - Shadow Direction
In addition to the concept of the only one light source creating dark, impenetrable shadows, the one light source concept also asserts that all shadows will fall in the same direction.
In the examples illustrated by photos taken on Earth, we see that the light cast by the sun causes grounded objects to create a shadow that follows a parallel path, in a single direction.
Photo #1 of a courtyard show the cylindrical objects and the poles attached to them having shadows slanting towards the right, despite their different sizes and positions. In Photo #2, the trees though at different locations on the ground, all exert a diagonal shadow forward, each one lined up and backing up to a single focal point. It is logical to assume that when the sun acts as the only light source for these objects, these shadows will be defined on a similar plane leading in one direction.
 |
 |
However, in various photographs taken from the moon, the evidence alleges otherwise - the shadows do not all face the same direction in some photos.
This first photo (to the right), which appears to be the shadow of an astronaut and some accompanying rocks, shows the astronaut's shadow is cast vertically while the rock's shadows create a horizontal pattern of darkness. This shadow pattern is most noticeably identifiable in the white rock at the top right of the picture.
 |
Based on the previous Earth pictures, regardless of placement, the shadows always aligned themselves in a parallel fashion, and consequently it is perplexing that the moon would have the capability of creating perpendicular shadows with the sun as the only source of light.
This second moon photo (right) shows shadows that converge, or intersect, across a plane. Much like the other photograph taken on the moon, the shadows are not aligned. Under the concept of one light source, there is no logical explanation for this. In order for converging shadows to exist, there must be a second light source. A second light source would have the means of creating a less filtered, broader light that extended further than the scope of the sun's beams - therefore, allowing shadows to lay in different directions, depending on where the object generated its light from. If two light sources are competing, there are also competing shadows.
 |
 |
The best explanation for the discrepancy in shadow direction is the fact that these photos were not take on the moon at all, but rather in a studio facility that provided artificial, secondary lighting.
Evidence #3 - Shadow Lengths
The one light source concept not only means that the shadows must run parallel to each other, but also that the shadows must be the same length for relative to an object's size. On Earth, despite the difference in location, people often have similarly measured shadows, when they are of a similar height.
NASA's lunar photos have depicted the surface area of the terrain the astronauts walked on as moderately flat, and therefore the shadows should not be different in size because the ground would be relatively level for both astronauts. Since both astronauts are of comparable height, and standing on level ground, their shadows should be equivalent in size.
The first photo (below) is a picture taken from a camera mounted high on the LM, which shows the astronauts having similar shadow lengths. Despite the placement and height of each object's relative size, both astronauts and the flag share a similar length in terms of their shadow and all seem to end at a common stopping point.
 |
However, the next photo shows shadows that are not similar in height. The astronaut on the right has a shadow almost twice as long at the astronaut on the left (the yellow arrows). The red arrows represent the shadow lengths as measured in the astronaut on the left has remained almost the same length, while the shadow belonging to the astronaut on the right has grown considerably.
 |
One may rationalize this incongruity to be the result of the second astronaut's placement - he is further behind in his stance. However, the sun's rays do not operate in such a fashion. The sun emits rays, or particles of light, which are spread through the air. If something is in the way of this light, it will produce a shadow where the rays are not able to penetrate the thin air. Consequently, objects of similar height generate shadows of similar length, as the penetration of rays is only blocked so much.
Therefore, the only way for the shadow lengths to differ is the through the use of a secondary light source, which has not only proven to change shadow direction but also appears to alter shadow length. It is quite reasonable to believe that NASA went into an Earth-based studio to re-create the "astronauts holding the flag" photo to produce a better quality, more memorable image.
Evidence #4 - Backgrounds
Another subtle, yet deceiving matter is the issue concerning the backgrounds of the various sites on the moon. In numerous instances, the astronauts have claimed photos were taken at different locations, yet the mountainous landscape that serves as the backdrop for the photos sometimes appear identical.
These two pictures, taken from the moon, at two supposedly different spots, are strikingly similar despite the absence of certain objects. The first photograph shows the lunar module and the American flag sitting atop relatively flat land in front of a mountainous region, covered by shadows.
However, the second photo appears to be of the identical mountainous background but does not show evidence of the lunar module or the American flag. Where did they go?
|
 |
Both pictures have sweeping illuminations, softened against the darkness of the shadows, curving along the mountains in the back. It seems too amazing that the rocks would be identical, more so, that they would catch the light exactly the same way, creating very similar patterns of reflection.
Another example of the questionable background is the photographs of an astronaut standing beside the American flag with the lunar module behind him.
 |
 |
The two photos are basically identical; the shadows even mirror one another. However, again, the mountain backdrop is slightly different. Photo #2 appears to be of better quality, and notice the red arrow pointing to a white smudge hovering above a lunar peak.
NASA claims that these are two different photos and the cameraman was standing in two different places. But take a look at this third photo, which is a composite view of the two previous photos (one photo on top of the other).
 |
As you can see in the composite, the two photos differ only very slightly. The astronaut and the flag have moved less than a foot from their previous location, yet the mountainous background has changed considerably in height.
The information presented in the composite, combined with the "white smudge" show considerable evidence to the theory that NASA has doctored these photos. It is quite probable that NASA airbrushed Photo 3 in order to create the more majestic, voluptuous mountain range shown in Photo #2. Again, all in the name of placing America's accomplishment on the pedestal it deserved.
Evidence #5 - Crosshairs
As described earlier in the Camera Equipment section, the Hasselblad cameras, which were used to take pictures and images on the moon's surface, all had permanent crosshairs etched into the lens. These crosshairs, which would appear on each photograph, were to serve as a tool for NASA to figure out the relative size of objects. If the crosshairs were fixed on the lens of the cameras, then it is reasonable to assume that the crosshairs would appear on top of all the items being photographed.
However, in some NASA photos, the crosshairs appear to fall behind the image being photographed. This would be impossible, unless the pictures were first doctored before being released to the public for viewing - cut and paste history.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Evidence #6 - Fake Golf Photos
Throughout this paper we have been providing evidence to argue that NASA is guilty of doctoring Apollo moon photos to protect NASA's and America's self image. But this next photo is proof that NASA is willing to doctor photos for profit.
Apollo 14 features on the most infamous lunar images in which Astronaut Alan Shepard became the first human to play golf on the moon when he took out his 6-iron and hit a golf ball for what he claims was "miles and miles." A live TV camera captured this historic event (left):
 |
 |
Years after he returned to Earth, Astronaut Alan Shepard decided to write a book called "The Moon Shot" in which he talked about Apollo 14 from his own unique perspective. The centerfold for this book was a photo capturing the famous golf shot (right):
The only problem is that this black and white golf shot is clearly a fake. The photo appears to have been taken by an astronaut's chest bracketed Hasselblad as evident by the crosshairs in the photo. But during Apollo 14 there were only 2 men on the surface of the moon, and both are appearing in this photo - so who could have take this picture? There was nobody on the moon that could have snapped this shot.
The next irregularity is in the flag. In the live shot, the flag is facing towards the astronauts whereas the still shot shows it facing away. Even if the image were unclear and blurry in the live representation, the still image certainly would not change the direction the flag. Secondly, the proximity of objects seems somewhat distorted in the comparison. The live shot creates a more enclosed grouping of objects whereas the still shot creates a more spatial arrangement. Lastly, the shadows are more exaggerated in the still photo; the light emanating off the object in front of the astronaut in the live photo is almost not captured by the still photo. In addition, the shadows are thinner and longer in the still photo, not accurate in representing the bulk in either of the astronaut's space suits.
It is obvious that the photo appearing in Shepard's book is not a legitimate photograph of the actual moon golf shot, but rather a fakery either reproduced in an Earth-based studio, or created by cutting and pasting actual photographs into a fake composite. This is more evidence that NASA is willing to tamper with history to satisfy its agendas.
Evidence #7 - Armstrong's Famous First Words
Photographs are not the only media that NASA has tried to doctor in order to effect its image in history - lunar audio has also come into play.
"That's on small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," these being the first words spoken once Astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped down onto the surface of the moon in Apollo 11. These words, even today, resonate with power and an image of American pride. This statement signaled a United States victory; we had accomplished one of the greatest feats of all time, successfully landing a man on the moon.
However, this line has been an issue of controversy following the realization of the redundancy usage of "man" and "mankind" - this was clearly not Armstrong's intended message. Faced with the reality that Armstrong had just flubbed the greatest line in the history of man, NASA quickly manufactured a new quote to be released which read:
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind"
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-1.html).
 |
Armstrong in a rare public interview, told CNN in 1999 that he wasn't sure exactly what he said on that day: "The 'a' was intended. I thought I said it. I can't hear it when I listen on the radio reception here on earth" (http://wwwcnn.com/TECH/space/9907/16/apollo.03).
NASA claims that the "a" was said, but a communication problem between the moon and Earth caused it to be left out. However, Armstrong's original quote is spoken with deliberate hesitation and each word seemed clearly enunciated.
While this matter may seem trivial, it does imply some observations about NASA. This quote serves, as a small glimpse into the efforts NASA would employ in order to publish an unblemished image of the moon landing. If they would contest a quote by as little as a letter, they obviously had a lot to prove. It is for this reason that blurry or darkened pictures had to be cleaned up. Not only was NASA's image on the line, America's was also compromised. Certainly, the landing wouldn't have been so great if no image truly defined the beauty and incredible nature of the mission.
The Apollo Missions: A National Conspiracy or Campaign for Public Pride?
Arguably, one of the greatest achievements in American history was the 1969 Apollo mission, which successfully put the first man on the moon. Reflected both in reports and visual media, the lunar landing was a groundbreaking event that promoted America's superior technological capability and sealed the word of the Presidential Administration. The mission meant more than just exploring foreign and uncharted territory; it also included the instillation of American pride and scientific innovations. Additionally, it provided a more positive backdrop for the current times, allowing citizens to divert attention from the atrocities of war and international unrest. Apollo 11 was a mission that subtly suggested triumph as the great superpower of the world. NASA captured features of this incredible accomplishment through an array of still photographs and live video feeds; images that continue to spark cheerful nostalgia or presence of pride for a nation was important to NASA, maybe more so than the experiments and analyses performed on the moon. With people's personal stake in the lunar landing, NASA needed to produce results.
But the Apollo missions are drenched in controversy. NASA needed to produce results, and the greatest proof of these results would lie in the photographic evidence depicted in the live feed television footage was a weak and not something America could attest to as a cause for satisfaction in a job well done. The black and white images sent to televisions all over the world were grainy, blurry and often caused the bright white objects to appear seemingly transparent in the path of the sun's light. The live feed couldn't be corrected but the still photographs could undoubtedly be altered or cleaned up before being released to the public. At the time of the Apollo lunar mission, camera technology was not at its peak and was limited in its production quality based on the existence of light conditions. Yes, pictures could be taken on the moon, but the clarity was compromised by an overbearing light source, the sun. For this reason , people started to talk, questioning the superb quality of the photographs, wondering whether or not they had been doctored. Most photographers and producers deal with the challenge of lighting as it affects the subject being submitted to film. However, there are a variety of resources which can be used in correcting dark shadows and unflattering illumination patterns. Studio lights and other false illumination devices can remarkably remedy the problem of poor image quality. As noted earlier, each still photo of the moon looks completely crisp and unblemished, appearing as though the pictures were exposed to advanced processing and finishing techniques.
With the photographs as kindling, many issues are fueling the curiosity of conspiracy theorists. Many argue that with Nixon in office, this cover-up would not be unexpected, but rather endorsed by the Presidential Administration. In retrospect, following the infamous Watergate scandal, it seems America would not put any scheme past this former President.
There is also fuel found in the supposed "whistle-blowers" that exposed the conspiracy years later. During a conference in Hawaii, in September of 1999, journalist Graham Birdsall spoke with Dr. Brian O'Leary, a former NASA astronaut. O'Leary who worked with Armstrong and Aldrin during the 60's, specifically in 1967 and 1968, says of the Apollo photographs, "If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment" (http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm). This is a pretty bold statement coming from an insider; this statement suggests that the Apollo mission photographs may have been altered, however, not in an attempt to lie but to save face.
When foul play or doctoring is brought up, NASA denies any alteration of the photos. The believers make the claim that it is just standard operating procedure to clean up photographs before they are released to the press and any evidence pointing to a conspiracy are just "anomalies" and "inconsistencies."
"We don't have time to answer their questions, the truth is in the photographs."
- NASA spokesman
(http://www.aulis.com/nasa3.htm)
Yes, the truth "is" in the photographs, and there is enough photographic evidence of "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" to legitimize the argument that NASA is guilty of doctoring or re-creating Apollo photographs. While, individually, these "anomalies" may appear coincidental, as a whole they may point to something larger.
The problem is not in the intent behind the changes, but rather the attempts to cover up the changes. Certainly, to construct and support a mission that never actually happened would be taking a very big risk. But it is clear that the environment of the times, with the political and economic instability coming from many different angles, there were justifiable motives for NASA's actions. Certainly America would prefer images that were amazing and beautiful, images that represent the strength and perseverance of our nation, however, the underhanded way in which NASA made the modifications creates the concept of deceit and shifty motivations that have become so prevalent in organizations today.
Why has NASA been so defensive when the question of photo doctoring is brought up? Why are there so may different "anomalies?" and why can these anomalies be so easily explained when doctoring or studio re-creation is argued?
During the time of Apollo, America did not need the idea of a lunar conspiracy added to the current issues going on, so they were willing and eager to believe the truth as it was told to them. But thirty years later, in a different time and social climate, the pictures can be examined with more objectivity then one starts to wonder, are those photos real and did we really land a man on the moon?
Works Cited
AULIS Publishers. http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm
The Expanded Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright© 2000, Columbia University Press. http://www.historychannel.com
Foner, Eric and Garraty, John A., Editors. The Reader's Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin Company. 1991. http://www.historychannel.com
Fox News Special “Conspiracy Theory: Did we land a man on the moon?” February 15, 2001. National television broadcast.
Lunar Anomalies Home Page. http://www.lunaranomalies.com
NASA Videos of Apollo 11. http://guinan.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/videos/historical.html
Images
Earth's moon. image source: http://www.marsacademy.com/amazsp/a8.htm
Mushroom cloud. image source: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org6-2.htm
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.” Edited by Eric M. Jones. Last Revision 8 July 2002. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
AS11-40-5903 = Aldrin poses for portrait/Armstrong’s reflection in visor
AS11-40-5905 = The Apollo 11 flag did not stand long. It was blown over during takeoff by the LM ascent engine's exhaust plume
AS11-40-5869 = Aldrin on the LM footpad
AS11-40-5880 = Aldrin's boot and bootprint in lunar soil
AS11-40-5899 = LM ladder and commemorative plaque
AP11FR11 = 16mm frame: Armstrong photographs Aldrin saluting the flag
S69-40308 = Armstrong and Aldrin raise the U.S. flag on the lunar surface
AS11-37-5445 = CSM "Columbia" over Craters Taruntius K, Taruntius P, and Dorsum Cayeux (in Mare Fecunditatis). Partially visible are craters Anvil and Taruntius H.
AS11-40-5931 = Aldrin unpacks experiments
AS12-48-7071 = Conrad is seen snapping a photo of Bean
AS12-47-6984 = Frame from pan sequence near LM
AS12-47-6887 = Astronaut Pete Conrad and the U.S. flag
AS14-64-9089 = Mitchell during EVA
AS15-82-11057 = Station 8 pan frame / Lunar Module & Hadley Delta
AS15-88-11863 = Station LM / Scott / flag
AS15-88-11866 = Apollo 15 Lunar Module Pilot James Irwin salutes the U.S. flag
AS16-114-18423 = Pan frame at Station 1 - Duke at edge of crater
AS16-107-17446 = Charlie Duke at Station 4 on Stone Mountain
AS17-134-20425 = From Station 1 pan: Schmitt and rake
AS17-134-20471 = Closeup of Jack Schmitt at Rover with Earth above
AS17-134-20466 = Closeup of U.S. flag with Earth above
AS17-137-20957 = View of Earth from lunar surface
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links