Moon Landings ( Book )

Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the
press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the
moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in
NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?"
One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's
well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply
don't add up.

In message , lheureuxph
writes
Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the
press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the
moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in
NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?"
One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's
well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply
don't add up.

Another kook with no idea what he's talking about.
Every picture taken by the Apollo astronauts is documented, and most of
them are available online at places like
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
But feel free to describe some of the discrepancies so we can dissect
them in public.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Yay, L'Heureux's book. Another person with zero credentials and zero
experience charging people money to read his ill-conceived attempts at
amateur photographic analysis.

"lheureuxph" wrote in message
...
|
| Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA
| released to the press?

Why do the conspiracy theorists keep harping upon the same unscientific,
long-debunked "rules" (e.g., shadows must always be parallel) in order to
find "anomalies"? Why is it that professional photographic interpreters and
renowned scientists the world over accept the Apollo photographs as genuine,
while those who contest their authenticity inevitably turn out to be
untrained, inexperienced, scientific illiterates who have books and videos
to sell?

| And why were no further photographs released.

Just because your picture-book editors didn't like some of the photos
doesn't mean they weren't "released". Every single Hasselblad image has
been available from LPI and from NASA for more than 30 years. But because
conspiracy theorists consult only secondary sources, whose editors choose
the photos based solely on appeal, they are generally unaware of what's
available. It's easy to lie and say they've been "suppressed" when the
average reader can be relied upon not to check up on the author's claims.

| Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain.

But conspiracy theory books only raise questions. They don't provide
answers. They're long on innuendo and very short on providing any sort of
defensible explanation, or even a clear, comprehensive picture of the data.
It's all about controlling what the reader reads, not about thoroughly
examining the data and providing anything more than conjecture.

| That discrepancies are evident in
| NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed.

On the contrary, they are highly disputed. But most of the authors turn a
deaf ear and a blind eye to those disputations, dismissing them as
"disinformation". Are you willing to submit your work to the examination of
experts?

| The big question is "why?"

No, the big question is "if". Conspiracists habitually put the cart before
the horse and establish that NASA had the motive and opportunity to hoax the
moon landings, then conclude that they definitely did so. They parade
around their "anomalies" which, upon closer examination, turn out to be
nothing more than conspiracists not understanding the basics of optics,
photometry, and other scientific principles that pertain to photographic
interpretation.

Not one conspiracy theorist has yet shown any evidence of a hoax. They
merely show a handful of misinterpreted "aberrations" and from that
speculate about some high-handed, deep-seated conspiracy that "must" have
produced them, all the while dodging all requirements to show evidence that
any such procedure was, in fact, undertaken.

| One by one, this investigation outlines the specific
| "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and
| explains how and why the equations simply don't add up.

Why would NASA release so many photographs that had so many obvious
"aberrations" in them? Are we to believe that NASA is so stupid as to
release tens of thousands of photographs that illustrate its own failure?

What doesn't add up for me is how authors with little or no training and
certainly no demonstrable expertise in the fields that pertain to their
findings can justify their perpetration of such obvious frauds upon the
world's readership. Have you no shame?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

You have absolutely no authority to make the claims you are making as you
have obviously gained all of your knowledge on these topics from someone
marginally less ignorant than yourself.

Ignorance requires no effort. If you want to understand why you are mislead
by books like this, then you need to learn about the topics that it covers.
Until you do this, any proof will just be over your head.

Eddie T.

"lheureuxph" wrote in message
...
Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the
press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about
the
moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in
NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is
"why?"
One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in
NASA's
well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply
don't add up.