PDA

View Full Version : Golf Shot



cigarette_repairman
2002-Nov-21, 10:32 PM
This is a great forum with many knowledgeable people. I have never seen an explanation for the apparent discrepancies between the still camera photograph of the golf shot and the film coverage of the same golf shot, such as the crater under the satellite dish in the still photo but not seeming to be in the film, and the flag facing in a different direction in the photo as compared to the film. The photos can be found here http://www.aulis.com/nasa12.htm Perhaps someone here can shed some light on this.

Tomblvd
2002-Nov-21, 10:37 PM
On 2002-11-21 17:32, cigarette_repairman wrote:
This is a great forum with many knowledgeable people. I have never seen an explanation for the apparent discrepancies between the still camera photograph of the golf shot and the film coverage of the same golf shot, such as the crater under the satellite dish in the still photo but not seeming to be in the film, and the flag facing in a different direction in the photo as compared to the film. The photos can be found here http://www.aulis.com/nasa12.htm Perhaps someone here can shed some light on this.


The picture is a composite that Shepard had made up for his book.



HINT: If someone doesn't bother to give the ALSJ picture number when they show a picture, it is a good bet they're hiding something from you.

cigarette_repairman
2002-Nov-21, 10:40 PM
Ahh...so the picture is a known composite then? That explains it. Thanks.

jest
2002-Nov-21, 10:51 PM
See, things like that (known images being used to convey a hoax) remind me of the image of the Jovian moon Io being mistaken for Planet X. "Let's just THROW up a website and come up with an argument for the following images."

I think we should thank cig here for bringing up these websites though, because a lot of us are probably guilty of not looking for them ourselves. I know I am.

jrkeller
2002-Nov-22, 01:23 AM
The thing that I would say here is something like this. Do you really think that NASA would make a mistake like this, a Hasselbald photo graph with both astronauts in it and try to fool the billions of people on the planet?

I can see it now in the bowels of NASA. Let's make this great moon hoax, and oh by the way, let's take a photo of both astronauts and release to the public. I'm sure no one will figure that one out.

Andrew
2002-Nov-22, 08:41 AM
I believe Aulis were e-mailed with this mistake by one of the members here. Aulis owned up to the mistake but, of course, have not corrected it.

JayUtah
2002-Nov-22, 10:40 PM
To clarify: neither NASA nor the book's authors ever made the claim that the photograph appearing in their book was a bona fide Hasselblad photograph taken on the surface of the moon.

Now we know it was composed from Hasselblad photos. But nothing prevents someone from taking a lunar surface photo and doing whatever he wants with it.

The problem Aulis seems to see is that the book "written by an astronaut" and "approved by NASA" (or similar words to that effect) would shamelessly present a knock-off photo of any kind. They seem to believe this demonstrates a willingness to deceive, so how can we trust anything else from them. To use vernacular familiar to Aulis, they're getting their knickers in a twist over nothing.

Aulis consistently attempts to elevate secondary sources. They try to judge secondary sources by standards more appropriate to primary sources, and then cry foul when the secondary sources fail to measure up. To be sure, this is a common problem with all hoax authors, but Aulis seems to pursue it with great vigor. They draw "evidence" from all sorts of popular books and films, including Ron Howard's Apollo 13. And they use tortured arguments to justify their use of these materials in place of primary sources.

Nothing in Aulis' discussion of this photograph actually provides evidence that Apollo, or any of its photography, was falsified. It's simply innuendo, and innuendo is a big part of Aulis' argument. "Yes, we know this doesn't prove anything, but isn't it suspicious?"

That's not history. That's chicanery.

n810
2002-Nov-24, 12:35 AM
perhaps I should make a website with the pic I Photoshopped to have me climbing off the LEM in shorts and sandals, and say it's really a soundstage in Burbank?

hehe

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

I think we need a happier evil smilie on here

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: n810 on 2002-11-23 19:36 ]</font>