PDA

View Full Version : "Photo" of Neil Armstrong supposedly de-helmeting on the Moon



Palomar
2007-Oct-26, 01:23 PM
This is what a friend posted elsewhere. I began a topic in "Questions & Answers," was advised to start a thread here:


http://www.damninteresting.net/content/armstrong_moon.jpg

Neil Armstrong's experiment, in which he removed his helmet briefly on the Moon, didn't last long enough for any physical damage to occur.

I don't believe this.

The link to the image is:

http://www.damninteresting.net/content/armstrong_moon.jpg

Fazor
2007-Oct-26, 01:30 PM
Well, I'm glad you don't believe such an obviously photoshopped image. Plus it's obvious the origonal was taken in a studio; there's no stars.

Besides, I thought it wasn't Neil on the moon photos/video, but rather some actor chosen to play Neil for no apparent reason (why hire actors to play astronauts if no one actually went to space? Because it's a Conspiracy!(tm) that's why.)

Swift
2007-Oct-26, 01:30 PM
Ah, did you mean to include one of these: :D ?
Even without a lot of computer diagnositics, the photo looks photoshopped to me.

@ Fazor - CHIPS ON A COKE!

JayUtah
2007-Oct-26, 01:32 PM
It's a Photoshop creation from pieces of some other well-known Apollo photographs. Neil's head, for example, was cut from this (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-37-5528) photo.

Lots of people do those for fun. Unfortunately the conspiracy theory crowd always takes them seriously.

Rue
2007-Oct-26, 01:39 PM
Of course it's fake, everyone knows you'd explode if you did that.

Fazor
2007-Oct-26, 01:39 PM
@ Fazor - CHIPS ON A COKE!

Okay, that one sailed way over my head. But now I'm hungry...

Palomar
2007-Oct-26, 01:43 PM
What stuns me is that my friend apparently DOES believe this is a real image! :( His post was absolutely serious (the thread wherein he posted originally dealt with spacesuit design).

He's very knowledgeable about planetary science, history of space exploration, etc. Have interacted with him for years.

If he is joking, it's the first time he's fooled me. I sure hope he is only joking, otherwise I'm going to start being worried about him...!

JayUtah
2007-Oct-26, 02:16 PM
here's (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS12-49-7318) the other source image. The composite reverses it.

jja
2007-Oct-26, 02:17 PM
This video of another lunar expedition perhaps says it all, particularly between :55 and 1:45 seconds in...

Bad Day on the Moon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKnnC2peJFY)

Let's see them try to claim that this one is real...

Palomar
2007-Oct-26, 02:26 PM
He also posted this link in conjunction with that photo/comment:

http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html

He refers to Joe Kittinger, Jr., having (supposedly) lost pressurization in his right glove during a 19.5 mile ascent in an unpressurized balloon gondola...

Again, my friend sure seems to take the Armstrong photo seriously -- which flabberghasts me. :-\

Nicolas
2007-Oct-26, 02:49 PM
Come on, just look at how he's holding on to the helmet...because that's the easiest way to photoshop him holding a helmet! There's nothing to hold a helmet up like that, it's a sphere on top.

That said, the two source images should be more than enough :).

You wouldn't explode if you'd do that, but you'd get some nasty effects. Such as high risk for Caisson's, if I recall correctly. And of course, wait long enough and you will suffocate, obviously.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-26, 02:52 PM
Of course it's fake, everyone knows you'd explode if you did that.

Good one! :clap:

JayUtah
2007-Oct-26, 03:13 PM
Nicolas is absolutely correct: you cannot hold the LEVA like that while wearing EMU overgloves. There is nothing to grip on the apex of the LEVA.

Further, the LEVA is not pressurized. It's an assembly that slides on top of the fishbowl pressure helmet. You cannot reach the attachment ring release with the LEVA in place. So doffing the helmet as suggested in the photo requires two major steps. First you must remove the LEVA and lay it aside. Then you can remove the fishbowl helmet separately to relieve the pressure. The photo shows "Armstrong" holding a single assembly, suggesting an integrated LEVA and pressure-bearing helmet. That's a common misconception.

The evidence is conclusive that the photograph is fake. The source images are easily found. The photograph does not accurately depict Apollo EMU operation.

That said, it is indeed true that exposure to vacuum is not instantly or invariably fatal. But this photographic fake has nothing to do with that principle; nor was any such obviously reckless experiment performed during Apollo operations.

BertL
2007-Oct-26, 03:16 PM
Palomar, show him the two other photos. The ones this one was composited of.

Nicolas
2007-Oct-26, 03:26 PM
On a related note, I thought we discussed on this board what would happen when exposed to a vacuum.

grant hutchison
2007-Oct-26, 03:42 PM
You wouldn't explode if you'd do that, but you'd get some nasty effects. Such as high risk for Caisson's, if I recall correctly. And of course, wait long enough and you will suffocate, obviously.The wait is only about ten seconds until you lose consciousness, and you would then suffocate much faster than you do under familiar conditions on Earth.
Exposure to vacuum is different from just holding your breath. Stop breathing now, in room air, and the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs will fall relatively slowly, giving you an easy couple of minutes of consciousness albeit with increasing distress.
When you are exposed to vacuum, the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs falls to (effectively) zero immediately, and oxygen leaves your blood from the lung capillaries. Ten seconds later, this completely deoxygenated blood reaches your tissues, and oxygen leaves your tissues down the concentration gradient. So you run out of oxygen very quickly indeed.

Edit: There's a long discussion about the physiology of decompression on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/36151-walking-mars-without-spacesuit.html).

Grant Hutchison

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-26, 03:47 PM
I wonder if there are any photos of Armstrong sticking nails up his nose, slapping rattlesnakes or sticking his tongue in light sockets?

Palomar
2007-Oct-26, 04:34 PM
I wonder if there are any photos of Armstrong sticking nails up his nose, slapping rattlesnakes or sticking his tongue in light sockets?

:lol::lol:

Palomar
2007-Oct-26, 04:37 PM
Palomar, show him the two other photos. The ones this one was composited of.

Okay, will do. :)

Again, I'm stunned he believes it's a real photo -- considering his prowess in physics, planetary science, etc. For a second there he had me wondering about MY knowledge of the vacuum of space and etc.! :-\

grant hutchison
2007-Oct-26, 04:38 PM
He also posted this link in conjunction with that photo/comment:

http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html
When your friend posted that link, he might at least have paused to wonder why, if Armstrong really did expose himself to vacuum, Geoffrey Landis' excellent and exhaustively documented site, dedicated to the physiology of vacuum exposure, doesn't mention it, while discussing Kittinger's partial exposure in some detail.
Folks interested in aerospace respiratory physiology still discuss John West's alveolar gas sample on the summit of Everest in hushed tones, after all; the "Armstrong exposure" would have been a simply stunning event by comparison, if it had happened.

Grant Hutchison

Tucson_Tim
2007-Oct-26, 05:05 PM
On a related note, I thought we discussed on this board what would happen when exposed to a vacuum.

I assumed Rue was being facetious.

Larry Jacks
2007-Oct-26, 06:05 PM
One clue that the photo is a fake is that it'd take a moron to remove his helmet in a vacuum. Armstrong is far from a moron. Why would he want to do such a thing? It simply makes no sense.

Nicolas
2007-Oct-26, 06:18 PM
I assumed Rue was being facetious.

I'm quite sure he was :).

Nicolas
2007-Oct-26, 06:19 PM
The wait is only about ten seconds until you lose consciousness, and you would then suffocate much faster than you do under familiar conditions on Earth.
Exposure to vacuum is different from just holding your breath. Stop breathing now, in room air, and the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs will fall relatively slowly, giving you an easy couple of minutes of consciousness albeit with increasing distress.
When you are exposed to vacuum, the partial pressure of oxygen in your lungs falls to (effectively) zero immediately, and oxygen leaves your blood from the lung capillaries. Ten seconds later, this completely deoxygenated blood reaches your tissues, and oxygen leaves your tissues down the concentration gradient. So you run out of oxygen very quickly indeed.

Edit: There's a long discussion about the physiology of decompression on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/36151-walking-mars-without-spacesuit.html).

Grant Hutchison

IIRC that link gives some extra info on what would happen if you wouldn't open your mouth. Conclusion was that it was better to open it. Difference between severe distress and permanent damage to the lungs.

JayUtah
2007-Oct-26, 06:23 PM
I wonder if there are any photos of Armstrong sticking nails up his nose, slapping rattlesnakes or sticking his tongue in light sockets?

Who knows what went on in the MQF?

grant hutchison
2007-Oct-26, 07:56 PM
IIRC that link gives some extra info on what would happen if you wouldn't open your mouth. Conclusion was that it was better to open it. Difference between severe distress and permanent damage to the lungs.I doubt you'd be able to hold your breath, even if you tried: the tissues of the larynx are not "designed" to withstand a one-atmosphere pressure gradient. If you could keep your glottis closed, you'd likely pop both lungs, because of the one-atmosphere pressure gradient across the lung tissues. If you didn't pop both lungs, then there would be a one-atmosphere pressure gradient between your thoracic cavity and the large veins draining into it: venous return would stop, cardiac output would stop, you'd lose consciousness ... and breathe out.

Grant Hutchison

Z28Jerry
2007-Oct-26, 10:22 PM
I could not help myself and posted the same thing over on the John Lear section of ATS. If you are looking for a real good, entertaining read check out this thread:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311368/pg1

I go by ignorethefacts over there.

PetersCreek
2007-Oct-26, 10:53 PM
The possibility that someone could not see the fakery in this photo makes me wonder. Some people are tone deaf. Others are color blind or less severely, don't distinguish variations in color as finely as others. I've done zero reading on the idea but I have this gut level inclination to believe that maybe some (some) folks have an impaired ability to process 2D representations of 3D reality. I'm certain that some people are better with spatial relationships and visual cues than others, so maybe it goes even farther, to the point of being a perceptual disability.

Of course, this doesn't nothing to excuse those who are simply looking for anything that they think will prop up their fantasies.

KaiYeves
2007-Oct-26, 11:00 PM
Lots of people do those for fun. Unfortunately the conspiracy theory crowd always takes them seriously.
Some people just don't get jokes... :-(

astromark
2007-Oct-27, 01:03 AM
Still we talk of this and get madder by the foolishness of it. The point of this is wasted here because we are informed and in the loop. WE know the truth. This stupid photo and many others like it are not designed for us. On The people that visit this site this is obviously rubbish. Poor old Joe public does not know the truth and to them this could just prove it was filmed in the back lot of NASA studios.. just by the bike shed... The photo was leaked out by a cleaner... in a coffee break between moon walks.... Oh please someone shoot me.:)I do not know why we even bother to respond. Those that encourage this nonsense must love this new toy 'Photo shop'...

Ronald Brak
2007-Oct-27, 01:14 AM
I've done zero reading on the idea but I have this gut level inclination to believe that maybe some (some) folks have an impaired ability to process 2D representations of 3D reality.

It takes practice to interperet 2D photos. Most people do learn how when they are quite young but for someone who has never seen them before it can take time for them to make the connection and see that the smears of grey on the small flay rectangle is a person. Mind you, most people who think the helmetless Armstrong photo is real probably aren't Papuan highlanders from the 50's.

JayUtah
2007-Oct-27, 02:54 AM
The picture of Armstrong in the LM after the spacewalk is fairly iconic. While not everyone has seen it or recognizes it, those of us who spend a lot of time in the Apollo record ought to recognize it immediately. So when it jumps out at you in a composite, there's really no question. Someone else, for example, who is familiar with other events of history and the associated record, would be expected to recognize fakes use those elements.

Hot Pastrami!
2007-Oct-27, 06:40 AM
As the splicer of the image in question, I can attest to its lack of authenticity... it was never intended to be taken seriously. Here's the accompanying article on DamnInteresting.com:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=741

Alan "Hot Pastrami" Bellows

Extravoice
2007-Oct-27, 12:38 PM
As the splicer of the image in question, I can attest to its lack of authenticity... it was never intended to be taken seriously. Here's the accompanying article on DamnInteresting.com:

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=741

Alan "Hot Pastrami" Bellows

Well written article IMHO, Alan.
Welcome to the BAUT forum. I hope you are willing to stay for a while.

Fazor
2007-Oct-27, 01:25 PM
The picture of Armstrong in the LM after the spacewalk is fairly iconic. While not everyone has seen it or recognizes it, those of us who spend a lot of time in the Apollo record ought to recognize it immediately.
Well, that's usually telltale sign number one. I have a feeling this was done somewhere along the lines as a joke anyway, but the people who try to plant real doubt by manipulating images also tend to be the people who are to lazy to find some obscure photo, and instead opt to use something that can be found on the first few pages of a google photo search.

As for spotting fakery; it could also just be that many people aren't very well exposed to digital photo editing. I've used photoshop et al. (starting with altering pictures pixle-by-pixle in windows paint) since I was 12. Does that make me an expert at digital photo authentication? No. But it does let me quickly spot common errors and ommisions from amature photoshopers. Often we take our experience for granted, but not everyone has been around photoshop (or similar programs); and many don't even know what photoshop is.

And, as mentioned, theres those who will believe a fake just because that's what they want to believe.

Drbuzz0
2007-Oct-31, 05:47 AM
Well perhaps he could dehelmet briefly. I've heard the effects of a vacuum on the body being akin to a "Full Body Hickey" of course... he'd loose conciousness pretty fast given you couldn't even hold air in your lungs and would be dependant on the oxygen already in your bloodstream which I doubt would last even a minute at most...

Count Zero
2007-Oct-31, 07:29 AM
The trick, as I see it, is not in getting the helmet off, it's getting it back on. Unless your suit's neck-dam is air-tight, you'd have to let the suit depressurize completely to avoid having air pressure fighting against you as you try to get the helmet seated on the neck-ring.

BertL
2007-Oct-31, 09:20 AM
Palomar, how are things going with your friend? Have you convinced him yet?

Paul Beardsley
2007-Oct-31, 10:15 AM
I thought the picture worked well as a piece of entertainment. I don't just mean it was funny - it was also quite an eerie "what if?" moment.

And if people take it seriously, it makes you wonder what would happen if they read a science fiction story. "Well it must have happened - Arthur C. Clarke said so!"

You can imagine it, though - the USA vow to send men to the moon and bring them back safely before the end of the decade, but they don't quite pull it off. "Well, we got two men to walk on the moon, and one of them came back safely. If only we hadn't ordered Neil to carry out that ill-conceived helmet-removing experiment!"

From a human nature point of view, in the blazingly unlikely event that NASA would want to do such a thing, surely they'd do it in Earth orbit, or during one of the later moon missions, rather than during the greatest "everything must go to plan" event in human history.

Glom
2007-Oct-31, 02:50 PM
Is that even an Apollo 11 photo? Looks like something out of 14.

Kelfazin
2007-Oct-31, 03:32 PM
Is that even an Apollo 11 photo? Looks like something out of 14.

From Jay's post (http://www.bautforum.com/1097986-post8.html) giving the link to the original image, it appears to be from A12 (AS12-49-7318 specifically)

mugaliens
2007-Nov-03, 06:13 PM
Of course it's fake, everyone knows you'd explode if you did that.

No, we wouldn't. And Asimov got it right (one of his short stories).

That's not to say that this image is real I believe it's a photoshop fake.

But as one who's been subjected to 1/100th of our normal atmospheric pressure (around 101.4 thousand feet), without exploding, and without a pressure suit, I'd have to say you're dead wrong.

Nevertheless, I believe the photograph to be a fake for several reasons:

1. The danger of subjecting such an expensive and high priority project such as the Moon launch to such frivolity is beyond comprehension, when such experiments were (and are) so easily conducted in altitude chambers across the land.

2. See number one.

Sheesh. Possible? Yes, for about ten seconds, but from what I understand, it takes about thirty to get an Apollo helmet off and back on, even with help.

So, no, folks, it's a fake, particularly since we've many thousands of pics of Armstrong walking among us since his walk on the Moon.

Rue
2007-Nov-06, 02:32 AM
^ Yes I neglected to put the smiley after that comment. So again just to make sure, one would not explode when exposed to a vacuum. However, one would also not be smiling for the camera.

Occam
2007-Nov-06, 03:05 AM
I'm sorry, but if anyone believes that such a stunt would ever have been attempted, they must be severely lacking in the brain department. All academic "what if" thought experiments aside, you would have to be suicidal to attempt such a completely pointless act. Since all the suicidal astronauts got weeded out when they flew their simulators into the wall during training, it's safe to say this is 100% bull, so why is it even being discussed?

Fazor
2007-Nov-06, 03:29 PM
.... it's safe to say this is 100% bull, so why is it even being discussed?

Oh, it's really not that risky to remove your helmet while inside a large hanger in the Nevadan desert. :whistle:

sts60
2007-Nov-06, 06:41 PM
If only to enjoy the cool breeze from the air conditioner, as it gently stirs the flag you just planted...

Count Zero
2007-Nov-07, 01:59 AM
...without disturbing the dust at his feet.

Nicolas
2007-Nov-07, 11:56 AM
...or the falling feather

BertL
2007-Nov-07, 02:02 PM
Well, come on guys, when you're walking around in a suit designed to keep the vacuum out you need some fresh air every now and then. The only problem is that air doesn't go through the suit as well. Not even fresh air.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-07, 02:39 PM
Well, come on guys, when you're walking around in a suit designed to keep the vacuum out you need some fresh air every now and then. The only problem is that air doesn't go through the suit as well. Not even fresh air.

Maybe they should have but little holes in it, like Nikes and ball caps have.

publiusr
2007-Dec-07, 09:57 PM
Now we have people who think real stuff is fake, and fake stuff is real.
And the HB-ers will say. "If we can fake this..."

Ugh.

I did enjoy one art bell episode where Oberg had the upper hand on Sereda

"Shut up, David!"

Maksutov
2007-Dec-13, 06:43 AM
The possibility that someone could not see the fakery in this photo makes me wonder. Some people are tone deaf. Others are color blind or less severely, don't distinguish variations in color as finely as others. I've done zero reading on the idea but I have this gut level inclination to believe that maybe some (some) folks have an impaired ability to process 2D representations of 3D reality. I'm certain that some people are better with spatial relationships and visual cues than others, so maybe it goes even farther, to the point of being a perceptual disability.

Of course, this doesn't nothing to excuse those who are simply looking for anything that they think will prop up their fantasies.You're right about the varying ability to visualize 3D objects from 2D drawings (or in this case, a 2D picture).

When I first started teaching classes in GD&T, I found out it was necessary to separate the class into two groups: those who could construct 3D objects in theirs minds from 2D drawings, and those who couldn't.

Of course I didn't physically separate the students in the classes. Instead I found I had to modify my instructional approach based on each individual's ability to do the 2D/3D transform.

01101001
2007-Dec-20, 11:42 PM
Official NASA photo shows the crew of Apollo 17 without their helmets, on the rover, all 3 of them!

And the Moon has a blue sky!

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/206703main_image_979_100-75.jpg (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/206708main_image_979_428-321.jpg)

Official NASA Photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/206708main_image_979_428-321.jpg) (or full resolution (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/206714main_72-H-1209_full.jpg))


In this image, Schmitt, Evans and Cernan, pose in the moon rover [...] --NASA Image of the Day Gallery (December 20) (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/iotd.html)

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-21, 12:16 AM
Wow, I never knew the LM (in the background) was so big, and with a pointy top.:whistle:

Extravoice
2007-Dec-21, 12:22 AM
No stars, clearly faked.

Donnie B.
2007-Dec-21, 11:33 PM
Smoking gun! Smoking gun!

... and look, rubber tires! They would have exploded in the so-called vacuum (just how high above the Moon did that extend, anyhow?)