|
发信人: hhgreg (hhgreg), 信区: Salon
标 题: Re: 中国登月需先解美国登月骗局 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Jul 21 16:17:47 2009, 美东)
Those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax often engage in
examination of Apollo moon photos. Their accusations and common responses
from landing believers are listed here. See the main article for accusations
unrelated to photos.
Challenges and responses
Moon hoax proponents point to various issues with photographs and films
apparently taken on the Moon. Some experts in photography (even those
unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes
counterintuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real
moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio
imagery. Hoax proponents also state that "whistleblowers" may have
deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.
Issues with crosshairs (fiducials) that were etched onto the Reseau plate of
the cameras.
a) In some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects, rather
than in front of them where they should be, as if the photos were altered.
*In photography, the light white color (the object behind the crosshair)
makes the black object (the crosshair) invisible due to saturation effects
in the film emulsion. The film particles that ought to have been black were
exposed by light from the adjacent brightly lit particles. [1] Ironically,
this saturation effect would not happen if the crosshairs were drawn on in
post, and so is evidence of genuine photos. Attempting to alter photos that
already have crosshairs would make the compositing process far more
difficult.
Enlarge picture
The 'classic' Aldrin photo, with reticles not centered.
b) In the 'classic' Aldrin photo, the reticle (etched crosshair on the
camera) is too low. Since the crosshairs are in a fixed position on all the
images, a lower reticle on this image indicates that the image has been
cropped. This is the case even on the 70mm duplicate transparency NASA
issues. The 70mm transparencies should show the entire 'full' image. Hoax
proponents say that the only explanation for this is if the original full
transparency needed to be cropped because of an embarrassing artifact like a
piece of stage scenery were in shot.
Enlarge picture
Buzz Aldrin, original photo
* The view of the actual photo below, (at right) (source: AS11-40-5903
or AS11-40-5903 high resolution) is chopped off just above Aldrin, cutting
off Aldrin's antenna (except for a small piece). Duplicate transparencies
are not necessarily exact copies of the original. The publicly-released
version of the photo was cropped and recomposed by NASA within hours of the
film being made available, with extra black space added at the top of most
released versions for what NASA calls aesthetic reasons. This Web page has
NASA's history of the photo.
c) In other photos, the reticles are not in a straight line, or appear
in the 'wrong' place, indicating that the photo has been doctored [2].
* The debunking Web site Clavius.org explains that the methodologies
that the conspiracy theorists propose for doctoring the photos with "wrong"
reticles are often contradictory and generally require absurd lengths to
explain the "inconsistencies" when there are reasonable explanations. In
particular, prints were often cropped and rotated, which causes the illusion
of reticles occurring off-center or "not straight".
The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
Given the lack of time and viewfinders, the photos look much better than
would be expected.
*The astronauts were trained in the use of their gear, and shots and
poses were planned in advance as part of the mission. NASA selected only the
best photographs for release to the public, and some of the photos were
cropped to improve their composition. There are many badly exposed, badly
focused and poorly composed images amongst the thousands of photos that were
taken by the Apollo Astronauts. Many can be seen at the Apollo Lunar
Surface Journal. Photos were taken on high-quality Hasselblad cameras with
Zeiss lenses, using 70 mm medium format film.
There are no stars in any of the photos
Yuri Gagarin (who made one orbit of the Earth in 1961) commented that the
stars were astonishingly brilliant (see the external link below). Hoax
proponents say that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because
astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos
were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and
comparing their celestial position and parallax to what would be expected
for either observation site.
Enlarge picture
Zarya from the Space Shuttle, no stars visible.
Enlarge picture
Space Shuttle Atlantis docked with Mir, no stars visible from the Soyuz
spacecraft
Enlarge picture
No stars visible observing The Moon and Mir from the Space Shuttle Discovery
Enlarge picture
Long-exposure photo taken from the surface of the Moon by Apollo 16 using a
special ultraviolet camera. It shows the Earth with the correct background
of stars.
*Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space
Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at
night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines as brightly as on a clear noon
day on Earth, so cameras used for imaging these things are set for daylight
exposure, with quick shutter speeds in order to prevent overexposing the
film. The dim light of the stars simply does not have a chance to expose the
film. (This effect can be demonstrated on Earth by attempting to view stars
from a brightly lit parking lot. You can only see them if you somehow block
out all illuminated objects from your field of view, and then let your eyes
adjust for night vision. Otherwise, it is like taking a picture of the
night sky with exposure settings for a bright sunny day. Science fiction
movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as
visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were seen by every
Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13 (they couldn't see
the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water vapor created a haze around
the spacecraft). Stars were used for navigation purposes and were
occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To
see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewer's field of view.
(Plait 2002:158-60|).
*Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the Earth's
atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle astronaut
Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all from space. He
had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even glimpse the stars
(Plait 2002:160|). Even with cameras several times more sensitive than the
ones used on Apollo, it takes an exposure of several seconds for even the
brighter stars to show up. [3] Exposure times of the Apollo photographs were
a small fraction of a second, typically 1/250 of a second.
*Payload restrictions made the transport of telescope facilities to the
Moon unfeasible, and without these ordinary stellar photography would have
served no (scientific) purpose. However, even without such facilities, the
Moon does offer several advantages as an observation platform. The near-
absence of an atmosphere means that stellar imaging is possible at many
wavelengths which are not visible from Earth. Long-exposure photos were
taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 astronauts on April
21, 1972 from the surface of the Moon. (This photo has some stars labeled.)
Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus and
Aquarius constellations in the background. The joint Belgium/UK./Holland
satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light.
The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the
Apollo 16 photographs. [4]
*The ability to determine parallax is limited by the angular resolution
of the instrument used. The most advanced dedicated experiment carried out
to date—the Hipparcos satellite—achieved resolutions in the milliarcsecond
range. Using as baseline the diameter of the Earth's orbit about the Sun (
by comparing images taken six months apart), this allowed parallax
measurements for stars out to a distance of approximately 1,000 parsecs.
However, the distance from Earth to Moon is about a thousand times smaller
than that baseline, which means that the detection limit is reduced to about
1 parsec. This is less'' than the distance to the nearest star, Alpha
Centauri. Considering further that the resolution of an image taken with a
conventional camera is many times lower than Hipparcos's, any such
determination is entirely ruled out.
The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.
*Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light
sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. Light from these sources
is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into
shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling
into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple
expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective effects
come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-
parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other,
and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And
finally, the camera in use was fitted with a wide angle lens, which
naturally resulted in subtle versions of "fish eye" distortion (Plait 2002:
167-72|).
Identical backgrounds in photos are listed as taken miles apart.
*Detailed comparison of the backgrounds said to be identical in fact
show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are
consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from.
Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely
different locations around the landing sites.
:Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the
foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar
Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby
locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from
locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground
items.
:Furthermore, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon, very distant
objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as
nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers
high and some 10-20 kilometers away. Changes in such very distant
backgrounds are quite subtle, and can be mistaken for no change at all.
:As the Moon is also much smaller than the Earth, the horizon is
significantly nearer in photographs than Earthbound observers are used to
seeing (an eye 1.7 m above completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7
km away on Earth, but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to
confusing interpretations of the images. [5]
:One specific case is debunked in Who Mourns For Apollo? by Mike Bara.
:*While it is true that there is no haze to assist in judging distance,
the maximum distance to the horizon is much closer than on Earth, due to the
smaller size of the Moon. This limits the scope for the same objects to
appear in different shots taken miles apart.
:: For a flat area of the moon, the distance to horizon ≈ sqrt ( 2 *
radius of moon * height of observer ) [1]
:: The moon's average radius is 1,080 miles [2], and let's assume
generously that the astronauts held the camera 5 feet, or 0.000947 miles
above the surface (the camera's are shown in photographs as having no
viewfinder, and the astronauts seem to hold them in the centre of their
chest, so five feet is generous).
:: These figures give distance = sqrt (2 * 1080 * 0.000947) = 2 miles.
:: It seems that this would be far enough for terrain features to appear
in shots taken from locations some distance apart, but perhaps not "miles
apart". Without having specific information as to which shots and the
terrain they are purported to contain, there is no definite answer.
The number of photographs taken is implausibly high
When the total number of official photographs taken during EVA of all Apollo
missions is divided by the total amount of time of all EVAs, one arrives at
1.19 photos per minute. That is one photo per 50 seconds. Discounting time
spent on other activities results in one photo per 15 seconds for Apollo 11.
This is even more remarkable considering that many locations in the
photographs are situated miles apart and would have taken considerable
travel time, especially in bulky pressure suits. On top of this, the cameras
were neither equipped with a viewfinder nor with automatic exposure, which
means that taking good pictures would take considerably longer.
*The astronauts were well trained before the mission in the use of
photographic equipment. Since there were no weather effects to contend with
and the bright sunlight scenes permitted the use of small apertures with
consequent large depth of field, the equipment was generally kept at a
single setting for the duration of the mission. All that was required of the
astronauts was to open the shutter and wind the film to take a picture.
:In these conditions it is possible to take two photographs a second at
best. The camera was in a bracket mounted on the front of their spacesuit,
so they looked straight ahead at what they wanted to photograph; no
viewfinder was needed. Also, many of the photographs were stereoscopic pairs
or sets of panoramic images, taken immediately after each other. The Apollo
Image Atlas (external link below) shows that 70mm magazine 40/S of Apollo
11 has 121 photos taken during the walk on the surface—less than one per
minute. In addition, by looking at the photographs in sequence, one can see
that very often several of them were taken in rapid succession. Here is a
list of Apollo 11 surface photos (AS11-40-5850 to AS11-40-5970) and a map
showing where they were taken (click on the map to enlarge). As can be seen
from the map, many photos were taken from a similar position.
The photos contain artifacts
Enlarge picture
Original AS16-107-17446 photograph.
Enlarge picture
Close up of later generation prints.
...like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground (the
rock is seen in NASA photos AS16-107-17445 and 17446). They could be "prop
continuity markers". Hoax proponents say that the first copies of the photos
released do show these marks, and that later releases may have been
doctored, and that attempts to debunk this problem focus exclusively on one
example on the rock, ignoring the second on the ground and the coincidence
of two, allegedly identical artifacts on the same photo. [6]
* ''The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in
the original film from the camera, but only in some of the later generation
copies of AS16-107-17446 (and no copies of 17445). One suggestion, as seen
in the next link, is that when magnified the 'C' is a coiled hair present on
the lens of an enlarger when a print of the photo was taken for NASA's
website. (See this link and this link.) Here are the photographs:
* AS16-107-17445 (high resolution)
* AS16-107-17446 (high resolution)
Artifacts in the film
A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym Una Ronald, said she saw
a softdrink bottle in the frame which was edited out of later versions, and
said that many articles appeared discussing this in The West Australian
newspaper at the time. Western Australia was the only place in the world
that got their feed 'live' without delay. [3]
*It is true that Australian viewers saw the footage first, as the
downlink was to several radio-telescopes in New South Wales, including the
famous Parkes Observatory [4]. But'' the lead over Houston's transmission
was only 6 seconds. Not enough time to do a convincing superimposition of a
bottle being kicked by an astronaut, and not enough time to convincingly
remove a bottle kicked by an actor, even with today's technology, and even
if the operator was prepared in advance.
* Transmissions from the moon required video signals of very different
design than that of ordinary television, and were converted to standard
video by pointing a camera at a video screen, a process known as kinescope [
5]-- similar to the predominant method of recording TV in the day -- to 16mm
film, not to video-tape, which was expensive and cumbersome. [6] The
process is vulnerable to added reflections between the monitor glass and the
camera lens. "Ghost" mirror images of highlights appear throughout the
recordings of the broadcast video and are undoubtedly a result of this
process. [7] Such artifacts were noticed at the time by the operators,
though some of them may have been introduced in the recording of the
broadcast, rather than during the preparation for broadcast.
:Analysis shows an optical artifact fitting the description given. It is
clearly caused by a reflection inside the kinescope conversion system. Its
motion precisely mirrors Aldrin's in the shot (see Kick the bottle and "Una
Ronald").
:An MPEG video segment available directly from NASA, said to be of the
exact footage in question [8], does indeed show artifacts which correspond
to ghosting occurring -- although none obviously resemble any type of bottle
. Indeed, with the quality of the recording available, spotting a stray
bottle on the "set" is a hard task, even when told what to look for, where
and when.
*A researcher who examined archival copies of the editions of the paper
surrounding this time was unable to find any evidence of discussion
described by the original source. [9]
* "Una Ronald"'s true identity has been kept secret (however the brand-
name of the softdrink bottle has been widely promoted), and her claims have
only been relayed by one source.
*According to one source, [10] the claim from "Una" distinctly mentioned
that she had to "stay up late" to watch the moon landing live. This may
indicate that she is an invention of someone who is not from Australia, or
who has little knowledge of the Moon Landing, as those who did watch the
moon landing live in Australia usually recall that it occurred in the middle
of the Australian day. This event was the news-of-the-day and the talk-of-
the-town, the world over, and it requires a stretch of the imagination to
conceive that someone who witnessed it could misplace the timing so grossly,
and yet accurately recall the presence of a bottle flashing past in the
blink of an eye, well enough to discount the weight of evidence in favour of
the belief that humankind did in fact reach the moon. All Australian school
children, where possible, were given the opportunity to watch it on
television live -- a very very rare treat indeed, in 1969 in an Australian
school! [11]
*It would be technically incorrect to say that Western Australia
received the footage "before the rest of the world", since this discounts
the remainder of Australia. So if that is what was claimed in the original
source for the claim, then that is one more glossing-over of the specific
details of the event, which does not count in their favour, and demonstrates
an actual lack-of-familiarity with Australia.
*Parkes puts the time of the broadcast at 12:54pm, and WA is 2 hours
behind Australian Eastern Standard Time [12], so any live broadcast would
have been received there at around 11am local time. (Daylight saving time is
not active in the Southern Hemisphere in July when the moon landing took
place, so the calculation is simplified.) So assuming "Uma" did indeed watch
her broadcast late at night, then logically the reason her footage differed
from that seen by the rest of the world must have been that it had been
doctored between the time of the live broadcast when most of the world
failed to observe anything unusual, and her later viewing some kind of
delayed broadcast [13] (none is known to have taken place, but the
possibility is hard to rule out).
: ''However it is not difficult to verify that video-tape technology was
not widely available in 1969, and was bulky, expensive and required
specialist knowledge to operate. [14] [15] Film was still the predominant
storage medium, even for professional archiving of television broadcasts. [
16] Altering a video tape would require access to prized equipment, which
would be unlikely to be available to the casual practical-joker, even if
they had the ability to operate it so well.
A clearly altered photo was published
The 1994 hardback version of Moon Shot by Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton
contains a photograph of Shepard playing golf on the Moon with another
astronaut. The picture is an obvious fake, there being no one else to take
the shot of the two, and the artwork was poor (such as the grapefruit sized
"golf ball"), and yet it was presented as if it were a real photo.
Enlarge picture
The altered photo - the second astronaut is located in the 'fold' in the
middle of the scanned photo
Enlarge picture
TV image of the actual scene
*The picture was made (for the book) from several individual shots from
the Hasselblad cameras (which had already been stowed at that point), and
does not appear in the 1995 UK paperback version, although at no point is
its nature mentioned in the book. It was used in lieu of the only existing
real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently
felt were too grainy to present in a book's picture section.
*The Lunar Module and its shadow come from a left/right reversal of AS14
-66-9276. The astronaut on the right is a left/right reversal from AS14-66-
9240, the TV camera has been removed. The astronaut on the left is a left/
right reversal of AS14-66-9241, again with the TV camera removed. The flag
is from AS14-66-9232 or one of the similar photos. Some of the equipment
came from a photo similar to AS14-67-9361. The golf club, ball, and some
shadows have been added. See this webpage for the dialog and discussion of
the activity that the faked photo depicts.
Shepard duffed the first ball and hit the second one fairly cleanly. Houston
joked to Shepard "That looked like a slice to me, Al.", yet a slice is
caused by uneven airflow on the ball. This is impossible without an
atmosphere.
*The ball moved only two or three feet. Shepard also stated that the
second ball went "miles and miles" (off-camera of the TV broadcast), which
was clearly a joke, like the comment about the slice. Shepard later said, "I
thought, with the same club-head speed, the ball's going to go at least six
times as far. There's absolutely no drag, so if you do happen to spin it,
it won't slice or hook 'cause there's no atmosphere to make it turn." [7] A
slice comes from hitting the ball off the outer end of the club-head, versus
hitting it square in the middle of the club-head, versus hooking it, which
is hitting it off the inner end of the club-head. Shepard did, in effect, "
slice" the ball at first, and as he notes, being in the virtually non-
existent lunar atmosphere, the ball did not curve laterally as an earthbound
slice would.
*See ALSJ, click on "Apollo 14" on the left, under "Second EVA", click
on "A nice day for a game of golf", and scroll down to "135:08:17", which
has a transcript of the actual dialog. Just above "135:08:17" is a video
clip of the golfing sequence. Below "135:09:26" is a discussion of the mock-
up photo in "Moon Shot".
There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs.
Hoax proponents claim this looks like a huge spotlight was used at a close
distance. In an Apollo 12 voice recording astronaut Pete Conrad said "That
Sun's bright, it's like somebody is shining a spotlight on your hands! I
tell you...it really is. It's like somebody's got a super-bright spotlight!"
Of one photo of Aldrin, NASA spokesperson Jan Lundberg stated "Yes, it
seems like he is standing in a spotlight and I can't explain that. Umm, that
escapes me why. So maybe you have to find Armstrong and ask him."
* Lunar dust reflects light in a manner similar to street signs or wet
grass - a significant amount of light is reflected back at the light source
(The sun, in this case.) instead of being scattered in all directions as
earth sand would do. This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the
full moon is much more than twice as bright as a half moon. The "hot spots"
are discussed at Clavius.org [8]. Conrad is talking about the Sun.
--
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 69.137.]
|
