The truth about AS11-40-5863/69
The "photoshopped" Image
If the Apollo moon photos are fabricated, one of the first questions that arises is what can we observe in these images that suggests this might be true, and how challenging are these indicators to detect? This narrative will demonstrate that even the Apollo historical archive struggles to distinguish between reality and myth. In October 2012, we discovered a compilation image featured in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ). According to the caption that accompanied the image (dated October 5, 2012), the compilation consisted of Apollo 11 mission photos AS11-40-5863 to 69, along with AS11-44-6576 for the top antenna. It won't take you more than a minute to realize that creating the compilation image as presented in the ALSJ using these photos is impossible. We reached out to the chief editor of the ALSJ to express our concerns. Additionally, we contacted Ed Hengeveld, the individual who created the image, to inquire about his process. Below are the responses we received from Ed Hengeveld.
Question AwE130:
"I’m investigating AS11-40-5863-69, for a project I’m doing. First I would like to tell you that I am not 100% sure about the Apollo moon landings and I am trying to find answers to the questions I have. I would like to ask you if you can tell me how you created this mosaic? I would like to ask you what image you used for the light source on the right top and how you created the left bottom corner part. According the ALSJ you used AS11-40-5863 to 5869 plus 6567."
Answer Ed Hengeveld:
“I have little to add to the explanation on the ALSJ, except that the ‘sun’ is a Photoshop effect that I placed approximately where the sun would be in the sky. I don’t remember exactly what I used for the bottom left, but I know I copied little parts of lunar surface from other areas of the photo, like a puzzle, to fill in the blanks. It was not meant to create a scientifically correct photo, but to combine the images into an artistically pleasing result. So please don’t waste your time comparing details on the lunar surface with other photos, because these may actually belong in a different spot. I hope this answers your question.”
As we noticed that the top antenna of the image could not have been from the Apollo 11 mission we did reply with another question, as the ALSJ caption did tell that the top antenna was from the Apollo 11 mission.
Question AwE130:
I have one more question as an ALSJ contributor sent me an email. He told me that the top antenna was from an image of Apollo 14. I assumed that it was taken from AS11-44-6576. What is the correct answer?
Answer Ed Hengeveld:
“If I remember correctly the antenna was taken from a photo of another mission (could be Apollo 14), because I could not find an Apollo 11 photo that I could use for it.”
In the last email we thanked him and asked if we would be allowed to share the information.
Question AwE130:
Do you mind if we share this information?
Answer Ed Hengeveld:
“I have no objections if you share what I have told you with others. I have seen before that my Photoshopped photo was used as an argument that the landings never happened. If I had realized that it would be used for that purpose, I would never have published it.”
What does this image reveal to us and why is it significant?
If the Apollo photographs taken on the moon are indeed fabricated, then this is how they might have accomplished it. Reality and fantasy are intertwined, making it challenging to discern what is genuine. Let’s provide just one illustration. When you examine the ALSJ caption and consider the images that are supposed to form the compilation, you will find that there is no picture that depicts the landing pad without Buzz Aldrin's feet. Only image AS11-40-5869 captures the landing pad with Buzz’s feet present. In the compilation, Buzz's feet mysteriously vanish.
In Mr. Hengeveld's email, he mentioned that he assembled various elements like a puzzle. This approach likely applies to the feet of Buzz Aldrin as well. It appears that even the ALSJ struggles to distinguish between a genuine historical composition image and a photoshopped artistic rendition. We recommended to the ALSJ's chief editor that the image be relocated to the artistic representation section of the historical archive, and they complied shortly after we provided our insights. Nevertheless, they seem to have difficulty communicating our findings to visitors. The top antenna was identified as belonging to Apollo 17, not Apollo 11, as initially claimed by the ALSJ. This correction was made in early 2013. Yet, even now, readers are not informed about the photoshopped 'sun' or the whereabouts of Buzz's feet. We discovered an image from the Apollo 12 mission featuring a sun that bears a striking resemblance. Could this be why the ALSJ fails to notify readers about the photoshopped sun in the Apollo 11 compilation image? Perhaps, but what the artistic representation reveals is how easily even the foremost historical archive, ALSJ, can be misled by deceptive images. The Apollo 12 sun image and the photoshopped sun in Ed Hengeveld's compilation are nearly identical. Did Ed Hengeveld simply copy and paste the Apollo 12 'sun' into an Apollo 11 compilation and label it as a photoshop effect? You decide!
The communication with the chief editor of the historical archive on the NASA website regarding the findings by Awe130 related to the compilation in question.
From: xxxxxgmail.com
Subject: Re: AS11-40-5863-69 the real story
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:37:12 +1100
To: xxxxxxxhotmail.com
Hi Adrian,
I didn’t actually mean you. So far, you’re the most rational hoax believer I’ve encountered. Moving the image to the artistic section is a good idea and will be done, with proper credit to you.
I gather from Ed that at least some hoax believers use his assembly as evidence that the missions have been faked. They can believe what they like; and I can choose to ignore them.
I do think it is time to end this correspondence. I do appreciate the questions that have made me think. However, I realize now that our correspondence has the potential of dragging me into the debate, despite your best intentions.
Wishing you all the best,
Eric
P.S. The antenna portion of the image is not from another mission. As we clearly state in the caption, Ed used “a portion of AS11-44-6576, which was taken in orbit after undocking.” So it is Eagle, but not on the lunar surface. Ed has portrayed Buzz’s egress using a little artistic license. It doesn’t need defending.
End email.
In the email, the chief editor outright contradicted the information we had received from Ed just two days earlier, which we had forwarded to him. Under considerable pressure from other contributors, he modified the information we provided. However, Even after being informed that the antenna originated from a different mission, he continues to insist it was from Apollo 11?
Cached version from November 24, 2012, with credits to AwE130, though not for the antenna section, since Eric Jones claimed wrongly it originated from Apollo 11.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121124041025/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html
November 24, 2012
In early 2008, Ed Hengeveld used portions of AS11-40-5863 to 69 to create a view of Buzz on the porch (4.0 Mb or 0.4 Mb). Neil did not capture the top rear of the LM with these pictures, so Ed filled the gap with a portion of AS11-44-6576, which was taken in orbit after undocking. Late in 2012, AwE130 suggested that Ed's creation more properly belongs on the page with other creative works, rather than in the Apollo 11 Image Library.
By the time everything had calmed down in 2014, the chief editor had to concede that AwE130 was right, but rather than admitting his mistake regarding the antenna, he chose to take AwE130 out of the credits.
Cached version june 19,, 2014 our credits are removed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140619011714/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html
June 19, 2014,
In early 2008, Ed Hengeveld used portions of AS11-40-5863 to 69 to create a view of Buzz on the porch (4.0 Mb or 0.4 Mb). Neil did not capture the top rear of the LM with these pictures. Journal Contributor GoneToPlaid points out that Ed filled the gap with a portion of AS17-149-22860, which was taken in orbit after undocking.
The actions taken show that the historical archive on the NASA website has little problems with deleting information without offering any justification. In this case, it was a credit to a contributor, which is a relatively minor issue from a historical viewpoint. Nevertheless, this trend of removing or concealing data has also been observed by AwE130 in genuine historical documents, which raises serious concerns and was one of the reasons AwE130 decided to leave the ALSJ as a contributor.
Disclaimer: The image is a digital composite; 'photoshopped' is used here as a general term for digital alteration.