moon landing conspiracy

A7X wrote: »

Yes there is a small difference but that's not the point. They are the same background, different foreground and no change in size at all.

But what if these mountains are bigger than they look?

A7X wrote: »

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/17-139-21203noreticles.jpg Ive seen pictures of the background in all directions and I cant see any mountains that size. Also If they are that big they would get bigger the closer you get to the LEM yet they dont.

Unless they are bigger than they look?

A7X wrote: »

That may be so, but in the photo I showed just there it had been quoted on about the light grey dust surrounding the lander that was made by the descent plume yet on closer photos there is no evidence of this.

Because that patch of light dust looks pretty big. In all of the pictures close up the darker dust isn't in frame to compare.

A7X wrote: »

It was about the picture I posted. Here is the quote. "The item in the centre of this telephoto image, believe it or not, is the LM – allegedly at the same Apollo 17 location we were looking at earlier. According to the record, the LM is almost two miles away, photographed from the base of the North Massif. The sides of the South Massif in the background are 5 miles away."

Is that five miles from the LEM or from where the picture was taken?
How tall is the South Massif? is there any othe peaks or throughs between the LEM and the south Massif?
How much higher was the place where the picture was taken than the LEM?
Doin't you think all these might play a factor?

A7X wrote: »

I believe that we have gone to the moon in some shape or form, but for whatever reason they decided to stage the photo's of them on the moon.

But why?
If they went to the moon why not just take the pictures there?

A7X wrote: »

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/A17noplss.jpg It's very clear.

No it's not by any stretch.
First off the picture is taken for far enough away.
Second the rlection is very small.
Third the the reflection is distorted by the sharp of the visor.
Fourth the astronaut is looking dead on.
Fifth there simply is not enough detail to see whether he has a camera or not.

A7X wrote: »

That may be the reason but there is literally no tracks from the rover in that picture at all. Even where there are no footprints or directly under the wheel where the astronauts can't stand. I would except that as the reason if there was a single piece of rover tracks visible.

You realise that dust travels pretty far on the moon right?
And that they would have been doing all of work on the rover and stand very close to it. Not to mention all the back and forth they would have to do.

A7X wrote: »

No its not that photo it's this one http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12conradsdance.jpg

Handy how they don't show what's to the left of the photo. wonder what that would show.

A7X wrote: »

They were for the tv camera's. I'm refering to the Photo's taken from the astronauts camera which is situated on their chest, which means they can only take photo's in the direction they are facing and at chest height. They also had no viewfinder. In regards to the jump salute picture. The astronaut taking the photo is seen in the tv broadcast to be using the camera on his chest to take the photo. He took 2 photo's. Both nearly exactly identical. How this is done with someone using a camera which they can't even look through and only guess is baffling. http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/16jumpsalutesgrid.jpg Also he reaches the exact same height in his jump in both photos even though he ran for the first and not for the second.

You realise that the astronauts got a ton of practice with those cameras right? And that there are a ton of photos that don't look good at all?
But those photos aren't identical.
The bottom one has moved slightly to the right. You can see this clearly.
The astronaut is also in clearly different positions.
He isn't at the same height either.
This isn't impossible to photograph or anything. I don't see how you can claim it is.

A7X wrote: »

The fact is there are many anomilies. I'd be very happy if these photo's were not fake and were real, but I just can't look at all the evidence, which we have only scratched the surface, and accept that there is nothing strange going on with them.

And is it even possible that these "anomalies" are in fact misconceptions? Or are based on ignorance and poor information?

How many of these anomalies have you critically examined?
Or do you just accept them at face value?

A7X wrote: »

In regards to the jump salute picture. The astronaut taking the photo is seen in the tv broadcast to be using the camera on his chest to take the photo. He took 2 photo's. Both nearly exactly identical.

By "nearly exactly identical", you mean "different", right?

The pictures are differently framed. The astraonaut is at (slightly) different heights, in slightly different positions.

We have a completely static background, and a photographer who is also stationary. For his second picture, all he needs to do is wait until its pretty-close to where the first picture was, and you end up with two similar pictures.

How this is done with someone using a camera which they can't even look through and only guess is baffling.

Use whatever technique you've been taught to understand how the camera lines up to what you're seeing. Take picture.

Remain mostly stationary. Wait for astronaut in picture to get to rougly where you saw him the last time you pressed the button. Press the button again.

Done.

I'm not sure what's baffling about that at all, particularly since its not like the saluting astronaut is moving at anywhere near the speed someone would move on earth.

Had there been other photographs taken in between the two, from a different location, or in a different direction, then one might ask how they were framed so similarly, but the two pictures were taken in succession. One should expect them to be mostly similar.

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/16jumpsalutesgrid.jpg Also he reaches the exact same height in his jump in both photos even though he ran for the first and not for the second.

He's at a similar-but-not-identical height in both pictures. In addition, if you look at the camera footage, he wasn't running for the first jump. He runs in, stops, jumps, pauses, jumps again. You can see that the jumps weren't identical in height (but were similar), which isn't that surprising really when you stop and think about .

A7X wrote: »

There are some anomilies which can't be explained

Surely only these are what are of interest?

If we have something which could be explained by a genuine moon-landing, then its hardly evidence that a moon-landing didn't take place.

and many which NASA choose not to explain. Why won't they?

Why should they?

This isn't a flippant question, by the way. NASA are not tasked nor funded to answer every last question from every last skeptic on the planet regarding their moon-missions. They stand little, if anything, to gain from it....and to be honest its almost-certainly an endless, pointless task.

For example, the circular "lens flares" witnessed in some of the photographs. This is not possible with the reported camera's used, because they had penatagonal leaf shutters.

This is an excellent example of what I mean.

Lets assume that NASA went to the moon. Lets assume that they used the photographic equipment that they say they used, and took the pictures they said they took.

Why should it be NASA's responsibility to explain to anyone why circular lens-flare appears on some of those pictures? From their perspective, they went to the moon, they took these pictures with that equipment, and ended up with the lens-flare that they ended up with. Ergo, the claim that this is impossible, from their perspective, must be false.

Looking at it from another perspective...someone says that they're not convinced that NASA went to the moon - that they suspect that NASA are lying to them on a grand scale. Why should NASA be trusted to answer the question in the first place? The only answer that would be trustworthy would be "you've caught us...we made the whole thing up". Anything else which explains how it is possible would just be part of the lie/coverup, right?

What it boils down to is this...

If you can prove that round lens-flare is impossible on that equipment, and you can show that there is round lens-flare, then you can prove NASA are lying. Their input is not required.

On the other hand, if you can't prove that its impossible, or can't show photo's with round lens-flare, then at the very least you have to accept that you may be mistaken and that it is possible or didn't occur at all.

For example...lens-flare is caused by reflection between elements in a multi-element lens. The pentagonal shape you say should be seen would be caused by the f-stop aperture (not the shutter). The Hasselblad had a pentagonal f-stop aperture...so any flare caused between elements in front of the f-stop aperture should indeed be pentagonal.

However the camera in question also has lens-elements behind the f-stop aperture. Flaring caused from reflection between these elements cannot be affected by the shape of the f-stop aperture and should, therefore be round.

So...from a bit of digging around, it would seem that the claim that this was impossible with the camera in question is...well...wrong. I would continue to maintain, however, that it in no way is NASA's job to explain how a Hasselblad camera works, so it was never their responsibility to save me a bit of googling around.

A7X wrote: »

So they are bigger than they look. Yet according to another picture there are mountains which are so big they take up the whole picture behind the LEM even though they don't when you get closer to the LEM.

Yes because they are take at a different angle.
The surface of the Moon isn't perfectly flat.
http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html

A7X wrote: »

That may be so but close up to the LEM there should be visible light grey dust going out in all directions away from the LEM and visible under it yet this is not the case. There is none what so ever.

No close to the LEM there isn't any darker dust in frame to contrast with so it all looks like the same colour.

A7X wrote: »

I don't know. That's why I said for whatever reason.

So if you can't establish a decent motive how are you so sure they deliberately faked the photos?

And what about the other evidence?
The laser reflectors place by Apollo 11? the fact all the missions where tracked by other countries and independent amateurs?
The fact that the movement of the astronauts can't be replicated on Earth?
The fact the flags stay perfectly still despite having astronauts jumping past them?

A7X wrote: »

No it's not that far away, but the reflection is small. That doesn't matter though. No matter how much the visor distorts an image it does not get rid of ojects that should be there. The outline of that astronaut is alot different to what it should be. If the visor made the outline skinnier it would still be noticable on the outline but it's not.
No the astronaut is not looking dead on, that is very noticable. There doesnt need to be detail. As you can see, his chest is completley white. If there was a camera there it would not be white, there would be a shape of a black object there.

You're joking right?
The reflection is tiny and very distorted.
He is looking dead on (because he is taking the picture) the distortion of the helmet make it look like he is not.
He is wearing his pack but because he is looking dead on it's not that noticeable.
There simply in not enough detail to honestly say he has no camera.

But if that astronaut wasn't taking the photo how come the guy who was isn't reflected?

And why would NASA during the course of the most elaborate hoax ever make such a stupid mistake?

A7X wrote: »

I can't see how every track made by the rover would be covered by the tracks of the astronauts, specially in places they can't stand, regardless of how far dust can travel on the moon. The fact that there is none where there are no footprints is odd aswell.

Because they were working on it for a while. Because dust flies pretty far on the Moon it's not a stretch to imagine that during the extensive work that a dust would go under the rover.
It's also possible that the astronauts picked up the front end and had placed the rover in that position. They did this alot because the rover had terrible handling but was pretty light so it was easier sometimes just to pick it up.

A7X wrote: »

Considering he is moving towards the left where are his footprints from his entry from the right. So what does the left of the photo have to do with anything?

Unless he came from the left and spun around on the spot. And the website you got this from is making **** up.

A7X wrote: »

It's not impossible to photograph obviously, but under their circumstances it seems unlikely but when every thing is lined up together you can see that he is centred exactly around the same point. Not to mention that there are footprints under one of the jumps and none under the other. Also, it is very clear from the video that when he reaches the top of his jump there is still dust in the air from his jump. Where is this in the photo?

But it's clearly not centred around the same point. This is made perfectly clear thanks to the lines provide by the site. You can clearly see that the second photo some the camera was pointing slightly to the right of the first.

As for the dust, you should know that the camera on the lander was at a completely different angle and was taking video. A small cloud of gray dust wouldn't be that apparent on a gray background on a still.
And I've already addressed the thing about the footprints.

But I don't get that. If it was a fake why would they not have footprints?
Wouldn't they just have the actors walk around a bit?
Seems they would have to be intentionally avoiding footprints for there to be none.

A7X wrote: »

There are some anomilies which can't be explained and many which NASA choose not to explain. Why won't they?
For example, the circular "lens flares" witnessed in some of the photographs. This is not possible with the reported camera's used, because they had penatagonal leaf shutters.

Shows how much crictical research you've done.
http://www.clavius.org/lensflare.html

Care to point out any other "unexplained" ones.

And NASA's job is not to waste their time addressing ridiculous conspiracy theories. The are plenty of qualified amateurs.

A7X wrote: »

I haven't critically examined these photograph's im merely examining other people's critical examinations of these photo's which is what you are doing aswell.

No seems like your just believing them without question.
Have you actually read thought the sites I linked?

DubTony banned for one week.

i have done quite lot research on this in past few months and by what i see you can take both sides.

but i just think that th US would have been taking huge risk if they did a hoax hence why i believe it is not and they did actually land on the moon

briktop wrote: »

not as big a risk as actually trying to go to the moon, which they didnt .

they took the lesser risk

And what risk is that exactly?

Is it the radiation you have yet to actually quantify?