Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Moon landing hoax
Options
Comments
-
Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:
But seriously are NASA so incompetent as to lose the Apollo 11 original tapes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!
The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.
My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):
0 -
-
namloc1980 wrote: »That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!
The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.
My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):
Have you ever handled a Hassleblad?, do you understand exposure?, F/stops, shutter speed?, depth of field and dynamic range of negative film?, the picture you just posted, if you ask on the photography forum anybody that knows anything about the things I just mentioned will tell you the astronaut should be silhouetted, unless a large reflector was used, which it wasn't.
The kodak man is actually saying they "were" taken on the moon, and the camera's left behind.
Another thing the Hassleblad is a fully manual camera, a light meter is required to find the exposure, then the camera must be manually set, it would be possible for a predetermined exposure value to be found and set, using a handheld meter.
Light is measured in f/stops, the range from highlight to shadow is way out of the range of film, one must be sacrificed for the other.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?
Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D
not quite 40 years but how about supersonic passanger travel. Damn I wish they'd release all that maglev technology from Area 51
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
One good example there fair enough.:)Silverharp2 wrote: »not quite 40 years but how about supersonic passanger travel. Damn I wish they'd release all that maglev technology from Area 51
Still I do not believe that the country that voted George Bush president and possibly will vote Sarah Palin president could send man to the moon:D:D:D
And if they did sure George would have spent his time going back and forth too the moon until he got bored of it and ye know he never would have got bored with that would he.:D:D0 -
As I said, I posted it to show that it is possible for it to seem like there was another lightsource when there wasn't/EDIT: the video above (and part 2) address nothing posted in the previous videos.humanji, that link has been cancelled out by this:
Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon...amma-rays.html
But that means nothing. They're not x-rays coming from the moon. It's a different form of radiation. I don't see any evidence that this would stop photographs from being taken successfully.Still I do not believe that the country that voted George Bush president and possibly will vote Sarah Palin president could send man to the moon:D:D:D
Now, that's the best argument for the conspiracy. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
namloc1980 wrote: »That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!
The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.
My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):
Look at the video again. As was explained, the sill cameras are showing reflection from the surface of the moon but the video cameras are not, in the same shot! You may not want to believe the photos are faked, that's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to be wrong.0 -
-
-
If the moon landings are fake, then explaine to me how they did this?
0 -
what???? are you serious......
if i take a picture of a person where the sun is coming in from one side, the other side of ther person isnt in complete darkeness.....
without going to the moon... go try that outside ????
the light is coming from behind, the shadow coming forward should have hinted that to you, you go and try it.
0 -
PirateShampoo wrote: »If the moon landings are fake, then explaine to me how they did this?
The feather wasn't a feather, the hammer wasn't a hammer, 2 objects with weight of different weight's will fall at the same speed, wires or faster frame rate will slow it down.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
PirateShampoo wrote: »If the moon landings are fake, then explaine to me how they did this?
Grasping at straws? What was the feather made from & what was the temperature of the moon at that time? Stick an eagle feather in the oven for an hour and see how it looks.
The feather object is likely as heavy as the hammer object.0 -
You havent a clue what your talking about, honestly I don't want to waste anymore time on this with you, post that image on the photography forum and ask somebody with a little more photographic experience and knowledge than you, ask them to explain how the front of the suit isn't silhouetted.
Seriously, you haven't a notion of what you are on about. I can't believe that you think that the shadow side of a subject should always be pitch black darkness.....what planet does that happen on??? I can only assume that you have never been outside under the Sun. e.g. if you are talking to someone outside on a sunny day and they have their back to the Sun....are you seriously trying to tell us that their face will be pitch black????? :pac::pac:
Or when you go to watch a match on a sunny day are you trying to say that the shadow side of the players should be pitch black??? :pac::pac:
According to you the above picture is impossible and must be a fake. The shadow side of the player should be pitch black but guess what it isn't!! You are so wrong on so many levels I'm afraid.Grasping at straws? What was the feather made from & what was the temperature of the moon at that time? Stick an eagle feather in the oven for an hour and see how it looks.
The feather object is likely as heavy as the hammer object.
:pac: Are you seriously trying to compare the Moon to a conventional oven???0 -
namloc1980 wrote: »Are you seriously trying to compare the Moon to a conventional oven???
I suppose you're about to make the point that space suits are unnecessary.Lol 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
namloc1980 wrote: »
According to you the above picture is impossible and must be a fake. The shadow side of the player should be pitch black but guess what it isn't!! You are so wrong on so many levels I'm afraid.
The light is coming from the side of the player, almost 90 degree's, notice the shadow streak running along the right side of the players mouth, where his cheek blocks the light, thats what I'm saying should be on the front of the space suit, if you look back at the faked pic why is the shadow of the rock black and the front of the space suit that should be in shadow not?.
Where the light source is makes a big difference, theres a big difference in where the light is coming from in the footballer pic and the faked one, 2 totally different positions, the footballer is lit from the side, the astronaut from behind, your having trouble getting what I'm saying.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55jImEhNZ0![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfKItI-cHPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOv_zvM-oJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dTATMEJSuQAdvertisement