Moon landing hoax

bytey

bytey wrote: »

the russians sent ROBOTS
the usa say they sent MEN

try to keep up .

IF LRO is using pictures of the apollo hardware and the surveyour hardware , then they also need to include the russion stuff for completion , else appolo and surveyour are destined to be considered fakes.

Try to keep things civil.

uprising2

Listen, if the moons surface was silver most reflective of all, the shot is still impossible, the difference between the highlight and the shadow is too far away, there is too much of a difference in intensity of light from highlight to shadow for the film to capture both at any exposure.

Nobody who's waffling on here about this and that hasn't a clue, seriously, film just cant capture it "all".
Because none of you have a clue, I'm going to explain it a different way, if somebody came up to you now and said, I have these new runners they tell you how fast you run, then said "I just ran 120mph, honestly!", and I say he didn't his bollix, then I go on a forum and a load of people believe him and are saying "well the wind was blowing 15-20mph behind him, so yea it's simple really", that's what's happening now, because I know it cannot be as said, now if he forget to mention he was tied to BMW while he was doing it I'd accept he probably did, but he's saying he did it with feet alone.
That's all I'll say, I've been taking photographs for almost 20 years, I used to develop and print my own B+W, I am telling you all now, that picture is NOT possible under conditions they say.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Thats why I said many post's ago that a reflector would have had to be used to illuminate the front of the asstonauts suit, lunar reflection just wouldn't be strong enough no matter how much scatter, and light scatter/diffusion only decreases the amount of light/reflection.

What if I told you that there was a reflector used in the Aldrin image besides the lunar surface which we all (should) know reflects light. Now this reflector was quite a large one in fact, being approx. 6 metres tall x 4 metres wide, made entirely out of metal with a fair portion covered in highly reflective foil. This reflector was about 2-3 metres away from Aldrin. Can you guess what it is??

RoboClam

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen, if the moons surface was silver most reflective of all, the shot is still impossible, the difference between the highlight and the shadow is too far away, there is too much of a difference in intensity of light from highlight to shadow for the film to capture both at any exposure.

Nobody who's waffling on here about this and that hasn't a clue, seriously, film just cant capture it "all".
Because none of you have a clue, I'm going to explain it a different way, if somebody came up to you now and said, I have these new runners they tell you how fast you run, then said "I just ran 120mph, honestly!", and I say he didn't his bollix, then I go on a forum and a load of people believe him and are saying "well the wind was blowing 15-20mph behind him, so yea it's simple really", that's what's happening now, because I know it cannot be as said, now if he forget to mention he was tied to BMW while he was doing it I'd accept he probably did, but he's saying he did it with feet alone.
That's all I'll say, I've been taking photographs for almost 20 years, I used to develop and print my own B+W, I am telling you all now, that picture is NOT possible under conditions they say.

With all due respect, I'm sure you have tonnes of experience with photography. But you come across very holier than thou. I mean, there are certain topics that come up on these boards which i know a lot about because A. It's my job or B. I've done research on the subject. But I try not to say things like "none of you have a clue".

Anyway, here's a picture that kind of shows where we're coming from:



This is a toy model with a light source behind it. The only difference between picture two and three is the reflective foreground, with no change to the light source.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

You haven't managed an explanation to any of these points.

The point you made is that the Moon is just like a conventional oven which is so utterly and completely wrong. I asked you to explain how the Moon = an oven which you have failed to do so far. Comparing the Moon to an oven is like chalk and cheese.

uprising2

Namloc having recieved a pm from you while I was out, I'll make it my duty to prove what I'm saying is right, lunar module and all considered, then I'll wipe your nose in it for being an ass.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Namloc having recieved a pm from you while I was out, I'll make it my duty to prove what I'm saying is right, lunar module and all considered, then I'll wipe your nose in it for being an ass.

LOL you were trying to be smart and condescending when you sent me the PM first....I returned the compliment to you!

Anyway your notion that the shadow side of an object is always pitch black(!) is so so wrong, but I know you can't back down now at this stage because you have gone too far with it.

uprising2

I sent you a tutorial incase you didn't get it, which you still don't, 1000's of photo's you took?. Don't panic if I go offline for a bit, I won't be too long.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

The point you made is that the Moon is just like a conventional oven which is so utterly and completely wrong. I asked you to explain how the Moon = an oven which you have failed to do so far. Comparing the Moon to an oven is like chalk and cheese.

You haven't proved any point you've made so far. Get back to the question then. Answer the points I've put to you or conceed you're wrong.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

LOL you were trying to be smart and condescending when you sent me the PM first....I returned the compliment to you!

Anyway your notion that the shadow side of an object is always pitch black(!) is so so wrong, but I know you can't back down now at this stage because you have gone too far with it.

Answer my question then, why is the aastronaught in darkness on video and brightened in still images. In the same position.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

You haven't proved any point you've made so far. Get back to the question then. Answer the points I've put to you or conceed you're wrong.

Seriously, if you think that the moon is like a conventional oven you are so wrong it is unbelievable. You need to go back to the fundamentals and don't listen to youtube wannabe's who tell you this kind of stuff.....saying the moon is like an oven is rather foolish.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

Seriously, if you think that the moon is like a conventional oven you are so wrong it is unbelievable. You need to go back to the fundamentals and don't listen to youtube wannabe's who tell you this kind of stuff.....saying the moon is like an oven is rather foolish.

Answer the questions FFS.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Answer the questions FFS.

I will answer questions (which you have failed to do so far and still refuse to do) but first please tell us how the moon = an oven?

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

I will answer questions (which you have failed to do so far and still refuse to do) but first please tell us how the moon = an oven?

I'll take that you haven't read back through the thread, and that's fine. Don't if you don't want to. Where was the feather kept?

Also, answer the questions I've put to you. Is your response going to be the aastronaughts did not need space suits as feathers seem completely unaffected by the lunar environment?

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

I'll take that you haven'y read back through the thread, and that's fine. Don't if you don't want to. Where was the feather kept?

Also, answer the questions I've put to you. Is your response going to be the astronauts did not need space suits as feathers seem completely unaffected by the lunar environment?

FYP

You are being ridiculous to say the astronauts did not need suits. Why do you continue to presume other people's comments?? What would you expect to happen to the feather exactly??

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

FYP

You are being ridiculous to say the astronauts did not need suits. Why do you continue to presume other people's comments?? What would you expect to happen to the feather exactly??

Answer the questions.

RoboClam

squod wrote: »

Answer the questions.

I'm not trying to be awkward here, but the thread is quite long. So would you mind if you posted the exact questions that you want answered please?

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Answer the questions.

Are you incapable of answering any questions???????

Anyway what are your questions? They are all jumbled up in the last few posts.

uprising2

Listen Namloc, I apologise for being arrogant, I was just outside having a smoke and I thought "what the fukk am I doing?", it isn't and shouldn't be personal. I respect you for having your side, your as entitled as anybody to have an opinion and I realised I'm being a d1ck.
I stand by my view, and will continue posting on it, but honestly disregard my last few post's.
Peace!

squod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

*The video has shown the apollo lander with one aastronaught decending the steps. In the video the aastronaught appears as a dark figure. In the still image taken of the same aastronaught on the same steps he is well lit.

bytey

yep, complete fake .


some other serious anomalies :

http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_8.html
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_21.html


and a little doozy

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_10.html



and the killer

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_23.html


you know , its possible they did go to the moon -
maybe they did , in some cases , not in all cases
you can scream 'we went to the moon - NASA doesnt lie' til you are blue in the face ,
but the pictures are fakes / not possible.



now the question to be asked is -

we 100 % know they faked the photos - so WHY did they do it ?

was it to hide the fact they

1/ coudlnt make it to the moon
or

2/ could make it too the moon - but couldnt land
or

3/ could make it and land , but film and cameras wouldnt work

or

4/ could make it . land , and cameras worked - but what they found there had to be covered up


its one of these 4 .

RoboClam

squod wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

*The video has shown the apollo lander with one aastronaught decending the steps. In the video the aastronaught appears as a dark figure. In the still image taken of the same aastronaught on the same steps he is well lit.

The video fails to properly take into account the reflective surface of the moon, which I and many others in this thread have mentioned

cuppa

Looks like the light is been reflected from the lander, the surface and from the guy taken the picture.
And you can see bits of gold on his left side from that gold pipe.looks like he is only around 5-10 feet away from the lander the other astronaught.
Also the sun is not directly behind him.

squod

RoboClam wrote: »

The video fails to properly take into account the reflective surface of the moon, which I and many others in this thread have mentioned

Totally not true.

squod

cuppa wrote: »

Looks like the light is been reflected from the lander, the surface and from the guy taken the picture.
And you can see bits of gold on his left side from that gold pipe.looks like he is only around 5-10 feet away from the lander the other astronaught.
Also the sun is not directly behind him.

Don't get this, could you point out the timeline you're refering to please.

Mr. Incognito

Oh my God. How did I miss this thread.

Uprising, you have made me laugh over and over and over again man. Thank you so much, I'm wiping my eyes here. This thread will be stuck up and laminated in my office. Please don't take the following as an insult because you are the bright life to my day today.

How someone who has a camera and what, 20 years experience of pointing it and hitting click ON THE EARTH, and even developed his own film (wow) thinks he is a world expert on photography and can hark definitely that the pictures ON THE MOON are 100% faked is a little arrogant, but you know I'll give you that, lets say I'll roll with that for now and accept it. Do you have any idea of the camera's or film or shutter speeds or any of the technical knowledge of the equipment. Ah heck, google it and let me know through your expert eye. It wouldn't mean much to me anyway but I'm just interested in your base opinion as to how someone who probably took it up as a hobby in the 80's is a renowned expert on 1960's photographic techniques.

The one question I had as a child is one my own kid will probably ask me. Daddy why is the sky blue. Well son it's because the athmosphere is full of particles that reflect and diffuse light. That's right boys and girls, the Earth has an athmosphere which affects light and the moon does not, which, and who knew it also affects the strength of the light and surface temperatures.

Here are a couple of your gems today:

Listen the lunar surface reflects about 10%, that's 1/10th of light hitting it. Try to understand that.
Moonlight is 1/10th that of sunlight, how many times have you stared at the sun on a sunny day, how many times have you stared at the moon on a clear night, now take into account your iris opens and closes to adjust for light, your iris is widest when looking at the lovely moon, and smallest looking at the sun, which still isn't sufficient to stop it blinding you.

Yes I am suggesting/stating the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness, to light the front of Aldrin a reflector or fill in flash WOULD be required, even to process that pic with lots of dodging and burning couldn't possibly give them results

How scientific. Is this how we measure light. Look at that- you can see it. Look at that- whoops, blind.
But the moon's surface which 1/10th that of DIRECT sunlight would have the front of Aldrin in complete darkness. Imagine standing on something 1/10th the power of direct sunlight and you are telling me that it will not reflect light to the front of Aldrin's suit. He is literally standing on 1/10th sunlight and you're telling me they would need a FLASH? :rolleyes: Wow. I could go look up the lumination factors but there is no point. Common logic will hammer home how absurd these two statements are and I think someone might have gone and done it.

Because light travels in a straight line, I've already answered your question, look back, I'm not going to spend my time repeating myself everytime someone logs in to join the debate

I suggest you read up a little about light and it's properties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Light travels in a wave. On the moon, which we have established is 1/10th you say the amount of sunlight, what is does the ground look like. "Why Holy Conspiracy Batman, It's one Big Rock, with lots of other rocks, and craters and even more rocks. What are these rocks doing Robin? Reflecting Light Batman!! In all angles! Powerful sunlight undisturbed by any athmosphere reflected in all angles by a moon surface, that is not flat. Good work Robin. This also happens on the earth. It's why when the sunlight bounces off your car mirror it can blind you. On the moon when direct sunlight hops off a rock, or a moonlander or ANYTHING I'm guessing it can blind you. Standing here nearly 239 thousand away and viewed through the protection of earth's athmosphere which dissipates the light (lets not forget that) it can cast shadows. Stand on it 5 feet away and look down. You think your cornea is going to survive that blast without a series set of Oakleys. Get real.

Anyway, a quick read of this thread has confirmed what I've always known about conspiracies. Some people will believe whatever the heck they want and it's why I pop over here every once in a while and have a good laugh. The posters that fire the tongue and cheek ones in are excellent but it takes those that vehemently believe that really provide for the cracking entertainment.

Feathers and hammers falling at the same seed? "Ha, I'll have a metal feather made up for you."

Pictures of the moon landings. "Ha obviously faked by NASA"

It's like that dude from the Big Lebowski. "You want a toe, I can get you a toe. Get you one by nine o clock tonight with green nail varnish"

Before I go though, and trust me I won't stay here arguing, can any of the conspiracy people explain this one to me. You see I have a budding interest in physics. Always have. I like math and string theory and all that sort of interesting stuff. Makes the day go faster when you have real mysteries to figure out as opposed to poking holes in the one's we've already cracked. Through that interest I'm well aware of the Lunar reflectors that were left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Scientists all over the world have been using them for experiments since. Any physicist will fill you in on that one. Google measuring distance from earth to moon and have a look at the amount of experiments that have used this data for years. Of course you will get the moon hoax brigade but I'm sure we'll have less of that from now on. Or more, heck, I love the inventiveness of people when they are backed into a corner.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

kumate_champ07

uprising2 wrote: »

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

what film stock did they use? did the lens have special anti radiation filters? I doubt the camera body was exposed to the moon environment, it was probably incased in something else which protected the film inside.

uprising2

I'm glad I made your day, Listen carefully, there have been unmanned missions to the moon, I have never doubted that, man has never put man on the moon, the photo's are faked, I am stating here and now as fact that , that picture could not have been produced under those highlight and shadow extremities, it could not have been captured as they are too extreme on earth and even more so on the moon.

If all this illumination is spreading everywhere why didn't it light up the side of the lunar lander that is facing the same way as the asstronaut is facing?, if you look at the reflection, the side of it facing the astronaut is lit, from the same light source that is lighting the back of the asstronaut, yet it superbly evenly lights the front of him also, but acts a different way for the lunar lander, it DOESN'T light the "dark side of the lunar".

Ask somebody who actually knows about photography and lighting, and if you had read correctly you would see that I mentioned the camera and film used.
And another thing need's to be considered, who's monitors are calibrated and who's arent?, is yours?, because we may be seeing different variants of the pic coz maybe your monitor is darker, brighter, different colour/white balance.
But I stand by what I said 100%.
On a side note, it show's the recession is biting when the fukking tax mod is in the looney bin talking about things he doesn't understand.

bytey

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Oh my God. How did I miss this thread.


Before I go though, and trust me I won't stay here arguing, can any of the conspiracy people explain this one to me. You see I have a budding interest in physics. Always have. I like math and string theory and all that sort of interesting stuff. Makes the day go faster when you have real mysteries to figure out as opposed to poking holes in the one's we've already cracked. Through that interest I'm well aware of the Lunar reflectors that were left by Apollo 11, 14 and 15. Scientists all over the world have been using them for experiments since. Any physicist will fill you in on that one. Google measuring distance from earth to moon and have a look at the amount of experiments that have used this data for years. Of course you will get the moon hoax brigade but I'm sure we'll have less of that from now on. Or more, heck, I love the inventiveness of people when they are backed into a corner.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

WELL , since you asked .

http://www.k3pgp.org/lasereme.htm

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3944532


the USA and russians bounced lasers off the moon way before any *cough* appollo mirrors were put up there


NASA might tell you they 'bounce lasers of the apollo mirrors ' therefore apollo is real, but the fact is you can bounce lasers of the moon without mirrors - so that closes that little arguement

oh, and I studied physics in college for many years, then graduated ;-)

Mr. Incognito, if you're going to post here, please don't post in such a fashion. Parts of your post are rather insulting to those who believe in such theories, and as such, they won't be tolerated.