Moon landing hoax

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.

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.

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

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/