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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?

1…5681011…29

Comments

  • #212
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    How about the landers that do have dust on their landing gear- are they the real ones? lol

    Have any pictures my good man?


  • #213
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Divorce Referendum wrote: »
    Really its both is it? Fast forward to 5:25 in the video below and explain to me how the astronaut is lit even though according to you he should be in shadow?

    Erm I'm talking about slide/transparency film supposedly used to take the pics on the moon, negative film has a wider dynamic range, but transparency film is much more critical.
    How is the astronaut lit?, fill light

    timconnor.jpg
    NO FILL
    WITH FILL

    In regards to the dust on the landers if there was no air to slow the dust down expelled by the thruster it would fly away rapidly and not settle slowly like a dust cloud on earth. This adds further weight to the fact that it was shot on the moon. Cheers:)
    [/QUOTE]

    Ok so the thruster would leave some sort of crater or disturbance of the dust, and no air to slow the dust down???, what about gravity or lack of it, you think maybe that could slow it down?, seen as it slowed the astronauts jumping and there was no air to slow them.:rolleyes::confused::confused:


  • #214
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Erm I'm talking about slide/transparency film supposedly used to take the pics on the moon, negative film has a wider dynamic range, but transparency film is much more critical.
    How is the astronaut lit?, fill light

    timconnor.jpg
    NO FILL
    WITH FILL

    In regards to the dust on the landers if there was no air to slow the dust down expelled by the thruster it would fly away rapidly and not settle slowly like a dust cloud on earth. This adds further weight to the fact that it was shot on the moon. Cheers:)


    Ok so the thruster would leave some sort of crater or disturbance of the dust, and no air to slow the dust down???, what about gravity or lack of it, you think maybe that could slow it down?, seen as it slowed the astronauts jumping and there was no air to slow them.:rolleyes::confused::confused:

    Why would they need fill when he was lit by source of light reflecting up from the ground??



    Janey in that last statement you have totally proved yourself wrong. On earth the air prevents some objects from falling as fast as others, especially very, very small objects like dust particles. But on the moon only gravity affects them, so dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface. The dust is clearly dry, but it falls immediately to the surface and does not form clouds.

    If it formed clouds (like it would have on earth) it would have settled on the landing gear. In an apollo 15 experiment a feather fell at the same rate as a hammer. Astronauts will fall slower than on earth but dust will fall faster on the moon than on earth.


  • #215
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Divorce Referendum wrote: »
    Astronauts will fall slower than on earth but dust will fall faster on the moon than on earth.

    There's videos of dust landing on the moon faster than the boots it came off of. That's two objects, travelling a t different speeds towards the surface of the moon from the same starting point.


  • #216
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,613 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    uprising2 wrote: »
    timconnor.jpg
    NO FILL
    WITH FILL

    Out of curiosity, in that image you can see the shadow from the fill light, presumably you can show us images from the Apollo missions with shadows from the "second light source"?


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    There's videos of dust landing on the moon faster than the boots it came off of. That's two objects, travelling a t different speeds towards the surface of the moon from the same starting point.

    Care to share this video so we can all have a look?

    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    How about the landers that do have dust on their landing gear- are they the real ones? lol
    Divorce Referendum wrote: »
    Have any pictures my good man?

    Still waiting for these pictures. Is is all private stuff that only you can see?


  • #218
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    You're as able to use google as anyone else here. Is there a content filter fiited to your PC that prevents you from seeing this stuff or is it your own blinkered vision?


  • #219
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If there are two light sources why is there only one set of shadows?


  • #220
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're as able to use google as anyone else here. Is there a content filter fiited to your PC that prevents you from seeing this stuff or is it your own blinkered vision?

    No im not the one making this claim. I have posted videos where I can. Find and post the video if you want. I could say that i seen a video of barney hopping around behind the LM. Doesnt mean its true though does it:rolleyes:


  • #221
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Can't post video from here. Youtube search ''Mythbusters V Apollo 16 - John Young.wmv'' I'm sure I'll pick a better example when I get the chance.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Can't post video from here. Youtube search ''Mythbusters V Apollo 16 - John Young.wmv'' I'm sure I'll pick a better example when I get the chance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLAy73CSuQ


    The dust appears to be falling from the astronaut boots as he is on the way up in his jump and I wouldnt think you could say they are falling from the same height.

    Here is the video I talked about earlier. The feather and hammer dropped at the same time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE81zGhnb0w


  • #223
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    You could say the were falling from the same height. Crutially you could say they were falling at different speeds. Time to take the blinkers off?


  • #224
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    The feather and hammer video is what te first video is directly contradicting, in case you haven't noticed.


  • #225
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You could say the were falling from the same height. Crutially you could say they were falling at different speeds. Time to take the blinkers off?

    How if the astronaut was still on his way up and the dust is already falling could they be at the same height. Its not blinkers its looking at it correctly which in my opinion you are not. Take a look at the video i posted whenever you get out of the place that doesnt allow you to post/watch them. There is no question about the height issue in that one.


  • #226
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The feather and hammer video is what te first video is directly contradicting, in case you haven't noticed.

    How did they get a feather and hammer to do this on earth then as i am assuming you believe its all a fake?


  • #227
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Hollywood re-enacted the scene in a movie not so long ago (someone else can post it?). Are you saying that movie was shot on the moon?


  • #228
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Not saying I'm 100 percent sure all the landings were fake. Just commenting on the more obvious evidence of fakery that anyone can see.


  • #229
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Hollywood re-enacted the scene in a movie not so long ago (someone else can post it?). Are you saying that movie was shot on the moon?

    See what you are saying is that the dust stayed on his boots till the crest of his jump which looks like about 1 feet approximately of the ground but in reality the dust falls off his boot much earlier than this and to be honest that is what you would expect. There isnt a timer on the dust allowing it to fall at exactly the same moment as he is coming down.

    Edit; Ah i see it was me that read your post incorrectly.


  • #230
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    There isnt a timer on the hammer either! The dust is falling towards the surface faster. It's not like this is open for debate.


  • #231
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    There isnt a timer on the hammer either! The dust is falling towards the surface faster. It's not like this is open for debate.

    There is a timer on the hammer. Its called the astronaut and he times the realesing of the objects at the same time from the same height. It is open for debate. It is you that perhaps has the blinkers on in regards to this. Common sense plays alot when the astronaut jumps up that dust is not going to wait till the exact point that he reach the highest point of the jump and then falls back. It falls off earlier because it is not bonded to his boot and then unbonded when you want it to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Divorce Referendum wrote: »
    Why would they need fill when he was lit by source of light reflecting up from the ground??



    Janey in that last statement you have totally proved yourself wrong. On earth the air prevents some objects from falling as fast as others, especially very, very small objects like dust particles. But on the moon only gravity affects them, so dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface. The dust is clearly dry, but it falls immediately to the surface and does not form clouds.

    If it formed clouds (like it would have on earth) it would have settled on the landing gear. In an apollo 15 experiment a feather fell at the same rate as a hammer. Astronauts will fall slower than on earth but dust will fall faster on the moon than on earth.

    Take a look at this video and the dust isn't acting like you say it should.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmpNgvVOZQ4


  • #233
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    If there are two light sources why is there only one set of shadows?

    Because one is the main light and the other fill, the main light is the stronger and cancel's out the fill coming from a different direction.


  • #234
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Isnt it? I didnt see a massive cloud staying in the air when he kicked it up and he fell. The dust fell pretty quickly. Whats your take on it?


  • #235
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    the dust is falling faster. Significantly so, and this isn't the only example of it. Stands to reason also that some of that dust would be on top of his shoes or around the sides etc.
    If you want to more closely examine it the difference in height of the dust and the boots are fairly close. The time it takes each to reach the surface from the point where they start falling is significantly different.

    Responding to post 231


  • #236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Because one is the main light and the other fill, the main light is the stronger and cancel's out the fill coming from a different direction.

    And the moon's surface can't be this "fill" because....?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y


    I suppose Mythbusters are in on it as well?


  • #237
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, in that image you can see the shadow from the fill light, presumably you can show us images from the Apollo missions with shadows from the "second light source"?

    The girl is about a foot from the background, a slight tweak and that shadow would not be there, (ie: increase the backlight slightly), and she's not pretending to be on the moon.
    Get two torches and play with them, look into lighting set ups and techniques, its fairly straight forward.


  • #238
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    And the moon's surface can't be this "fill" because....?
    The angle of the sun, its behind the astronaut, and doesnt have the reflective properties required.
    The overall albedo of the moon is around 0.12. Snow is about 0.9.


  • #239
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uprising2 wrote: »
    The angle of the sun, its behind the astronaut, and doesnt have the reflective properties required.
    Well I've experts that say otherwise. Namely the Mythbusters doing exactly was you are claiming is impossible.
    Can you substantiate your claim?
    uprising2 wrote: »
    The overall albedo of the moon is around 0.12. Snow is about 0.9.
    I think you've got those values the wrong way round.


  • #240
    Divorce Referendum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    the dust is falling faster. Significantly so, and this isn't the only example of it. Stands to reason also that some of that dust would be on top of his shoes or around the sides etc.
    If you want to more closely examine it the difference in height of the dust and the boots are fairly close. The time it takes each to reach the surface from the point where they start falling is significantly different.

    Well at least you are now saying they dont fall from the same height. Of course the time it takes each to reach the surfce will be different because the heights are different.

    My analysis dust starts to fall or at least most of it from 18 secs to 31 secs so thats 13 secs for the dust to fall from the highest point approximately to the geound

    The astronaut starts to decend from 28 secs and touches down on 49 secs. So thats 21 secs for the astronaut to fall.

    So there is 8 secs in the difference but there is a considerable difference in height that both get to. IMO the dust only goes/starts to fall about half or little over of the height the astronaut reaches.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I've experts that say otherwise.
    Can you substantiate this claim?

    You have experts?, what is their expertise?, I could go into great detail on the subject, but I won't.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I think you've got those values the wrong way round.

    No they are correct, your wrong again.


Advertisement