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

namloc1980 wrote: »

The moon casts shadows here on earth from 400,000km away. Would it not be reasonable to imagine that if you were standing on the moon that it's surface would be fairly reflective??

Even a 0.12 albedo means it reflects 12% of sunlight - that's quite alot of sunlight. And you do know that lunar regolith has some very interesting properties? Such as reflecting quite an amount of light directly back at the source.

It casts shadows at night, in daylight when you can see the moon in the sky it adds no luminance whatsoever. your iris in your eye adjusts to suit the light around you, if you walk from apitchblack room into strong sunlight or from strong sunlight into a dim room it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adjust.


Get one of these and test the light brighness because what your eyes do automatically film does not.

namloc1980 wrote: »

The sun is coming from above left and the right side is in shadow, that is clear from the actual shadow on the ground, so why can we see the shadow side which you claim is impossible? Also why can we see the shadow side of the players which you also claim is impossible? You claim they should be pitch balck....that is clearly ridiculous.

Erm.......Is opertunity rover loaded with Ektachrome 160 or would it possibly be digital?, I don't know of an E6 processing lab on Mars or a postal service to post the slides back to earth.

EDIT: Also the rock has a curvature, where there is shadow it can be seen, such as the pebbles beside the rock.

namloc1980 wrote: »

How come we can see shadow side of this guy?


Taken during a Skylab mission in the 70's with a Hasselblad camera

Erm.....Lights maybe?

EDIT:
Thats not the sun to the left of him either!, incase your thinking it is.

King Mob wrote: »

Well see as how all you rejections of these photos that disprove you claim seem to hinge on this insistence about the film used in the Apollo mission not being able to develop unless there are two light sources, maybe you should substantiate it?

Or at the very least explain why Nasa didn't just say they used a film that doesn't have this alleged defect?

Its not a defect, its a charactaristic.
You want me to explain why somebody else did something?, are you serious?

I could "try" explain it, or you could "try" explain it, but in reality we cannot explain anothers actions and be considered accurate.

EDIT:
Your question is wrong, "the film used in the Apollo mission not being able to develop unless there are two light sources"

This is not the case, the film can be used with one,two, 100 light sources, the results will be different though.

King Mob wrote: »

I mean, can you provide a logical and likely scenario to explain why they might make such a silly mistake or failed to do the obvious?

It's not a trick question.

Maybe lack of understanding about film emulsions, charactaristics and it's contrast value's.
Too busy with the rest of the scam and overlooked the finer details, but as I said I don't know really.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, then can you substantiate the claim that type of film cannot produce the moon landing photos using only one source of light?

Kingmob get a 35mm camera, a roll of transparency/slide film, a bright sunny day, a light meter (which they didn't have either) and try get one correctly exposed photo from the roll, pro's have problems in those situations.
EDIT: Sorry didn't explain that bit too well, try get highlight exposed correctly and see if you can keep any sort of detail in midtone or shadow area, even that isn't a full description, but try it sometime, the flm has its limits, the photo's are outside of the limits, say for instance a guy told you he got 300mph in a clapped up mini, common sense would tell you he's talking through his ass, thats kinda whats happened here.

The film is just too contrasty, the dynamic range which includes highlight,midtone and shadow are just far too extreme for this type of film to handle and keep detail as seen in some of the moon shots, some are ok simply because they show no detail in the shadow area.

I'm going to bed now, but maybe start a thread in photography and ask somebody with experience using this type of film, most of them over there never used anything other than digital and are biginners and wouldn't know anything about it, but theres one or two who have used it.


This image simply cannot be with one light source.


This is fine and is just how it should be under those conditions.


And this is fine also.



I believe the earth has been photoshopped into this image (not by nasa), but the astronaut is as he was in the original, and it also cannot be possible with that film and only the sun for light.



Goodnight.

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe lack of understanding about film emulsions, charactaristics and it's contrast value's.
Too busy with the rest of the scam and overlooked the finer details, but as I said I don't know really.

You dont know at all, really.
In your haste you forgot about the concept of Incident Light Metering/ Reading.
This is where you point your light meter at the light source, select the ISO and press a button. This gives the correct shutter speeds for a correct exposure. Now, considering that there is no weather on the moon it can safely be assumed that the light is constant, apart from the angle it strikes the ground of course, not to mention the tiny variances in sunlight as the sunspots come and go......:pac:
But overall, sunlight never really changes a whole lot and can be scientifically calculated to a great degree of accuracy as the moon goes around the earth, reducing and increasing the LUX values as it gets further and closer to the sun, by a small amount no doubt, but easily calculated by anyone skilled in that field.
I'm not saying that there was a light meter brought to the moon (maybe there was, by all means show me!) but that the light reading was calculated BEFORE they went. Upon arrival they could bracket exposures as needed be.
Here's a wikipedia link to incident light reading:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_meter

Exposure determination with a neutral test card

If a scene differs considerably from a statistically average scene, a wide-angle averaging reflected-light measurement may not indicate the correct exposure. To simulate an average scene, a substitute measurement sometimes is made of a neutral test card, or gray card.
At best, a flat card is an approximation to a three-dimensional scene, and measurement of a test card may lead to underexposure unless adjustment is made. The instructions for a Kodak neutral test card recommend that the indicated exposure be increased by ½ step for a frontlighted scene in sunlight. The instructions also recommend that the test card be held vertically and faced in a direction midway between the Sun and the camera; similar directions are also given in the Kodak Professional Photoguide. The combination of exposure increase and the card orientation gives recommended exposures that are reasonably close to those given by an incident-light meter with a hemispherical receptor when metering with an off-axis light source.
In practice, additional complications may arise. Many neutral test cards are far from perfectly diffuse reflectors, and specular reflections can cause increased reflected-light meter readings that, if followed, would result in underexposure. It is possible that the neutral test card instructions include a correction for specular reflections.

And a webpage somebody did on lunar photography:http://www.ehartwell.com/InfoDabble/Apollo_photography:_Image_quality

The Hasselblad cameras didn't have viewfinders, automatic exposure, or automatic focus. How were the astronauts able to get any good photographs at all?

Believe it or not, people were able to take good photographs before automatic exposure computers and automatic focus devices were invented. It required a bit of training and practice. Film manufacturers commonly provide exposure guides giving the average correct camera settings for common lighting conditions.


The exposures were worked out ahead of time based on experimentation. The ASA/ISO rating of the film was known, and NASA photographers precomputed the necessary exposures. These figures were refined over the course of the program. In many cases the camera settings for planned photos were given in the astronauts' cuff checklists. In other cases the astronauts followed some basic rules.
Automatic exposure controls were available on several consumer camera models during the late 1960s. Apollo 11 Command Module Pilot Michael Collins suggested that Hasselblad look into the possibility of incorporating this technology into the camera after his experience on Apollo 11. Apparently the professional photographers who used the Hasselblad model upon which the lunar surface cameras were based did not want automatic exposure controls on their cameras and so it was not a standard feature.
Shutter speeds were typically 1/125 or 1/250 second. F-stop settings varied from f/5.6 for up-sun photos to f/8 and f/11 for cross-sun and down-sun photos.

And your "other light source" theory is partially correct. There were two actually. The surface of the moon, with its strong retro-reflective properties and the astronauts themselves.

Uprising, are you telling me that there is no light reflected off those things? Are you telling me that if you were standing at the base of the lunar lander, on the shadow side facing away from the sun, that there would be no light from the surface reaching your eyes? That would mean that you would only be seeing black, and that is just absurd.

And finally, the picture you posted of Buzz Aldrin with it's "other light source". Could you tell me where YOU think that light source may have been.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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.

If the dust is comming from on to of the shoes its starting further away from the surface

King Mob wrote: »

Well see as how all you rejections of these photos that disprove you claim seem to hinge on this insistence about the film used in the Apollo mission not being able to develop unless there are two light sources, maybe you should substantiate it?

Or at the very least explain why Nasa didn't just say they used a film that doesn't have this alleged defect?

uprising2 wrote: »

Its not a defect, its a charactaristic.
You want me to explain why somebody else did something?, are you serious?

I could "try" explain it, or you could "try" explain it, but in reality we cannot explain anothers actions and be considered accurate.

King Mob wrote: »

I mean, can you provide a logical and likely scenario to explain why they might make such a silly mistake or failed to do the obvious?

It's not a trick question.


Ok, then can you substantiate the claim that type of film cannot produce the moon landing photos using only one source of light?

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe lack of understanding about film emulsions, charactaristics and it's contrast value's.
Too busy with the rest of the scam and overlooked the finer details, but as I said I don't know really.

King Mob wrote: »

Yet they knew enough about this and were worried enough about the fine details to provide two light sources? That seems contradictory in my opinion.
Silly even.

Uprising you do understand that I am not just going to accept your opinion because you say so.
That's not substantiating it, that's just giving opinion.
And you do realise that the examples you are giving and basing these opinions on aren't the raw photos....

So what if there was another light source?
Say the surface of the moon reflecting the light of the Sun?

Like how we can see the the football player's dark side in the picture Namloc posted.
Or in the video of the Mythbusters showing that the astronaut is clearly visible even with one light source and the reflectivity of lunar regolith.
Neither of which you've addressed.

So we can see that the photos of the astronauts are physically possible as stuff in shadow can be seen. Now all you've to rely on is a seemingly arbitrary opinion about which photos can be possible based on reproductions of pictures on the internet, one of which has clearly and crudely been altered.
Your arguments are just plain silly.

You ask, I refuse because I can't possibly "know" what they were thinking.
You ask again for a "likely" scenario, I give it, you reject it.

Kingmob I have 10,000 maybe even more transparencies taken over a number of years, I've held evening classes a few years ago teaching photography, I've been an active photographer for almost 20 years, using all formats, I know a lot more than you or anybody here on the subject and it's limitations and possibilities.

King Mob wrote: »

The reason the VLT, the Very Large Telescope can't see the Apollo landers despite it's amazing resolution is simple. It is designed to observe very faint very far away objects like distance stars and galaxies, not very bright and relatively very close objects like the Moon. If there were to point it at the Moon they would just damage the equipment because the light would be far too intense.

uprising2 wrote: »

Great explanation, did you write it down first or just make it as you went along?

Ok for starters, light from the moon cannot damage "glass and mirrors".

Almost all optical equipment have an iris to control the light input level.
If it doesn't have an iris, a neutral density filters will stop down light to any possible level required.

To counter bright light simply increase exposure time, for low light increase it. Some of the images from VLT require a 1 hour exposure.

Lastly, the cruncher, and another reason to strenghten my long held belief that you make simply make things up for the sake of it.
Here's a pic of the moon, taken with...................

King Mob wrote: »

No, you gave a scenario that doesn't make sense give the premises.
In the above scenario you're arguing that NASA had the expertise do know they needed two light sources and where concerned about the details enough to do so, but then on the other you're arguing that they weren't interested in the details and lacked the expertise.

A lot (all) of this stuff you don't understand one bit, yet you continue to push on and I won't be entertaining much more of it, it's a waste of my time really.
You asked me for my opinion, I gave one possibility from millions of possibilities.
You build everything on imagined scenarios's, but you need to recognise they may mean absolutely nothing outside your own head.

King Mob wrote: »

A more likely scenario is: you're just wrong.

More likely your lack of understanding makes you wrong, but hey it's your mind and your imagined scenario's so your the boss of that, it's your imagination.

King Mob wrote: »

So then you can post should be able something verifiable to substantiate your insistences. Otherwise it's just your opinion.
And I can point you to other experts that disagree with you.

Yes it is my opinion, my opinion from lots of firsthand experience.
Your also using your opinion here, your opinion basd on nothing, and as this post shows, you don't have a basic understanding of the things you post, VLT quoted at the top as a typical example.

King Mob wrote: »

And can you explain how all this experience some how makes the photos you're forming you opinion on magically become the original raw photo?

The "RAW" photo's would be a slide (like a reversed negative), I don't have them, but I assume nasa make decent reproductions of their slides.

And maybe your getting confused again, RAW is a digital format.

EDIT:
Maybe this will help you out.

Why we still shoot slide film
In short, yes, slide film has a smaller dynamic range, but it also has a higher contrast range. The larger dynamic range of print film comes at a cost.

What does this mean?

Well, if you look at the characteristic curves of slide film, there's about 3 stops of linear film response and then you start getting into the toe and shoulder range, where you lose detail. Whereas print film will have more like 6 stops, maybe more, of linear film range. This means that, yes, print film has more stops of dynamic range, so if you have a huge contrast from dark to light you will be able to pull detail from the highlights and the shadows.
http://www.wireheadarts.com/blog/why_slide_film/

Notice the shadows made by creases in the suits outer fabric. They are made by something ranging from low down to middle height. But not from above, as the helmet top would be lit up more. The majority of light seems to be coming from the LM legs and descent stage. The remainder coming from the increased reflectivity of the regolith.

With respect to the retro reflectors placed on the moon; If it was a robotic mission that put them there, could somebody show evidence of that please.

alastair wrote: »

Did we miss the bit about the reflective gold surface of the module - seems like a pretty effective sun reflector to me. Concrete works just fine if you only have it to rely on - here's someone making the point with tarmac - undoubtedly less reflective than the moon's surface (or concrete).

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/fillit.htm

No I explained that in my previous post.

That link, whats it for?, whats it's point?, I can explain every photograph there no problem, I could reproduce any of them.

Without explaining them yet, I'll say you haven't been paying attention, the guy in your link is using a digital camera, I have repeated a few times that my issue above all was the type of film used in the studio on the moon, its dynamic range!
But I can explain all his images without referring to the film at all.