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

namloc1980 · 14-12-2010 09:59PM

So uprising can you explain this photo taken with kodachrome film of a mid western US town in the 1950's. How come the sunlit and shadow sides of the buildings, people and vehicles are clearly visible?

Phill Ewinn · 15-12-2010 12:50AM

Did they use the new canon EOS 60 D?

15-12-2010 03:59AM

uprising2 wrote: »

Lunakhod 2

so that's one of 4 currently reflecting stations.

Can you provide any evidence of the other three being placed by unmanned drones?
Other than convenience for your theory I mean...

fmcgloix · 15-12-2010 04:07AM

I think the moon landings were fake. Why have we not got a base on the moon at this stage if we were able to get there back in '69? Why have we not been back since? I am not sure why the russians accepted that US reached the moon, who knows.

15-12-2010 04:20AM

fmcgloix wrote: »

I think the moon landings were fake. Why have we not got a base on the moon at this stage if we were able to get there back in '69? Why have we not been back since? I am not sure why the russians accepted that US reached the moon, who knows.

And for the third time this thread:
Lack of funding and lack of political will.

fmcgloix · 15-12-2010 04:30AM

King Mob wrote: »

And for the third time this thread:
Lack of funding and lack of political will.

I believe now there is a lack of political will and funding but over the last 40 years there was. Take for example the international space station, how much has this cost over the last 10 years

FISMA · 15-12-2010 05:36AM

When talking about "the" Hubble telescope we encounter a lot of different problems.

First, the Hubble is not just "a" singular scope, there's lot's of stuff going on.

There is: (1) the wide field planetary camera, (2) the faint object camera, (3) the faint object spectrograph, and (4) the high resolution spectrograph. Furthermore, "the" camera, like in #1, is actually multiple cameras.

So, does the Hubble have the resolution to see a car on the moon? Well, let's see. According to my findings "The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec."

The mean distance between the Earth and the moon is 384x10^3km.
The Hubble is about 353miles ASL.

The lunar rover was 10ft long, so let's not skimp and go with 4.00m. Note, I will treat 4.00m as a constant and not worry about its sig figs.

The distance between the Moon and Hubble is 384x10^3km - 353miles = 383,431km.

So draw a straight-line from Hubble to the point on moon - that's your adjacent. From there, draw in the 4.00m line perpendicularly - that's the opposite. Now you have two lengths of a triangle. Here comes the trig.

Next, divide 4.00m/383,431,000m = 1.04321E-8.

Arc tan this and you get 5.97715E-7

That's degrees, so put into arcseconds which gives 2.151775E-3arcs which is, with zeroes, 0.00215175. More than a full order of magnitude off of the Hubble's best camera's best resolution.

If you care to show a flaw, incorrect assumption, or inaccurate math, please advise.

Until then, the Hubble is out of play for moon observations of small objects.

FISMA · 15-12-2010 05:42AM

I found it interesting that some of you were posting and quoting the VLTI site.

Also, many of you photographers out there appear to be obsessing over light sources on the moon and shadows.

I am sure you know about light reflecting off of surfaces, bending around objects, and all that, so I won't bore you.

I am also sure that you know just how bright the full moon is during the summer times. Hopefully, you've had the pleasure of walking the fields at 10:00 without a lamp, late at night, with just the moon light. Imagine how bright the full-Earth is by comparison to the full-moon.

Anyhow, have you taken into account the Milky Way as a light source? Surely, if the VLTI people can see their shadows on Earth due to the Milky way, it must be even a brighter source on the moon.

Did you know?
The skies over the ESO sites in Chile are so dark that on a clear moonless night it is possible to see your shadow cast by the light of the Milky Way alone.
http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt.html

Strange, did I miss that in your posts?

So when calculating ensure you account for:
1) The Sun
2) Earth rise
3) reflection
4) Diffraction
5) The Milky Way

Slan

Phill Ewinn · 15-12-2010 10:32AM

fmcgloix wrote: »

I think the moon landings were fake. Why have we not got a base on the moon at this stage if we were able to get there back in '69? Why have we not been back since? I am not sure why the russians accepted that US reached the moon, who knows.

Lol, the russians were never sent flight trajectories or frquencies by the americans. AFAIK their arrays weren't capable of tracking the early apollos anyway.

It's alraedy been proven that russia was in the dark side of earth when apollo 11 landed. It couldn't have tracked it anyway and was relying on the same coverage as everyone else..........

It was true that Russia got independent verification of Luna2's landing on the moon. As posted earlier, there was a load of reasons why the two nations had the same story. One of them being a large wheat deal, the other being a lack of tracking or flight data from the US.

Phill Ewinn · 15-12-2010 10:58AM

''The Very Large Telescope (VLT) is made up of four separate optical telescopes ... it could distinguish the gap between the headlights of a car located on the Moon.''

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 12:44PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

So uprising can you explain this photo taken with kodachrome film of a mid western US town in the 1950's. How come the sunlit and shadow sides of the buildings, people and vehicles are clearly visible?

namloc how long are the shadows cast by the sun?, looking at that pic where would you say the sun is in the sky?, look at the car in the foreground, it's almost sitting on its own shadow, meaning the sun is above, I dont see any long shadows coming in the photographer's direction.
namloc, to be honest this photograph doesn't show the characteristics of transpareny film, I'm certain its Kodacolour and not Kodachrome.

15-12-2010 02:12PM

fmcgloix wrote: »

I believe now there is a lack of political will and funding but over the last 40 years there was.

There really wasn't. After they beat the Russians there wasn't much else for them to do that the public or politicians were interested in.

fmcgloix wrote: »

Take for example the international space station, how much has this cost over the last 10 years

well the entire cost of the ISS program over the 30 years it's expected to cost about 100 billion euros. And this would be spread out over the 30 years and be shared by many countries.
Apollo, in modern money, would be over $170 Billion dollars.

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 02:28PM

FISMA wrote: »

I found it interesting that some of you were posting and quoting the VLTI site.

Also, many of you photographers out there appear to be obsessing over light sources on the moon and shadows.

I am sure you know about light reflecting off of surfaces, bending around objects, and all that, so I won't bore you.

I am also sure that you know just how bright the full moon is during the summer times. Hopefully, you've had the pleasure of walking the fields at 10:00 without a lamp, late at night, with just the moon light. Imagine how bright the full-Earth is by comparison to the full-moon.

Anyhow, have you taken into account the Milky Way as a light source? Surely, if the VLTI people can see their shadows on Earth due to the Milky way, it must be even a brighter source on the moon.

Did you know?
The skies over the ESO sites in Chile are so dark that on a clear moonless night it is possible to see your shadow cast by the light of the Milky Way alone.
http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt.html

Strange, did I miss that in your posts?

So when calculating ensure you account for:
1) The Sun
2) Earth rise
3) reflection
4) Diffraction
5) The Milky Way

Slan

How to See in the Dark

Camera's are not eyes.

robtri · 15-12-2010 02:54PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Now with transparency film I cannot possibly set my camera to capture both highlight (in direct sunlight) and shadow the value's are much too far apart.
This is probably gone way over your heads lads, but I tried.

so becuse you couldnt replicate it false....

well the guys on mythbusters on discovery replicated in as close as real circumstances and there pictures came out the exact same as the originals.....

namloc1980 · 15-12-2010 04:12PM

uprising2 wrote: »

namloc how long are the shadows cast by the sun?, looking at that pic where would you say the sun is in the sky?, look at the car in the foreground, it's almost sitting on its own shadow, meaning the sun is above, I dont see any long shadows coming in the photographer's direction.
namloc, to be honest this photograph doesn't show the characteristics of transpareny film, I'm certain its Kodacolour and not Kodachrome.

The shadow and sunlit sides of the buildings, people and cars are clearly visible. Can you explain why this is when you have been telling us throughout this thread that the shadow side of a sunlit object should be black dark in images taken?

That photo was taken by a guy called Chalmers Butterfield, a mid-20th century photographer who worked with Kodachrome....look him up.

I think your objectivity in this instance is clouded by your overwhelming bias and belief that the moon landings were fake. You have been shown time and again that there is nothing unusual in the Apollo images by many posters on here. I even posted a couple of images taken with Kodchrome showing sunlit and shadow sides of objects clearly visible. Yet you dismiss these as it does not fit into your view that the landings were fake.

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 04:21PM

robtri wrote: »

so becuse you couldnt replicate it false....

well the guys on mythbusters on discovery replicated in as close as real circumstances and there pictures came out the exact same as the originals.....

Ok I should have said "nobody" can because it's out of the films range.

And I wouldn't put my trust in mythbusters.

MythBusters is a science entertainment TV program created and produced by an Australian company, Beyond Television Productions originally for the Discovery Channel in the United States.

Beyond Television Productions is a subsidiary of the Australian company Beyond International. The company is involved in the creation and international exploitation of television, feature films and ancillary products. The company has an extensive television program catalog of over 5000 hours

I'll have a look at it and let you know what I think.

15-12-2010 04:24PM

uprising2 wrote: »

And I wouldn't put my trust in mythbusters.

MythBusters is a science entertainment TV program created and produced by an Australian company, Beyond Television Productions originally for the Discovery Channel in the United States.

Beyond Television Productions is a subsidiary of the Australian company Beyond International. The company is involved in the creation and international exploitation of television, feature films and ancillary products. The company has an extensive television program catalog of over 5000 hours

whyy does this make Mythbusters untrustworthy exactly?

Are you claiming that they are in on it as well?

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 04:28PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

The shadow and sunlit sides of the buildings, people and cars are clearly visible. Can you explain why this is when you have been telling us throughout this thread that the shadow side of a sunlit object should be black dark in images taken?

That photo was taken by a guy called Chalmers Butterfield, a mid-20th century photographer who worked with Kodachrome....look him up.

I think your objectivity in this instance is clouded by your overwhelming bias and belief that the moon landings were fake. You have been shown time and again that there is nothing unusual in the Apollo images by many posters on here. I even posted a couple of images taken with Kodchrome showing sunlit and shadow sides of objects clearly visible. Yet you dismiss these as it does not fit into your view that the landings were fake.

Ok it took me 2 secons to find this:

photograph by Chalmers Butterfield

Notice anything about it, michael jackson sang about it....

robtri · 15-12-2010 04:37PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok I should have said "nobody" can because it's out of the films range..

well that we will disagree on...
as i said these guys replicated the moon as close as possible and still took picturesusing the right equipment and it still worked fine...

uprising2 wrote: »

And I wouldn't put my trust in mythbusters.

MythBusters is a science entertainment TV program created and produced by an Australian company, Beyond Television Productions originally for the Discovery Channel in the United States.

Beyond Television Productions is a subsidiary of the Australian company Beyond International. The company is involved in the creation and international exploitation of television, feature films and ancillary products. The company has an extensive television program catalog of over 5000 hours

that doesnt prove they are untrustworthy....
obviously i cant replicate the moon stuff they did, but alot of the other stuff they do is easily to duplicate....

in simple terms they did try it and they showed it can work... just because their results disagree with your perception of pictures on the moon, doesnt mean they are wrong.

Unless u can show where they went wrong, so fundamentaly wrong that the pictures they ahieved would be useless... can you????

15-12-2010 04:42PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok it took me 2 secons to find this:

Notice anything about it, michael jackson sang about it....

You mean how it's a black and white photo?
Or how it's taken in a dark room and not somewhere where the sun is up and bright?
Or how it's nothing like the photos of the Apollo astronauts, or any of the pictures people have been showing you which debunk your claim?

namloc1980 · 15-12-2010 05:03PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok it took me 2 secons to find this:

photograph by Chalmers Butterfield

Notice anything about it, michael jackson sang about it....

Must try better uprising! That person is sitting in a dark room, behind a net curtain and not in direct sun and even so I can see detail on her dark shadow side, I'm sure you can too. How about you compare like with like?

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 05:09PM

robtri wrote: »

well that we will disagree on...
as i said these guys replicated the moon as close as possible and still took picturesusing the right equipment and it still worked fine...

[/COLOR]

that doesnt prove they are untrustworthy....
obviously i cant replicate the moon stuff they did, but alot of the other stuff they do is easily to duplicate....

in simple terms they did try it and they showed it can work... just because their results disagree with your perception of pictures on the moon, doesnt mean they are wrong.

Unless u can show where they went wrong, so fundamentaly wrong that the pictures they ahieved would be useless... can you????

Ok I got 2:33 into the following video and stopped it.
Firstly they had a very bright sun outside but decided to replicate it with a spotlight, get a light meter and measure the difference in intesnsity between a bright sun and their substitute light, or, shine their light on something 100,000,000 miles away and see howmuch it illuminates it. The much lower intesity of the spotlight make the difference between the brightest part and the darkest part not all that much, far fewer stops of light between both.

Secondly, they used thes same camera, but ehhhhhh, put a digital back on it, go back through the post and see what my issue is, basically mythbusters used a digital camera, not the type of film I've repeated time and time again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

15-12-2010 05:16PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Secondly, they used thes same camera, but ehhhhhh, put a digital back on it, go back through the post and see what my issue is, basically mythbusters used a digital camera, not the type of film I've repeated time and time again.

But they showed that you can see things in shadow with only one light source and the reflective surface.

So the only leg you have to stand on is this insistence about the type of film, which not only have you yet to back up, but have been provided with examples
that directly prove you wrong.

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 05:19PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Must try better uprising! That person is sitting in a dark room, behind a net curtain and not in direct sun and even so I can see detail on her dark shadow side, I'm sure you can too. How about you compare like with like?

Must think before you post, I said the previous pic you posted didn't have Kodachrome characteristics, you countered that by saying:
"That photo was taken by a guy called Chalmers Butterfield, a mid-20th century photographer who worked with Kodachrome....look him up."

I looked him up and the first pic I come across from him is a Black and White Image, Kodachrome is a colour transparency film, KodaColour is a colour negative film with twice the dynamic range of Kodachrome, less contrasty, and more forgiving in high contrast situations.
So you need to show me that picture you posted was shot with kodachrome transparency film, because I don't believe it is.

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 05:34PM

King Mob wrote: »

But they showed that you can see things in shadow with only one light source and the reflective surface.

So the only leg you have to stand on is this insistence about the type of film, which not only have you yet to back up, but have been provided with examples
that directly prove you wrong.

Nothing has proven me wrong, it's making you all look more silly.

You take a perfectly exposed photograph in direct sunlight and change no settings on the camera and take a pic in that spotlight and the pictue you get from the camera will be BLACK , photo's can and do be taken with spotlights.
But film need one luminance value, this must be measured and camera set accordingly.

Think of it like this analogy , 0(zero) degree's celcius is black, 60 degrees celcius is the spot light, the sun is 600 degrees celcius. I want to prove I can touch the sun with my hand so I touch the light and prove I can infact touch the sun.

namloc1980 · 15-12-2010 05:35PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Must think before you post, I said the previous pic you posted didn't have Kodachrome characteristics, you countered that by saying:
"That photo was taken by a guy called Chalmers Butterfield, a mid-20th century photographer who worked with Kodachrome....look him up."

I looked him up and the first pic I come across from him is a Black and White Image, Kodachrome is a colour transparency film, KodaColour is a colour negative film with twice the dynamic range of Kodachrome, less contrasty, and more forgiving in high contrast situations.
So you need to show me that picture you posted was shot with kodachrome transparency film, because I don't believe it is.

The description of the photo is: Leadville and the Hotel Vendome, Colorado, 1950s, Kodachrome by Chalmers Butterfield. If you don't believe me look up the URL of the photo I posted. So care to explain now how it shows sunlit and shadow sides?

15-12-2010 05:40PM

uprising2 wrote: »

Nothing has proven me wrong, it's making you all look more silly.

Cept all these kodachrome pictures, showing exactly what you are saying is impossible.
http://www.kataan.org/2010/kodachrome-your-last-chance

So why not post a picture of what you think is an equivalent, with the effects you are claiming.

uprising2 wrote: »

You take a perfectly exposed photograph in direct sunlight and change no settings on the camera and take a pic in that spotlight and the pictue you get from the camera will be BLACK , photo's can and do be taken with spotlights.
But film need one luminance value, this must be measured and camera set accordingly.

Think of it like this analogy , 0(zero) degree's celcius is black, 60 degrees celcius is the spot light, the sun is 600 degrees celcius. I want to prove I can touch the sun with my hand so I touch the light and prove I can infact touch the sun.

So, being the expert what brightness should the spotlight have been?
Are you actually saying spotlights aren't able to replicate the light from the sun?

And why exactly would the intensity of the light matter when their moon dust simulate is reflecting the exact same percentage of light the the dust on the moon does?

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 06:00PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

I even posted a couple of images taken with Kodchrome showing sunlit and shadow sides of objects clearly visible. .

I missed that point, can you show them again, but make sure you take note of this before posting them and having them explained:

Fill flash fills in the areas of a photo that would normally appear too dark. Fill flash can be used for sunny day portraits for shadows on a subject’s face or to fill any shaded area that is out of the sunlight. Fill flash can also be used to cast light into a room where there are no windows. Fill in flash is ideal for back-lit and side-lit situations. In a backlit situation there will be a lot of light in the background but no or little light cast on the front of the subject.
This would normally create somewhat of a silhouette effect, but with a fill flash it would balance the photo nicely. But in order for this technique to work, you must be careful to stay in flash range which is usually around four to ten feet. With common cameras in order to add fill flash to a photo just toggle the flash to go off when it normally would not be needed.
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/flash-photography-tips/

uprising2 · 15-12-2010 06:32PM

King Mob wrote: »

Cept all these kodachrome pictures, showing exactly what you are saying is impossible.

http://www.kataan.org/2010/kodachrome-your-last-chance

This is getting frustrating:
Firstly the sun's position again, it's high above and slightly behind the photographer's left shoulder, shadows are cast away from the photographer not towards him, big effect on the image, also something I haven't mentioned yet, the bright sky is a diffuser of light, but under the car is shadow.
If the photographer had turned 120 degree's to the left, thing's would have changed.

King Mob wrote: »

So why not post a picture of what you think is an equivalent, with the effects you are claiming.

I will later, have to head out now.

King Mob wrote: »

So, being the expert what brightness should the spotlight have been?

How big is a piece of string?,have a look around your house and see if there are varying watt bulbs, put in a 100w, then a 30w, you'll see a difference.

King Mob wrote: »

Are you actually saying spotlights aren't able to replicate the light from the sun?

In intensity, uniformity of light, no they can't, and never will.

King Mob wrote: »

And why exactly would the intensity of the light matter when their moon dust simulate is reflecting the exact same percentage of light the the dust on the moon does?

That question needs to either be thought about and rephrased or you are not as bright as you try to project.

alastair · 15-12-2010 08:08PM

I take it that we're done with the pointless posting of red herring b/w photos and disputing that the car shots are Kodachrome then?

The limited dynamic range of the moon stock is another red herring - it's demonstrably running out of steam on the ground shadows and stats - but coping fine with white to mid tones. It's shows all the traits of tranny stock exposed to the lighter end of tonal range that it's well capable of capturing, and absolutely no evidence of secondary light sources beyond the obvious - the ground surface (bright enough to cast shadows on earth on a full moon night), the rather large plane of reflective gold on the module (evidently strong enough to throw a shadow of Aldrin's front pack hose on his right arm) , Armstrong's suit, and (possibly?) the earth itself - which reflects more light than the moon does, given it's larger surface area.

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

Comments