Recent Moon Hoax Ideas

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I remain doubtful; its more than just the parameters you quoted.
There is a very noticeable difference, more than what could be explained by the camera used, angles and the proximity of the subjects (and the distances of the subjects are not so different).
For the difference of luminosity between the foreground and the background, there's no way around: if you change the aperture, it works the same for the foreground and the background.
What's more, once it's the foreground which is more luminous than the background, and another time it's the converse.
There is a hill which is lit in an irrealistic way; I can find no equivalent in all the photos of surveyor (which I trust).




posted on May, 11 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 

It depends on the angle of the sun in relation to the camera and the height of the sun above the horizon. It depends on the angle at which the sunlight strikes objects in the background and in the foreground. It depends on the soil (which is not everywhere the same).

Since you don't trust NASA, will you trust images from the Russian landers?

The background is darker than the foreground except for some places that are brighter than others.



More uneven lighting:



The area straight down-sun is bright because of the backscatter effects of lunar soil.



Are the bright hills in the background illuminated by artificial lights?



Since you like Surveyor images, here's one from Surveyor 7. Darker in the background, uneven lighting in general.
tbn0.google.com...

Surveyor 6:



There is nothing unusual (for the Moon) about the Apollo photographs.

[edit on 5/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Thanks for you photo, I had a look at it.
If the background looks darker, it's because there is a hole.
I said that the relief can change the light.
But you'll notice, that not the whole backround is dark, only a part of it because of the relief; another part of it is as bright as the foreground.
That's the problem with the color moon pictures: on some, the whole background is darker than the foreground, not just a part of it.
If we were seeing a part of it dark, but at least another part bright (like the top of the hill), I could incriminate the relief; but there are pictures in which it's hard to incriminate the relief.
On a photo, there is a hill behind the astronaut which is entirely darker than the foreground; it's explainable for the descending side which may be less exposed to the light, but it's hardly explainable for the flat top of the hill on the left.
There really is a problem with these photos, I'm absolutely convinced of it.



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Sorry, but it's very late here, I have to go to bed.
I'll be delighted to go on this debate later.
You'll concede that I don't lack arguments.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I know all the points in favor of the moon hoax are not valid.
Shodows of different directions can be obtained with sunlight, I have seen examples on the web.
The waving flag is also a poor evidence; because of the absence of air resistance, if you move it, whereas on earth it would quicky become still because of the air resistance, in absence of wind of course, on the moon, as there is no air resistance, its inertia will make it wave for some time, as there is nothing to slow it.
I have seen a video on Youtube on which it was starting to move a little after having been quiet; but that doesn't necessarily mean it is responding to wind; there was an astronaut passing by, and the vibration of his steps may have been transmitted to the mast, and as there is no air resistance, that may be enough to start the flag in motion.

I have also seen an argument that the Lem had been unsufficiently tested; Armstrong would have had to eject himself in a test of the Lem; but I have also heard that successful tests had been made with animals aboard; on the moon, the weight of the Lem if only one sixth of what it is on earth, and there is not a gust of wind to destabilize it; that means that landing the lem on the moon is much easier than landing it on the earth; the NASA may have considered that successful tests with animals were more than satisfactory, and were leaving a sufficient margin of safety for the landing of the lem on the moon with men aboard; it was not necessary to make successful landing tests of the lem with men aboard on the earth; that could only be a plus, but not a necessity.

But don't think that I have changed my mind, and that now I think that all the photos on the moon are real.
I still believe that there are incoherences on the color photos; there are anormal differences of luminosity between the foreground and the background.
Moreover, there are repeated artifacts on the photos.
If you superpose the landscapes of various missions, you can see that they perfectly match; yet, it's very unlikely that the missions landed exactly at the same place.
I also believe that the reflections in the visors of the astronauts are not the one of the sun; there is too much difference.

This is what I believe:
I think that there is a good likelihood that the astronauts couldn't take good photos on the moon; they were not professional photographers, and given their spatial suit, it was not easy to center things in their camera.
Moreover, there is a very important thing: The lunar ground looks rocky, that's what the photos of Surveyor show; it's possible that they couldn't plant the flag on the moon; may be they just laid it on the ground, unplanted.


Now, just imagine this: The astronauts come back from the moon; Nixon sees lousy pictures, the flag unplanted, what do you think he would do in that case?
That he would let lousy photos be published, with the flag just laying on the ground?
No way?
He would say: We couldn't get good photos, we couldn't plant the flag, we'll fake it.
And don't tell me he wasn't able of it.

I prefer that logical and plausible explanation, to clumsy explanations to anomalies which look so illogical, so unphysical to me!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 



Welcome back, Guy.

Very well written first few paragraphs, you've done research! Especially this little gem, 'hoaxers' like to use:


in absence of wind of course, on the moon, as there is no air resistance, its inertia will make it wave for some time, as there is nothing to slow it.


And you correctly point out the ONE time a video catches a flag slightly move as an Astronaut passes by is not due to any 'breeze'...likely vibrations as he bounces by. (The flagpole frame was very springy).


But, you surmise this:

it's possible that they couldn't plant the flag on the moon; may be they just laid it on the ground, unplanted.


All six missions clearly show the flag planted in the videos. (There is suspicion that Apollo 11's flag may have been placed too close to the LM and possibly blown down from the force of the ascent engine. We'll know soon, I suppose....)




If you superpose the landscapes of various missions, you can see that they perfectly match; yet, it's very unlikely that the missions landed exactly at the same place.


You're right, all six missions landed at entirely different locations. Apollo 12 actually landed near enough to an old Surveyor lander to enable them to retrieve some of its equipment (forget which Surveyor, exactly). But, no, the distant hills don't 'match' perfectly in all six mission landing photos.



I think that there is a good likelihood that the astronauts couldn't take good photos on the moon; they were not professional photographers,


True, they weren't professional photographers, but they learned those Hasselblads inside and out. They took the cameras home with them for weeks and weeks, practicing and seeing the results. (A great DVD series, from HBO Films, is "From the Earth to the Moon", produced by Tom Hanks, shows a bit of this. I've seen it at Amazon for about $25 {8 discs}. I paid nearly $100 for mine, some years ago
)

As you mentioned, the real LM was never landing tested on Earth -- it couldn't be operated in a 1G environment. Pilots had a flying platform that simulated the real thing (Armstrong almost got killed in one) and, just like used in today's jets, a computer-controlled simulator with a full cockpit.

SO, technically, everything in the entire Space Program was (and still is) considered 'experimental'. Indeed, the Apollo 11 'Eagle' landing was the first 'real' landing of the LM. Of course, others had flown earlier LMs, once in Earth orbit, once in Lunar orbit (Apollo 10). They flew that one down to within 8.4 nautical miles of the Moon's surface (50,900 feet).

By comparison, if you think it amazing that the 'first landing' was too incredible, consider a new Boeing design, for instance. The test pilots fly the simulator first, get familiar, then go fly the real airplane. Somebody's gotta go first!

Funny thing, nowadays...most simulators are SO GOOD that an airline pilot can complete all of his training on a different piece of equipment and the FIRST time he flies the real airplane is with a Check Pilot, on a live revenue passenger flight!



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
" But, no, the distant hills don't 'match' perfectly in all six mission landing photos. "

Oh yes, they do.
On one photo, we can see a distant hill which is obviously too dark compared with the foreground which is far too luminous; it creates an astounding contrast; even the top of the hill which should normally be luminous, as it is well exposed to the sun is dark.
On another photo, we find the same hill easily recognizable by its relief which very remarkably matches, but this time with a different luminosity.
You can always try to persuade yourself that they don't perfectly match, but I'm not blind and I don't have your power of self-persuasion.
And when I see a photo with the astronaut and the foreground very luminous, and a hill in the background which is very obviously darker, that I can see that the sunlight is coming from the left as the shadow of the lem extends from left to right, which is confirmed by the fact that the right descending side of the hill is darker, but that I can see that left flat top of the hill which is logically exposed to the sun is much too dark compared with the foreground, I tell myself there is a problem.
I don't find any such incoherences on the photos of surveyor.
So, try to convince yourself all is perfectly normal on these photos, this is beyond my power of self-persuasion.
I simply use logic, and I deduce: faked.
I know there is nothing I can do to convince you, like anything I said could never convince a creationist, but you have no chance to convince me these photos are normal; I have a too rational mind.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
"All six missions clearly show the flag planted in the videos. "

Of course, all six missions show the flag planted on the moon.
Nothing surprising, if it was staged; I don't mean the landings didn't actually happened, but there are two parts: The mission, and the staging of the mission.
The staging is a demonstration.
If they started to use that trick on the first mission, they had no choice but going on using it; if they had shown real pictures of the moon (like Surveyor shows), people would have seen the obvious difference and would have questioned the first landings.
How could they know they would be able to plant the flag on the lunar ground?
They could not know it, so they improvised a staging to be sure they can show the American flag planted on the lunar ground, it was an imposed ceremony which should not let a chance to hazard.
As much as the photos of Surveyor fully convince me, as much the color photos don't convince me, no way, not a chance, too many incoherences.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


Let's make sure we're not cross-talking here.

When you wrote 'all six mission photos' I took that to mean ALL SIX Mission's Photos. In other words, I thought you were meaning that ALL photos, from Apollo 11-17 had the same backgrounds.

So, after re-reading, I can see a semantic phrasing misconception onmy part.

Now...since I can't see the same ones you're referring to, perhaps you can point me toward them?

Before I see them, I'll take an educated guess, though. Have you considered different exposure settings on the different photos? Also, if the background is reasonably distant (and without the normal visual cues we are acccustomed to on Earth, such as relative size of known objects and atmospheric haze effects) then even as the photographer moves, because of parallax the distant background will shift only minimally.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
This is a couple of pictures which really shocks me:



It's small sized, and I would like to show it in bigger size (as you seem to benefit of a larger bank of pictures than me, I'm sure you'll find bigger samples of these pictures).

These pictures have been shown by someone who defends the NASA with an explanation that I must tell you that it has less than little convinced me.

On the left, we find a distant hill which is far too dark compared with the foreground which is abnormally luminous (where does this surprising luminosity come from?); even the the top of hill is dark.
On the photo of the right we find the same hill we can recognize by a whole set of details; no two different hills would have the same set of matching details; this time it is more luminous (i.e. better lit by the big projector which is supposed to replace the sun).

This is the kind of photos which blocks me from believing the photos were taken on the moon.
The sunlight acts on the moon the same way it acts on the earth: two points of the foreground and the background which are exposed in the same way to the sunlight (i.e. not shaded by the relief), show the same luminosity; this luminosity could change with the reflectivity, but there is every reason to think that the reflectivity is even on the moon, if we judge by the photos of Surveyor.
Only the relief can change the luminosity, we can exclude lunar clouds.

I use exclusively logic.
If the light was coherent, there were only minor details, I could accept these pictures (I Could discard the objections of the waving flag - which can wave because of its inertia and not the wind-, the multiple direction shadows, the weird behavior of the lunar jeep); but these problems of light are too important; I have also seen that there are repeated patterns on the landscape.
If you want to convince me, you'll have a very hard work to do.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


Better versions of the images.



[edit on 5/13/2009 by Phage]


jra

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by InquisitiveGuy
On the left, we find a distant hill which is far too dark compared with the foreground which is abnormally luminous (where does this surprising luminosity come from?); even the the top of hill is dark.
On the photo of the right we find the same hill we can recognize by a whole set of details; no two different hills would have the same set of matching details; this time it is more luminous (i.e. better lit by the big projector which is supposed to replace the sun).


Well, if you look at the better quality images Phage supplied. You'll notice that the mountain in the background in both photos have the same luminosity. It really helps if you look at larger, higher quality images and not little thumbnail images.

Here two good sites for large, high quality Apollo photos.

www.apolloarchive.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


I'm with jra and Phage, here. I just don't see what you think you see.

Look at the fiducials (the little crosshairs). You can see that the Astronaut moved several meters to one side, and held the camera at a slightly different angle. He probably thought, in the second picture, that the spread of rubble was interesting to the shot...and I agree. It was a well composed picture, from an aesthetic standpoint.

Also, consider this fact: You, nor I, know the exact composition of the soil (regolith) on each hillside. The albedo could be different. Grossly incorrect analogy here, but consider a snowbank on a sand dune. Or, better yet, various colors of sand in the desert.

We see variations like that on Earth and think nothing of it, because we/re used to it! This is an alien world, our Moon. Normal perceptions don't play the same way.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I find absolutely amazing the imagination that those who believe in the photographs (or want to make others believe in them) can deploy to explain hardly explainable things.
It's not a so alien world.
The moon is just smaller than the earth, and its attraction is consequently less strong.
Unlike the lucky earth, she has no atmosphere.
Apart from this, she obeys the same physical laws as the earth.
There is a high probability that the moon is in fact a part of the earth which separated from the earth when a big asteroid once hit the earth very very long ago (and let's hope a same asteroid doesn't hit the earth before long, otherwise it would mean the end of mankind).
Trying to explain very strange oddities by the fact that the moon is an "alien" world is a specious argument.
The photos of Surveyor look normal to me, alien world or not.
I would like to find the same normality in the color photos, but I don't.
Repetition of landscape, but also of patterns; one can notice that there are very clearly duplicated rocks on the photos, and if you tell me that it is because the moon is an "alien" world that it happens, I'll tell you that I believe much more in the manipulation of photos.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


I'm still not quite understanding you, or you're not understanding me.

Taking a look at the nice big photos from Phage, I focused on the hills i n the background. THEN I pointed out how, without any other references that we are used to here on Earth, it is difficult to judge their actual distance from the camera. One could look and think 'They're only a few hundred meters away' when, in fact, they are dozens of kilometers away. (Of course, due to the smaller diameter of the Moon, line-of-sight will not be as great as on the Earth).

When I say the Moon is 'alien' I mean it. Just as Mars is 'alien'...it may be semantic, but it applies in this case because the visual cues that we take for granted on Earth do not exist on the Moon.

IF we could put a two-story house with a pine tree next to it on one of those distant hills, then you'd have a better feeling of perspective and distance. Just look out your window -- everything you see alows you to judge distance because you are familiar with the relative sizes of things. The Moon is 'alien' because it lacks those comfortable, recognizable visual cues.


jra

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by InquisitiveGuy
Repetition of landscape, but also of patterns; one can notice that there are very clearly duplicated rocks on the photos, and if you tell me that it is because the moon is an "alien" world that it happens, I'll tell you that I believe much more in the manipulation of photos.


What do you mean by "repetition of landscape" and what duplicated rocks?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
1) It's not that I absolutely want to believe in a conspiracy just to annoy the NASA, but frankly there are too many incoherences with the color photos; only with the color photos, but not with the photos of Surveyor which look normal and coherent to me.
The luminosity on the color photos is totally abnormal; on the photos of Surveyor, as well as on the Russian photos, it is normal; when there is a darker part, it is explainable, you can see there is a hole hiding the sunlight.
But when you see a hill behing the lem and an astronaut, that you can see the direction of the sun by the direction of the shadow, and that you see that the part of the hill which is logically exposed to the sunlight is very obviously darker than the foreground, there is clearly a problem, and it's not my imagination, neither the fact that the moon would be an "alien" world.
When you see hills in the background which are much too dark compared with the foreground which is totally abnormally luminous in comparison, that you find the same hills, totally recognizable by the perfect match of all of their parts, but with another luminosity, I can't find it normal, even with the best will of the world.
When you also see that there are several clearly duplicated rocks on the photos (there is a video on youtube about that), even the "alien" world can't explain that.
When you see that the reflection of the sun in the visor on an astronaut who is really floating in space (very regularly circular, with regular marked spokes) is very different from the ones we see on the visors on the astronauts supposedly on the moon (pentagonal, irregular, poor spokes), you can always try to explain me it's an effect of the camera, my eyes see it differently.
When you see that the moon reflectivity only acts on the astronauts but never on the moon rocks which are supposed to produce this reflectivity, you can call it logical, but I don't.
All this doesn't derive from a conspicacy but from pure and simple logic.

2) There are people who use these incoherences to promote the theory that the NASA faked everything, that the man never left the earth, or that the astronauts just orbited the earth for some days before coming back to earth, I say that it isn't necessary to go that far.
Faking the photos doesn't mean that the missions are necessarily faked; it can also mean that the American government was not trusting the photographic material shot on the moon, and that it was wanting to totally master the communication.
This leads me to my third point.

3) How could the NASA and the American government be sure that the astronauts would plant the American flag on the moon?
The photos of Surveyor show a rather rocky ground; the astronauts might not ne able to plant the flag on the lunar ground; this ground might be rock, or a layer of sand with rock underneath, unproper for planting the flag.
There is no way, that the American government could be sure the astronauts would be able to plant the flag on the moon, and if you tell me that it had the means of knowing it, I will tell you that your level of delusion is extremely high.
In these conditions, what were the options of the American government?
If the astronauts could plant the flag, bravo, it was won.
But what if they couldn't?
Fake it in the last moment?
Impossible! in order to fake it, it absolutely had to be planned in advance, it could not be hastily improvised in case of impossibility of planting the flag.
So, if the American government wanted to be sure that the American flag would be gloriously planted on the mooon, and not just thrown on the lunar ground for impossibility of planting it, the only solution was to plan it in advance, to stage the event, in order to be sure to master it, to leave nothing to chance.
So, in any circumstance, the American government was sure to show a glorious event, the American flag pompously planted on the moon.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You'll tell me: You are screwing if you think that the American government would cheat that way!
Really?
If, before the watergate, somebody had told you that Nixon would tap the democrats, what would you have told him?
Don't tell me you would not have said him he was screwing.
And when Bush made a speech to the congress about a nigerian letter proving Saddam had attempted to obtain nukes, the whole American population believed it; yet it was a badly forged piece of evidence.
Yes, the American government was perfectly able of it: Fake in order to master the communication, to show to people what they wanted them to see.
It doesn't mean the lunar missions were not real, but what were the real photos the astronauts took? probably closer to what Surveyor shows us, more realistic.

4) Once they started that game, thay had no choice than carrying it on on the other missions.
If they had shown real photos of the moon to people, they would have seen the difference, and would have questioned the first landings.

It's logic, just logic, nothing but logic.


Since you asked me about the repeated lunar rocks, here is a video which shows them

www.crustysocks.com...



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


Guy....NOW I see your confusion. That video is showing pictures from a coffee table book that came out a few years ago (I own a copy) that used photos that had been 'stitched' together to make them look panoramic.

You can see a disussion about them at mikesingh's thread titled "NASA Exposed! Faked Moon Images" Something like that, you can search for it....I don't know how to link it for you, sorry.

[edit on 5/14/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
May be, but there's still enough evidence.
I think there are two things: The lunar missions, and what the government wants people to see.
And for he wants people to see, he makes staging; he makes the astronauts pompously plant the flag on the moon (who tells us the moon's ground is proper for planting a flag?), he makes astronauts fool around, play golf...
It's all for the show, it's a demonstration.
I really don't believe in the color photos.
The incoherences are real, not imaginative.
The scenes are staged, because the government wants to be able to completely master the communication, what he wants to show to the public, and he couldn't do it on the moon.
Look at the photos, they really don't look natural, they look like a director managed the astronauts, told them what to do.
It's an orchestration, it's all for the show, and it has been done on earth.





top topics
 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join