Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yes i realized that, i just hate to edit my posts.

Back to my point, can you see the angle of the shadow cast by the lunar module and the shadow's cast by the rocks, they do not align.

Originally posted by tristar
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Yes i realized that, i just hate to edit my posts.

Back to my point, can you see the angle of the shadow cast by the lunar module and the shadow's cast by the rocks, they do not align.

Did you ACTUALLY read my post re this pic look again and read what I said about terrain.

Watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.youtube.com...

It shows you what I mean!!!

Hi,

Since you seem to use myth busters and the model was actually replicated in a studio shows my point but im willing to allow this to slide for now.

I would like to turn your attention to the obvious. If the lunar module has a height of 6.37 m and we obviously have an astronaut in the image how tall would you think that astronaut is ?. A rational estimated guess would be that he would be at least 1.70m , so that means if i was to crop and paste him into the image of he lunar module he should actually fit "x" amount of times. But he doesn't !

Originally posted by tristar
Hi,

Since you seem to use myth busters and the model was actually replicated in a studio shows my point but im willing to allow this to slide for now.

I would like to turn your attention to the obvious. If the lunar module has a height of 6.37 m and we obviously have an astronaut in the image how tall would you think that astronaut is ?. A rational estimated guess would be that he would be at least 1.70m , so that means if i was to crop and paste him into the image of he lunar module he should actually fit "x" amount of times. But he doesn't !

I will allow this to slide dont you mean sorry you are correct!

Yes model in studio the POINT was you said different light sources was the reason for shadows being different THEY proved one light source but shadows can be different because of terrain!

Re size of Astronaut, IS he EXACTLY the same distance from the camera as the lander!
Did a quick measure on photo lander about 153 pixels high astronaut about 48/49 so close enough since we cant tell exact distance.

PS or the height of the Astronaut !



[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Hi

To allow something to slide does not mean i accept myth busters, after all they ARE a special effects studio and the distance of light source was not equal to the light source of the sun according to the moons position. As that obviously was not mentioned it leave's an epic amount of doubt. That was just a brief example of how not to believe everything you see on television. Note* i am not one who says that man did not land on the moon , its that the particular moment in time that is obviously a cover up as the world or should i say the U.S. citizens were in a paranoid state of an eminent russian invasion.


Back to the astronaut:

He obviously has a faint shadow cast on the terrain, now what you should carefully note is that his shadow seems to be at a different angle. The height of the terrain does not account for the angle of the shadow as the rocks nearest to the camera are. He is obviously on a very similar ground height terrain as the lunar module apart from that crater. On that note, the lunar module seems to have landed on the rim of the crater which that in itself indicates that there is a problem.

@Phage, may i kindly ask for some wisdom please.

From Zorgon's post, the press conference of the astronauts seemed very strange.

@16secs, Neil says "I don't recall...", which seems an odd comment, as if he may be uncertain of his recollections of whether he saw stars or not.

So my question Phage, is there ANY photo evidence of stars from either their orbit on the dark side of the moon (yes weedwhacker, there is a permanent 'dark side' ), or indeed any intentional photos where they pointed the camera straight up, to capture the lunar sky.

I only ask, because that would be hard evidence to fake, as people could easily disseminate the constellations.

They must have took a picture from the capsule...or did they?

Thanks in advance Phage, i respect your analytical mind.

Originally posted by tristar
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Hi

To allow something to slide does not mean i accept myth busters, after all they ARE a special effects studio and the distance of light source was not equal to the light source of the sun according to the moons position. As that obviously was not mentioned it leave's an epic amount of doubt. That was just a brief example of how not to believe everything you see on television. Note* i am not one who says that man did not land on the moon , its that the particular moment in time that is obviously a cover up as the world or should i say the U.S. citizens were in a paranoid state of an eminent russian invasion.


Back to the astronaut:

He obviously has a faint shadow cast on the terrain, now what you should carefully note is that his shadow seems to be at a different angle. The height of the terrain does not account for the angle of the shadow as the rocks nearest to the camera are. He is obviously on a very similar ground height terrain as the lunar module apart from that crater. On that note, the lunar module seems to have landed on the rim of the crater which that in itself indicates that there is a problem.

This is the typical reply from you guys the distance of the light source has nothing to do with the shadow. One light source on the Moon the Sun and shadows at different angles due to terrain.
One LIGHT source for the model Mythbusters used same result you are really clutching at straws try what I said for yourself.

Re the Astronaut again if you LOOK really close at the picture the terrain in front of the astronaut slopes away from him HENCE again the shadow angle is different from lander.

Look at pic look (red arrows)



[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

This is the typical reply from you guys the distance of the light source has nothing to do with the shadow. One light source on the Moon the Sun and shadows at different angles due to terrain.
One LIGHT source for the model Mythbusters used same result you are really clutching at straws try what I said for yourself.

Re the Astronaut again if you LOOK really close at the picture the terrain in front of the astronaut slopes away from him HENCE again the shadow angle is different from lander.

Look at pic look (red arrows)

[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

Hello again,

In reference to "you guys" , well i do not belong to any particular movement or ideology, its basically not allowed. That being said, naturally the light source play a particular and most important factor in this, although i do acknowledge that an elevation of terrain does deform a shadow that is cast and to state otherwise would be down right stupid.

Measuring the slope with a straight line beginning from the lunar stands from right to left shows us a slope height of about 50cm +-, that amount of elevation cannot account for such a wide angle of shadow casting. But then again its difficult as we cannot see if the astronaut is further behind the module or further in front of the module as we have no reference points.

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
@Phage, may i kindly ask for some wisdom please.

From Zorgon's post, the press conference of the astronauts seemed very strange.

@16secs, Neil says "I don't recall...", which seems an odd comment, as if he may be uncertain of his recollections of whether he saw stars or not.

So my question Phage, is there ANY photo evidence of stars from either their orbit on the dark side of the moon (yes weedwhacker, there is a permanent 'dark side'

), or indeed any intentional photos where they pointed the camera straight up, to capture the lunar sky.

I only ask, because that would be hard evidence to fake, as people could easily disseminate the constellations.

They must have took a picture from the capsule...or did they?

Thanks in advance Phage, i respect your analytical mind.

Use google image for inside apollo capsule have a look at how much room the had then ask yourself if they could take a picture!

See pictures below scroll down when looking at pictures to see exposure details.

Have a look here Moon picture shutter open for 1/320th of a second!

www.pbase.com...

Star picture shutter open 15 seconds!!!!!!!

www.pbase.com...

The camera the astronauts used shutter speed 1-1/500th of a second 1 sec longest time pic above of stars 15 seconds!

The average film need a few seconds exposure to show stars.




[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by tristar


The only IMPORTANT thing about light source in the Moon and Mythbusters photo is the fact there is only ONE light source,they even showed a picture take using their set up with a flat terrain to show the shadows would then be parallel to prove a point to the skeptics!
Again trying to estimate the height difference re the astronaut and the terrain around him when the quality when zoomed in is poor is a waste of time as we have already PROVED terrain height/slope can change shadow angles.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Use google image for inside apollo capsule have a look at how much room the had then ask yourself if they could take a picture!

I did... seems they had no problem...

Apollo 17 Command Module - shot from Lunar Module in Lunar Rendevous
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5d40790a058.jpg[/atsimg]
Credit NASA

Except that for some reason the Moon is in grayscale while the command module is in full color... and we all know the moon isn't gray
As in THIS picture, taken from the Command module "little window with no room to take pictures"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2639d52a41f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Ah see? That is much better moon color... This one was Apollo 8


...

[edit on 24-5-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by wmd_2008


Well, in my eyes this and many other images have unsolved answers, however that does not mean that they did not land on the moon, its the time in history which i believe is false

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Use google image for inside apollo capsule have a look at how much room the had then ask yourself if they could take a picture!

I did... seems they had no problem...

Apollo 17 Command Module - shot from Lunar Module in Lunar Rendevous
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5d40790a058.jpg[/atsimg]
Credit NASA

Except that for some reason the Moon is in grayscale while the command module is in full color... and we all know the moon isn't gray

As in THIS picture, taken from the Command module "little window with no room to take pictures"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2639d52a41f9.jpg[/atsimg]

Ah see? That is much better moon color... This one was Apollo 8


...

[edit on 24-5-2009 by zorgon]

Well zorgon we all know the angle which light hits an object can have effects on the colour it looks so can film stock as well what I said re apollo capsule which i could have put better was why try and take pitures of stars on the journey it a would have been pointless since, many seconds exposure required to take a picture of a star with a camera which could only have a maximum shutter speed of 1 sec and the conditions being cramped would make it awkward.

Also when you look at the Moon with your eyes what colour is IT many of the coloured moon pics use various techniques to show the colours.

A good link here re the colour and as you can see its never as easy as YOU like to make out it is

www.atalaia.org...

I dont have a 10" dia telescope bolted to my face then the image on my retina sent to photoshop for processing like most people!

reply to post by wmd_2008


But when you are referring to a handheld camera, such as the Hassalblad, do you really think we are going to be using false color images?

reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety


Oh, you're joking, right???

...on the dark side of the moon (yes weedwhacker, there is a permanent 'dark side' )...

Really, POS? The only permanent 'dark' places on the Moon would be at the poles, or underground!!!

Let's try a simple visual representation: Tape a coin to the outside rim of a platter, say an old LP that you don't care about anymore. Now, imagine that the Earth is at the center of the LP. Use a light source that doesn't move, off to one side. Rotate the platter....watch the coin. Since it is taped down so that one hemisphere of the coin always faces the "Earth" in this example, it is obvious that for each revolution of the platter (representing the Moon's orbit) the coin will make one full 'revolution' with respect to the fixed light source. Simple, yes?? Getting it now?

Look...without the fact of the Moon's rotation on its axis and its obvious sunlight/dark cycles, one of the most pre-emininent Science Fiction writers of all time, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, would have had his story '2001: A Space Odyssey' laughed at!! (Actually, it was his short story titled 'The Sentinel' that was fleshed out to become '2001'.)

If you recall, the 'monolith' (TMA-1) in the story was discovered and dug up during the Lunar Night. It was only when sunlight was shown on it that it emitted its signal to Saturn (from the original story...altered to Jupiter for the film, since Saturn's rings were deemed too difficult to re-create for the movie). You see, those clever, clever ancient aliens planted the 'monolith' as a sort of booby trap...they knew that there were no erosive forces that would uncover it, so only intelligent intervention would result in its exposure to sunlight. Brilliant , no?

[edit on 5/24/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by wmd_2008


To wmd, and BFFT....I see the Apollo 8 photo as not so much 'false color' since it was done in-camera, but I see the variation in apparent Lunar surface color as a result of sun's angle, and possibly also the result of filtering through the CM window.

UNLESS the photo was altered prior to publication?? Don't know of any earthly reason why, though.

As to color on the Moon? From hundreds of miles up it looks quite homogenous...any naturally occuring minerals, as found by Apollo 16 and 17, would be very small in comparison, generally only observable close-up.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by reugen
Yes, if it was a hoax the russians wouldn't have hesitated a second to expose it to the world but how well could they monitor the US apollo program, on earth and on the moon?

Unless, of course, the whole 'Cold War" was a ruse and the Russians were in on it from the beginning...

but that then beggs the question : if the u.s and cccp payed with "open hands" showing their decks to each other yet bluffing with others who are we missing from the table, not being seen nor heard.

did someone beat em yet is keeping a lid on it ?

i mean why invest in something like say putting man on the moon yet only strugeling to keep them in earth orbit is beyond my comprehention.

or did fancy pictures produce nothing more then ballistics funding for the bluffing parties and a hole in the pocket forthe taxpayers in each region that played the bluff.


yet when you look at things, kids today shoot rockets to altitudes of 100km+ and take pictures of earth and the sky and thats probobly what the military did and still do.

shooting things up in the sky, orbiting taking pictures , falling down and retriving the material .

id like to belive we ve gone beyond that but sadly data speaks for it self , man stays in orbit and drones and probes are launched deeper out.

reply to post by weedwhacker


There is a permanent 'dark side' as viewed from the Earth, if that clarifies my comment weedwhacker .

I don't buy the fact that the cameras exposure was only 1sec, convenient excuse for them not to be able to take pictures of the stars from lunar missions.

Again, the press conference with the three astro-nots, sound very, very suspicious. It's as if they couldn't remember what to say when they were briefed, whether they could see stars or not, when Patrick Moore asks the question.

Can someone link a picture of stars from any lunar mission please.

p.s. i believe they went to the moon, i don't believe they landed on the moon. Why haven't we been back since? Don't use money as an excuse; they can print Fiat money till the cows come home and indeed spend ~$1billion per week on illegal wars in far off lands.
Also, future fusion reactors could use helium-3 gathered from the moon (Source).

Could someone please tell me one thing, the lander was filmed taking off from the moon yet the camera tilts up to follow the ship..

Did we leave someone behind


As far as I know Web cam style image tracking was a long way off as it was digital. I also can't imagine the astronauts trained to pinpoint an exact time period (almost perfectly it seems) as to when to set a remotely pivoted camera?

You could presume a certain period but getting back on the module followed by uncertainly timed system checks and read backs could never have perfectly allowed that film to be timed so perfectly.

Are we saying it was just luck..

If the camera was remotely controlled from Huston there would I believe have been a small delay which would have made tracking it impossible I would have thought.

I'm not sure if my assumptions are all correct, I'm just trying to find out the honest truth about it.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


This guy did the camera work

When they bounce lasers off the reflectors they supposedly placed on the moon (personally, i think they parachuted drones onto the lunar surface from a low pass orbit, as they didn't land on the moon), the signal takes 2.56secs there and back.

So they supposedly controlled the take-off camera from Houston with a 1.28sec lag taken into account !!