It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Another moon quiz from prof. Rourke:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...

[edit on 7.1.2010 by bokonon2010]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Could you possibly highlight the differences in the permanent features? I am looking and the only thing I can see is that it looks like there might be a slightly different lighting angle or the camera might be a few feet to the side or something. I dunno, I am really interested though if you could help to point out what you are talking about specifically, that would be awesome.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Please...enlighten us cretins


...and, by the way, you still haven't told me why in those two photos (the ones I proved were taken in the same location with the same foreground) that it was so important that there were a few things different.

Which differences exactly were you talking about, and how do they support the idea of a Moon Hoax?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Another moon quiz from prof. Rourke:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...


what do you mean "spot the difference"?

2 different photos, 2 different environments, seperated by 380,000+ km, seperated by 28 years, in spacesuits designed for 2 different jobs?

Why would you expect them to be the same?


jra

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Another moon quiz from prof. Rourke:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...


These "spot the difference" guessing games are getting more and more ridiculous. Just about everything is different between the two photos in this latest one.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   


You just doubled the time delay. There is already a 2 second delay when communicating from Earth to the Moon. Doing it the way you're suggesting is going to make it a 4 second delay. That wouldn't go unnoticed.


No. Astronauts replied immediately to the Houston guys, because the signal from Houston was transmitted to the studio directly, not through the moon. The reply of the astronauts arrived to the moon just right after the Houston transmission arrived to the moon; then the astronauts reply was transmitted to Houston.



And you didn't address how one fakes 1/6th G


Wires from ceiling.



and a vacuum on Earth.


The air was sucked out of the studio.



No it's not a coincidence. It was there goal to be on the Moon before the end of the decade. And they managed to do it.


Can you prove that? because you replied by using the proposition as proof.



There was no "original crew" of the Apollo mission (as there was more than one mission). The Apollo program consisted of 32 astronauts. But I'm going to guess you're referring to the 3 astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire?


Yes, that one. They were the astronauts to travel to the moon initially. They "accidentally" died before the missions...perhaps they did not agree with the hoax.



You're going to have to show me a link to this. I don't recall NASA saying that.


I can't find it. I searched the internet using Google but I can't find it, sorry. There was a statement from some NASA guy that "we can't go to the moon". There was an internet buzz at that time, and NASA quickly issued a statement that the guy "did not mean what he said". That was a few years back, perhaps other posters remember it.



Then do please show this evidence. I'd like to see it.


Please explain how the shadows are not parallel.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


You just doubled the time delay. There is already a 2 second delay when communicating from Earth to the Moon. Doing it the way you're suggesting is going to make it a 4 second delay. That wouldn't go unnoticed.


No. Astronauts replied immediately to the Houston guys, because the signal from Houston was transmitted to the studio directly, not through the moon. The reply of the astronauts arrived to the moon just right after the Houston transmission arrived to the moon; then the astronauts reply was transmitted to Houston.

What makes you think there was no communications time delay? There most certainly was a delay, and that delay is evident up on the mission audio recordings.

You would only hear one side of the delay, depending on where the recording was being made. The recording was made here on Earth, so you would hear people at Houston responding immediately to the astronauts, but the response from the astronauts would be delayed -- and that's exactly what the audio recordings show.

For example, here is a recording from Apollo 17's descent to the Moon. Much of the time Gene Cernan is just talking and not responding directly to Houston (thus there is not necessarily a delay, since he isn't making a specific reply), but at the 2:28 mark, someone at Houston (Gordon Fullerton) tells Cernan "You're Go for Enter" (which is a very important instruction) and Gene Cernan responds 4 seconds later "Roger, Go for Enter".

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and here is the written transcript of the above audio (the audio starts at the 112:48:56 mission time mark on this written transcript):
www.hq.nasa.gov...

In fact, on many occasions, the delay caused some problems because Cernan would be speaking over Fullerton...i.e., Fullerton would send a message to Cernan, but Cernan (not knowing for two seconds that Fullerton had said something) would start talking about something else, but then need to pause and listen to Fullerton's instruction.

There are plenty more examples of the delay in direct astronaut replies to specific Houston instructions on other audio files from the missions. I'm not talking about the astronaut saying something immediately after Houston says something -- I'm talking about direct two-way conversations where the astronaut was specifically responding to Houston.

I suggust you research this a bit more before claiming that there was no delay.

Again, obviously because it is being recorded on Earth, there will be no delay in Houston's reply to the Astronauts. The only delay will be in the astronaut's replies to Houston. It's just common sense.





And you didn't address how one fakes 1/6th G


Wires from ceiling.

Do you have any evidence of these wires?




and a vacuum on Earth.


The air was sucked out of the studio.

I suppose they could have been filming it some sort of huge vacuum-studio. But again, where is the evidence that they did?

You seem to be saying "prove that they didn't", which is an absurd way to debate.




No it's not a coincidence. It was there goal to be on the Moon before the end of the decade. And they managed to do it.


Can you prove that? because you replied by using the proposition as proof.

Your original "suspiciousness" that they perhaps happened to accomplish what the president asked them to accomplish is makes no sense. It's not really "evidence for a Moon hoax".

For example, if my boss asked me to do something by Friday, and I get it done by Friday, should the fact that I got it done on time be cause for suspicion?




There was no "original crew" of the Apollo mission (as there was more than one mission). The Apollo program consisted of 32 astronauts. But I'm going to guess you're referring to the 3 astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire?


Yes, that one. They were the astronauts to travel to the moon initially. They "accidentally" died before the missions...perhaps they did not agree with the hoax.

Wrong.

There was no crew named for the first manned landing on the Moon at the time of the AS-204 (Apollo 1) disaster. The Apollo 1 Astronauts were simply the Apollo 1 astronauts. Perhaps if the fire never occurred, one or more of them may have been part of the first manned landing flight, but the decision on that crew was not yet made at the time.




You're going to have to show me a link to this. I don't recall NASA saying that.


I can't find it. I searched the internet using Google but I can't find it, sorry. There was a statement from some NASA guy that "we can't go to the moon". There was an internet buzz at that time, and NASA quickly issued a statement that the guy "did not mean what he said". That was a few years back, perhaps other posters remember it.



Then do please show this evidence. I'd like to see it.


Please explain how the shadows are not parallel.

That's easy! The surface of the Moon is not flat (i.e. it's hilly and bumpy). Obviously the shadows will not all be parallel.

Again, this is simple common sense, and the "non-parallel shadows" question has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago. I didn't think the real Moon Hoax advocates even used that argument anymore.



[edit on 1/8/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jra
 


The astronauts in the footage do not jump as high as they should be able too.

The astronauts appear to be moving slower when in fact they should be moving faster because there is no air resistance.

The only "modification" to the Hasselblad cameras was painting them silver.

Sorry but that's the funniest one of them all . . .

Now i'm not saying these things prove Apollo 11 didn't go to the moon. But it does prove the footage is not genuine unless they were disingenuous about the conditions on the moon or the equipment used.

[edit on 1/6/2010 by JPhish]



DO you think a spacesuit fits like a second skin
thats why they moved slower the suit!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


You just doubled the time delay. There is already a 2 second delay when communicating from Earth to the Moon. Doing it the way you're suggesting is going to make it a 4 second delay. That wouldn't go unnoticed.


No. Astronauts replied immediately to the Houston guys, because the signal from Houston was transmitted to the studio directly, not through the moon. The reply of the astronauts arrived to the moon just right after the Houston transmission arrived to the moon; then the astronauts reply was transmitted to Houston.


What was on the Moon to relay the signal back? S-Band transmissions do not reflect well from rough surfaces. If it was an automated probe, why (for the amount of money spent in the open could we not send a manned lander? That would be more reliable than an automated lander, also you don't run the risk of getting caught faking it.




And you didn't address how one fakes 1/6th G


Wires from ceiling.




and a vacuum on Earth.


The air was sucked out of the studio.

This clip is part of a >1-hour video transmission. Earlier parts of the transmission show the astronauts close-up to the camera and no wires are present. Here we see John Young kicking lunar soil that flies much further than it would in one gravity. Is every particle of dust on a wire?

In this clip (from the same transmission) we see the astronauts working in front of a boulder. at the 2-minute mark, they start loping towards it, and we can get some sense of how big the boulder - and the whole area - is. It would be impossible today to build a vacuum chamber this big!




No it's not a coincidence. It was there goal to be on the Moon before the end of the decade. And they managed to do it.


Can you prove that? because you replied by using the proposition as proof.


What, so every time someone meets a deadline, it should be suspicious?

Actually, going to the Moon was not Kennedy's idea. Apollo was conceived in the late 50's and got its name before Kennedy was elected. NASA studies showed that, with adequate funding, technology could be developed to make a landing around 1970. In 1961, when Kennedy asked NASA for a suitable long-term goal that we had a good chance of beating the Russians to, they told him "the Moon" and he made the announcement.

Read Chariots for Apollo for a good history of the decision.




You're going to have to show me a link to this. I don't recall NASA saying that.


I can't find it. There was a statement from some NASA guy that "we can't go to the moon".


Well, we don't have the technology to go to the Moon - any more. Nor do we have the technology to build an Iowa-class battleship, or to fly passengers across the Atlantic in First-Class comfort at supersonic speed. We abandoned these technologies because they were not perceived as worth the cost. If properly funded, we could develop them again, but it would be expensive and take years.




Then do please show this evidence. I'd like to see it.


Please explain how the shadows are not parallel.


That's easy. Shadows may be parallel when viewed from straight overhead, but when viewed from the side they are subject to perspective and uneven terrain. Multiple light sorces leave multiple shadows, and we don't see any of those.

[edit on 8-1-2010 by Saint Exupery]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by jra
 


The astronauts in the footage do not jump as high as they should be able too.

The astronauts appear to be moving slower when in fact they should be moving faster because there is no air resistance.



DO you think a spacesuit fits like a second skin
thats why they moved slower the suit!


Heck, I move in slow motion while wearing my Parka/snowpants!

But it seems it's more than just bulky suits that make you move more slowly in 1/6th gravity. Here is the "Mythbusters" take on the slow-moving astronauts (NOTE: part 2 is the one that tests moving in 1/6 gravity, but part 1 gives some information regarding slow-motion filming of the astronauts):

Part 1: www.youtube.com...
Part 2: www.youtube.com...


The only "modification" to the Hasselblad cameras was painting them silver.

Sorry but that's the funniest one of them all . . .

Now i'm not saying these things prove Apollo 11 didn't go to the moon. But it does prove the footage is not genuine unless they were disingenuous about the conditions on the moon or the equipment used.

That is incorrect.

Special lubricants were used on the parts that would still be subjected to temperature extremes.

The camera was also equipped with a specially designed Biogon (ultra-wide-angle) lens with a focal length of 60 mm, and a polarization filter mounted to the lens. A glass Reseau-Plate was added, which gave the familar "cross hairs". These were used for measurement by the people who later analyzed the photos.

NASA added a pistol-grip and a trigger shutter release. The f-stop was kept relatively high and this along with the wide-angle lens would result in a large depth of field, which meant the astronauts needed only to be "approximate" with their focusing to get a sharp image -- either "close", "medium distance" or "far away".



[edit on 1/8/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Even though I keep an open mind, those pictures do not prove to me in any way that the Apollo 8 landing was staged. I could take ANY picture and find ways to make it seem fake. Photography isn't perfect, particularly photography from 40 years ago.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
Well, we don't have the technology to go to the Moon - any more. Nor do we have the technology to build an Iowa-class battleship, or to fly passengers across the Atlantic in First-Class comfort at supersonic speed. We abandoned these technologies because they were not perceived as worth the cost. If properly funded, we could develop them again, but it would be expensive and take years.


We still have the knowledge and technology to build jets and boats. No one is out there proclaiming that we no long have an idea how to build supersonic jets or carriers. NASA did say, they do not know how to get back the moon. The things you listed can be done again at any time with the money.

[edit on 1/9/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
We still have the knowledge and technology to build jets and boats. No one is out there proclaiming that we no long have an idea how to build supersonic jets or carriers.


We also know how to build rockets. However, I wasn't talking about just any boat or jet, any more than you are talking about just any rocket. We are talking about very specific machines built at certain times for very specific purposes.

We do not have the manufacturing capability to build an Iowa, or a Concorde, or an Apollo/Saturn rocket. We don't have the tools that make the tools that make the tools to do so. But, even though we can't build actual copies, we can build something that has the capabilities of each. This, however, requires engineers to start from scratch.

Mind you, we don't have to do things the same way it was done decades ago. A new battleship wouldn't need an analog ballistics calculator or high-pressure boiler; we could modify a digital computer and diesel-electric motors to serve. Some things, however, have no substitute - We would have to relearn how to make armor that can stop a 2,200lb AP projectile cold.


The things you listed can be done again at any time with the money.


A LOT of money and steady public support. We could start "any time" these two conditions are met (good luck), but each would require years of effort to accomplish.


NASA did say, they do not know how to get back the moon.


This gets back to the crux of the matter. Who, exactly, said what, exactly, and what was the context? If this person made a slip-of-the-tongue, is it more likely that he blew the cover on a massive, 100-billion dollar cover-up involving hundreds of thousands of engineers & technicians, tens of thousands of administrators & inspectors, thousands of astronomers and geologists world-wide, and dozens of different countries (some hostile to the US) a conspiracy that, by the way, has no supporting evidence...

... or did he simply mean that the manufacturing tools & methods from 40 years ago are no longer available, so we'll have to develop new tools & methods?

Which is more likely?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

The idea that "NASA forgot how to go to the Moon" is misleading (and I don't know if NASA ever actually said that). NASA still has the basic know-how to go to the Moon, but the actual designs for those Moon machines that actually flew may be incomplete. The devil is in the details.

The Apollo program was HUGE. It wasn't only about hardware, it was also about people; many, many people. Obviously the engineers who worked on Apollo are long-retired or dead. Apollo was the type of program where design items were revised "on the fly" in the testing stage. Some of these revisions were due-fully commited to paper as official revisions, and some were not. Many of the "design tweaks" that were needed to make the Moon machines work efficiently were only in the heads of the engineers.

I'm not saying this was a good method. In a perfect world, the correct method for revising a design is to go through the proper revision procedures to document that revision -- but we don't live in a perfect world. They were racing the clock and shortcuts were made.

Somebody may have said "we'll pick up that revision later on paper", but never did. Sometimes an engineer would wait until they had several revisions before they took the time (and expense) to capture those revisions on paper -- and often some revisions were forgotten.

For example, the umbilical between the Apollo capsule and command module that flew was different than the official "As-Built" design on paper. NASA engineers actually visited a museum that had an un-flown capsule/command module to see how the umbilical was ultimately constructed.

So, if NASA ever said "we forgot how to go to the Moon", that's what they meant.

I suggest you watch the series "Moon Machines". You will get a real sense for how the NASA hardware was designed and constructed. Plus you will see how important the PEOPLE were to the whole endeavor -- not just their designs, but the actual people themselves.

You are overestimating the ability to get a design on paper to work exactly right, and grossly underestimating the importance of the Engineer's brains to work through problems "on the fly".



[edit on 1/9/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Tom Hanks traveled to the moon in late 90s with the fraction of costs and better quality. In 22nd century it will be featured in museums how used to be country USA gone to the moon last millennium.



[edit on 10.1.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Again, obviously because it is being recorded on Earth, there will be no delay in Houston's reply to the Astronauts. The only delay will be in the astronaut's replies to Houston. It's just common sense.


That's what I said: the signal went from filming studio to the moon and then to Houston. The delay seemed normal to the Houston guys, but the signal was coming from Earth.



Do you have any evidence of these wires?




I suppose they could have been filming it some sort of huge vacuum-studio. But again, where is the evidence that they did?


I am not offering proof, just another possibility.



For example, if my boss asked me to do something by Friday, and I get it done by Friday, should the fact that I got it done on time be cause for suspicion?


We are talking about entirely different task sizes here.



There was no crew named for the first manned landing on the Moon at the time of the AS-204 (Apollo 1) disaster.


Ok, but perhaps the 3 astronauts were ready to talk. And so they got it.



That's easy! The surface of the Moon is not flat (i.e. it's hilly and bumpy). Obviously the shadows will not all be parallel.


But in the pictures that we see non-parallel shadows there are no hills and bumps - the surface is flat.



I didn't think the real Moon Hoax advocates even used that argument anymore.


Please explain how the astronaut's shadow is not parallel to the other shadows, since the surface is flat:





If it was an automated probe, why (for the amount of money spent in the open could we not send a manned lander? That would be more reliable than an automated lander, also you don't run the risk of getting caught faking it.


The technology to send men to the moon did not exist then. It does not even exist now, apparently.



Here we see John Young kicking lunar soil that flies much further than it would in one gravity.


I saw the clip. I don't see anything that cannot be replicated in the studio. Moon dust can be simulated via light materials.



and we can get some sense of how big the boulder - and the whole area - is. It would be impossible today to build a vacuum chamber this big!


I don't see anything impossible with it. All you want is an air tight area. You don't even need to suck all air from it, just most of it.



What, so every time someone meets a deadline, it should be suspicious?


It depends on the task.



Well, we don't have the technology to go to the Moon - any more. Nor do we have the technology to build an Iowa-class battleship, or to fly passengers across the Atlantic in First-Class comfort at supersonic speed. We abandoned these technologies because they were not perceived as worth the cost. If properly funded, we could develop them again, but it would be expensive and take years.


Excuse me if I don't believe that the technical manuals for mankind's best achievement are thrown away.



That's easy. Shadows may be parallel when viewed from straight overhead, but when viewed from the side they are subject to perspective and uneven terrain. Multiple light sorces leave multiple shadows, and we don't see any of those.


Please explain the shadows in the above image. The astronaut's shadow is extremely close to the rest of the shadows, perhaps a couple of meters away, and I see no slope of any kind, the terrain is flat.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Please explain how the astronaut's shadow is not parallel to the other shadows, since the surface is flat:


That surface is not flat, also www.badastronomy.com...


The technology to send men to the moon did not exist then.


How do you know that?



[edit on 10/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
That's what I said: the signal went from filming studio to the moon and then to Houston. The delay seemed normal to the Houston guys, but the signal was coming from Earth.

There would be extra delay as the astronaut would have to respond to what houston was saying before the combined signal could be sent to the moon. In fact, some high school students took the recordings where you could hear feedback of houston through the astronaut's mic and analyzed the delay and found not only did it match the proper lunar distance, but over the course of the longer missions you could measure the eccentricity of the moon's orbit using the slight changes in the delay.


I am not offering proof, just another possibility.

No vacuum chamber that large exists. You're talking about one hell of a studio. Furthermore, images taken showing the "same background" with different foregrounds can be combined to show a stereoscopic image of the background which reveals 3d mountains, not a 2d backdrop.


Ok, but perhaps the 3 astronauts were ready to talk. And so they got it.

By the same logic, the crews of challenger and columbia died because "they were ready to talk."


But in the pictures that we see non-parallel shadows there are no hills and bumps - the surface is flat.

No, the surface is NOT flat. There's a rather obvious crater indentation right in front of the astronaut in your picture. The moon has far more terrain deformations than "bumps and hills." In fact, you'd be challenged to find ANY image in apollo that shows perfectly flat terrain.


The technology to send men to the moon did not exist then. It does not even exist now, apparently.

Proof?

I saw the clip. I don't see anything that cannot be replicated in the studio. Moon dust can be simulated via light materials.

Moon dust would billow in a studio, worse with light materials.


I don't see anything impossible with it. All you want is an air tight area.

No, the pressure from all the air outside the studio pushing on a studio that large will crush it. That's why vacuum chambers are very sturdy in construction and very small.


You don't even need to suck all air from it, just most of it.

That which is left over will spoil those "light materials" of yours.


Excuse me if I don't believe that the technical manuals for mankind's best achievement are thrown away.

I see. Who paid the contractors all that money to archive all that stuff for the last 50 years?


Please explain the shadows in the above image. The astronaut's shadow is extremely close to the rest of the shadows, perhaps a couple of meters away, and I see no slope of any kind, the terrain is flat.

The terrain is clearly not flat in that image, there is a downward slope right in front of the astronaut.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   


That surface is not flat


We clearly see a flat surface in the image.



also www.badastronomy.com...


Although what Plait says is correct, none of it applies on the image I posted above. There is no weird perspective, no terrain slopes, nothing. It's a straight surface with normal perspective. And the astronaut shadow is very close to the other shadows.



How do you know that?


There was no other mission from USA or any other nation that has sent astronauts beyond the Van Allen belt. And none is planned for the future.



There would be extra delay as the astronaut would have to respond to what houston was saying before the combined signal could be sent to the moon. In fact, some high school students took the recordings where you could hear feedback of houston through the astronaut's mic and analyzed the delay and found not only did it match the proper lunar distance, but over the course of the longer missions you could measure the eccentricity of the moon's orbit using the slight changes in the delay.


The astronauts in the studio received Houston's transmission directly from Houston, not through the moon and back.



No vacuum chamber that large exists. You're talking about one hell of a studio.


Why? I don't see anything impossible with it. It's like you are saying that a studio that large cannot be made airtight. Air tightness is a factor of materials and fabrication techniques, not size.



By the same logic, the crews of challenger and columbia died because "they were ready to talk."


Perhaps, if the Challenger was going to the moon ;-).



No, the surface is NOT flat. There's a rather obvious crater indentation right in front of the astronaut in your picture.


Where is the shadow created by the crater's side that is hidden from the sun? every picture with a crater shows a shadow. We see no shadow in the picture.



In fact, you'd be challenged to find ANY image in apollo that shows perfectly flat terrain.


Indeed, but for the shadows to converge in such a manner, there needs to be a very huge slope. And the shadow would not be flat but elongated, spread out on the slope.



Moon dust would billow in a studio, worse with light materials.


It depends on how light the material is. Combined with lack of air, it can easily produce the effect seen in the video.



No, the pressure from all the air outside the studio pushing on a studio that large will crush it. That's why vacuum chambers are very sturdy in construction and very small.


Except if the materials are strong enough to withstand the pressure.



That which is left over will spoil those "light materials" of yours.


The effect would be unnoticeable and you wouldn't know the difference because we haven't seen any real pictures from the moon.



I see. Who paid the contractors all that money to archive all that stuff for the last 50 years?


Wrong. NASA is the contractor, NASA should have kept all the documents.



The terrain is clearly not flat in that image, there is a downward slope right in front of the astronaut.


If there is a downward slope:

a) where is the shadowed part at the opposite side of the downward slope.
b) why the astronaut's shadow is not elongated?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
...Please explain how the astronaut's shadow is not parallel to the other shadows, since the surface is flat:


First of all, that terrain is not completely flat -- it's bumpy.
HOWEVER, that's not the only reason why the shadows are not parallel -- it's because of perspective and the use of a wide-angle lens.

Perspective is often exaggerated by photographs, especially when a wide-angle lens is used, such as the Biogen 60 mm ultra-wide angle lens used by Apollo 11. The wide angle lens takes in much more of the periphery landscape than we expect, thus the greater notice-ability of the shadows reaching toward the perspective's "vanishing point".

Objects to a photographers right and left will look like they are further forward in a wide angle photograph.

Here is another example of a picture probably taken with a wide-angle lens:



The rest of that Apollo 11 photo analysis is just as easy to debunk....

The orange circle that showed a "hot-spot" of lighting was actually capturing an optical phenomenon known as the "opposition effect", which is similar to another optical effect called "Heiligenschein":

Example of Heiligenschein

...although Heiligenschein usually is caused by the reflective properties of water droplets and the "opposition effect" on the moon is caused by the reflective properties of the lunar regolith (soil).

The other "point of contention" mentioned in that photograph -- that the astronauts shadow "doesn't seem" to be pointing toward the center of the image -- really makes no sense.

A shadow is 2-Dimensional. How can you tell by looking at that 2D shadow what direction the camera was pointing? The astronaut could easily be turned just a few degrees to the right, and his shadow would look practically the same. Or, he could have only turned his torso a little to the right.

Take a look at the image of the Heiligenschein I posted above. Why isn't the gondola in the center of the picture? Easy -- because the photographer just pointed his camera down a bit.

It really is beyond me how the idea that a 2D shadow "doesn't seem" to be pointing toward the center of the image is considered Moon hoax evidence.



[edit on 1/10/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join