Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


I don't trot intuition assumptions as fact. You talk a lot about picture you see yet we see none of them with any reference and you know, seeing images on Youtube compression doesn't count, unless you are arguing something other than the image quality. You need to reference the NASA tiff files available before I entertain any of your supposed image tampering fantasies.

Now get to work and show something we can look at, so far you come off as some kind of self appointed god of bull#, and are very good at it, not to mention pulling the insult cord, using smilies to incite, and basically professing everything you with no examples. No my friend I would never sit down to a beer with folks of your like. I'd rather get a root canal done on a tooth that doesn't need one instead.

When you decide to start a debate I may entertain such, until then I'll have a beer with my dentist.

reply to post by WeekendWarrior

And there is a load of satellite images of moon with a clear airbrushing going on in them.

Doesn't seem that you grasp the whole "point" of airbrushing......IF a photo needed to be "airbrushed" to "hide" something, then you would never know it happened!!!

This is what I find so hilarious about these claims. The examples that are used are laughable because what is being identified as "airbrushing" are merely image artifacts of one type or another.

Really, the entire business of Moon "hoax" promotion is designed as a con-job for the gullible and under-informed.

reply to post by WeekendWarrior


If they REALLY wanted to hide something they wouldn't bother to show the picture it really is that simple or is that to simple for you to understand.

I have said this before and will say it agian for your benefit!

When NASA went to the Moon and said they had ,they would not have known when another country could have sent a probe,mission or built a telescope large enough to prove them wrong.

It wouldn't matter if it was a week, a month, a year or a centuary after the last mission thats a risk they couldn't take!

At first I was shocked when I saw this (as I strongly believe that the Moon landings were real). But the main thing that convinced me that the video is BS is the fact that there doesn't appear to be any orbital movement at all. The image of the earth remains the same all the time. To me, therefore, this would suggest Apollo is quite far away from the Earth. If they were in low Earth orbit, one would easily see the clouds move. But they are not in low Earth orbit. This is filmed from quite the distance, I believe.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents...

reply to post by Epicurus


Exactly!

It's a wonder that so very many people fall for the nonsense claims made by Bart Sibrel, about the "Low Earth Orbit" filming "fakery". It (sadly) almost had you going for a moment too! That is how devious and deceptive some slick editing can be, when intended as it was by Sibrel......

Especially obvious movement when in LEO (low Earth orbit) is apparent in any of the are loads of videos available to see actual footage from the ISS and from all of the Space Shuttle missions......

This is looking down, at the Earth, from the ISS....and appears to be in real time (in other words, not time lapse). Meaning, if YOU were there, holding the camera and a cardboard cut-out trying to "simulate a round Earth in the distance", the the motion (and changing cloud patterns and continents whizzing by) would be obvious:



This is a thorough debunk of the ridiculous Bart Sibrel "film" and his so-called "proof"......and, this is only the tip of the iceberg of other complete debunks of his nonsense claims.


ETA: Amazingly, at this point....this thread went for 26 PAGES! and over 85 FLAGS, and this simple concept hadn't been understood by so many (at least 85+ people who flagged it, apparently)......

Originally posted by AnotherHumanBeing
It does seem silly that everything worked first time, and every other attempt before that had failed (man on the moon)
AnotherHumanBeing x

Ok, you're hurting my brain. You start by saying everything went fine THE FIRST TIME, but all other missions BEFORE that had failed . . . everything went perfect the first time, even after all the previous times didn't go well . . . all the times BEFORE THE FIRST time, didn't go well . . . but the first time, that happened after all those other times . . . went well? So to paraphrase, it's weird to you that the first time they got it right, was the first time they got it right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the perfect example of the logic employed by the moon hoax crowd.

reply to post by onewithall


I am starting to get interested in this stuff too! thanks one with all. It always seems hard to figure out doesn't it especially if you are not a scientist. I am a public health nurse. [snipped] Never thought it was fake before, but with your video and the SayonaraJupiter threads here, I am starting to think this is made up to look hot in front of the world. Thanks again for the video, really gets me going to learn more!
Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

reply to post by CatherineD

Not sure what your link is because for some reason my IP's been banned from the site even though i've never visited it. I'm assuming you're referring to leaving the Hassleblad cameras on the moon (if i'm wrong you can ignore this) But yes, they were, anything that didn't need to come back was left behind because the less mass you have to move, the less fuel is required so a lot of things that didn't need to come back to Earth were left on the moon including the PLSS (life support backpacks) various tools, lunar rovers and so on and so forth. Since they served their purpose and were essentially useless (historical/sentimental value notwithstanding) they were tossed out the hatch.

reply to post by captainpudding

Not sure what your link is because for some reason my IP's been banned from the site even though i've never visited it.

They do that periodically so that you are forced to pay for a subscription. The thread was undoubtedly one started by "RelentlessClever," known here as banned member "decisively."

reply to post by DJW001


Was he the doctor who knew nothing about medicine and needed his family members to correct his grammar for him? Boy that guy had some entertaining posts. But yes, I'm assuming you're right that it's a fake splash page to get me to pay for access, which in my book causes the site to instantly lose all credibility. I see it's since been removed by the mods so if Catherine is reading this feel free to clarify your question, I'm sure someone will be happy to answer.

reply to post by captainpudding


I thought the post about the camera point was a good one. I will speak for myself and tell you why this is so.

When i was a girl, I learned to shoot with a Pentax K1000, an old work horse film camera. My dad and I lived in Lake Tahoe and we liked to shoot in B&W during the winter. I noticed on some days when it was colder that the shots were over exposed and I ultimately figured out the shutter time was stretched out and longer on these days. Needless to say my dad was proud.

Another time when shooting in Death Valley with my favorite 50 mm, F2.0, I noticed some of the shots were washed out. It was very very hot and ultimately I determined there was a problem with the lens in the extreme heat. I discovered a problem with diffuse lens flare washing out things a little and decreasing my contrast. I wrote a paper about it that was published locally in our photo club. I was 16 years old at the time.

I was able to determine these things by studying the camera and of course studying books as well and just playing around.

I am a public health nurse now, but sell my photos and have worked as a professional photographer. I take photos for the state of California in various capacities, whether it be for a Yosemite brochure or what have you. When it comes to cameras, I am good with the basics. I still work mostly with film cameras.

You wouldn't go to the moon, shoot as they did, and not bring the camera back. The whole thing has got to be fake. Has to be.

The point about leaving the cameras on the moon is incredibly insightful and has drawn me into the camp of so called HBs. By the way, I have seen this on half a dozen web sites now , and it is more than one poster bringing this to the attention of others, including one professional photographer that posted it in an old mag someone showed me.

I say I am an HB with some pride now. I think many of those people are thoughtful and obviously very capable. I am hoping to learn enough about the issues to make contributions myself. Obviously my skills with a camera are pertinent .

Originally posted by CatherineD
reply to post by captainpudding

 

You wouldn't go to the moon, shoot as they did, and not bring the camera back. The whole thing has got to be fake. Has to be.

]

Well 30+ years for me from an old manual camera (focus & exposure) and your statement above is BS quite simply they didn't need the camera all they need was the film back, that's just your opinion if you believed that they should have brought the rover back

Samples were more important than the camera bodies!

Plenty of pictures from the surface records kept by NASA of position and distance on the surface between craters and equipment etc. That can be matched on LRO images!!!

Now some of the very small craters that are seen on the LRO images can be matched with the pictures taken and here's one for you to think about.



Top as Apollo 17 left the Moon, bottom LRO picture even the tracks match almost 40 yrs between the pictures care to explain that HB.

reply to post by wmd_2008


They do not NEED anything. But if they were serious photographers they would WANT the camera, and would have close to insisted on it. How do you know the lens would not do something funny? right away from very hot to very cold, would it crack?

I thinky you believe you think you can bluff me because i am a beginner. you cannot. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and me mine. But to dismiss my opinion as irrelevant is off base. Some other photographers i am sure will want to chime in here, at least eventually.

I am a smart girl. If you are trying to bluff me, it won't work. I have been taking pictures a long long time and am very good.

reply to post by CatherineD


But why would they want the specific camera from the moon? Just use one of the identical cameras that weren't mission flown if you want to do some kind of tests on temperature tolerances and the sort. I'm having a very hard time following your logic as to why they should bring back the cameras that were used. I could understand if there was evident camera failure in the Apollo 11 pictures that they'd have Apollo 12 bring back one of their cameras in order to study what happened, but since none of the cameras failed, there was no reason.

Also, for the record, they weren't serious photographers, they were astronauts, they only took pictures because it was part of their mission, I can understand how someone like yourself who has a passion for photography would want to keep the camera but these guys were probably indifferent to the cameras.

reply to post by captainpudding


Your problem is that you are viewing the situation with hindsight. What if the images were all washed out a bit? How would you know if the shutter wasn't slow vs lens problem vs other? This thing is fake.

reply to post by CatherineD


How can you jump to the conclusion that because the cameras functioned as intended, the missions were fake? These weren't crappy little disposables, they were high end Hasselblads, they tend not to break down with a few hours use. Also, as far as scientific merit goes, the pictures were pretty low on the list. Even if none of the pictures turned out it wouldn't have been all that problematic to the mission as a whole. They still had the geological samples, they still had the retro reflector and they still had all the data from various experiments.

reply to post by CatherineD

They do not NEED anything. But if they were serious photographers they would WANT the camera, and would have close to insisted on it. How do you know the lens would not do something funny? right away from very hot to very cold, would it crack?

Well, for one thing, they would have noticed if the lens cracked. For another, they had been using similar cameras in the vacuum of space for nearly a decade.

I thinky you believe you think you can bluff me because i am a beginner. you cannot. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and me mine. But to dismiss my opinion as irrelevant is off base. Some other photographers i am sure will want to chime in here, at least eventually.

Wmd is not the one trying to bluff people. No-one is saying your opinion is irrelevant; they are saying it is wrong. I am sure "other photographers"will soon be chiming in, each one introducing themselves with a thumbnail biography to create the impression that they are someone with the authority to make the exact same cllaims you do.

I am a smart girl.

I am pretty sure neither is true.

If you are trying to bluff me, it won't work. I have been taking pictures a long long time and am very good.

Then explain again why experimenting on an identical camera would not be able to reproduce the mechanical problems of the ones left on the Moon?

reply to post by captainpudding


Your comment is little more than nonsense, Wasn't it Galileo himself who said, "Science begins with observations of nature."

I cannot believe you actually wrote as you did. The most important tool by far that the astronauts brought was the camera, and the photos were as important as the rocks themselves in understanding the moon they claimed to explore.

The laser reflector was more important than the camera, the seismic device? That is laughable.

And the shutter could have EASILY got stuck, I don't care if the camera cost $100,000. the temperature in the shade was effectively absolute zero. I know that much.


The part about condensation of course applies here, cameras.about.com...

###snipped###


I showed this to my pop just a minute ago and he's with me. Not that what he says is gospel, but it's close. He's done nothing but photography his entire life, a genuine professional. He says of course they would have to have the camera, at least the first one because of the potential for so many problems. And you would need to study the camera actually taken for obvious reasons. Now he's an HB. Looks like we are on to something folks.

reply to post by DJW001


WRONG, ever so WRONG, sterileeye.com...

They used the Hasselblad 500 ELs beginning with Apollo 8 and as best i can tell, never took a one out into the cold of space until Apollo 11. Note my link above how some of the photographers commented cold created problems for their batteries.



FAKE!

reply to post by CatherineD

I cannot believe you actually wrote as you did. The most important tool by far that the astronauts brought was the camera, and the photos were as important as the rocks themselves in understanding the moon they claimed to explore.

How many scientific papers have been written based on the photographs? How many have been written based on the rocks?

The laser reflector was more important than the camera, the seismic device? That is laughable.

And I can't believe you said that. The seismic device provided information about the Moon's interior that would be impossible to obtain any other way! It also allowed scientists to monitor meteoric impacts in real time, allowing them to calculate the density of large, potentially dangerous space debris near the Earth. The laser retro-reflectors remain the benchmark for all lunar cartography. Some people would even have you believe that they were necessary to evaporate the Bolshoi!

And the shutter could have EASILY got stuck, I don't care if the camera cost $100,000. the temperature in the shade was effectively absolute zero. I know that much.

They never got stuck before. If it did get stuck, the camera wouldn't advance, would it?

I showed this to my pop just a minute ago and he's with me.

You should have shown it to Timmy, too.

Not that what he says is gospel, but it's close. He's done nothing but photography his entire life, a genuine professional.

Wait... I thought you were the professional!

He says of course they would have to have the camera, at least the first one because of the potential for so many problems. And you would need to study the camera actually taken for obvious reasons.

Once again: why not an identical camera? The reasons are not obvious to me. Please explain.

Now he's an HB. Looks like we are on to something folks.

What do you mean "we," Paleface?