Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
I'm supprised you haven't come across any proof already!
Have a look at this video which will educate you on where to see the proof of a hoax in NASA photos:
www.youtube.com...

This video is incredibly naive, and has been debunked many times.

If you speed the video up to reflect the Earth's gravity, the astronauts' movements look jerky and unnaturaly fast at times.

The flag was waving because the astronauts were inserting the flag post into the soil and were twisting and jerking it around. After they finished with it, the flag was perfectly motionless.

Not all Apollo pictures are perfect, there are plenty of bad framing, accidental shots, bad focusing or incorrect exposure. Of course only the good photos are published. See the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for many examples of less-than-perfect shots: www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's just for the beginning of the video, I can't be bothered with the rest. We can keep debunking it, and the hoaxers will keep regurgitating the same bull#.

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


Lets look at two of the points quickly first that old chestnut the flag, the flag waves because the Astronaut was moving it back and forth to get it into the surface it continues to move for a few seconds because NO air resistance or is that to difficult for you to understand

Now for the camera and photography, first the Moon is lit by the Sun so exposure can be preset we can do the same on Earth its called the Sunny 16 rule

We can do the same with focus it's called Depth of Field

All the exposures were not perfect as claimed by many hoax sites for example

Underexposed



Bad framing


Any photographer worth his salt can lift a camera with its standard lens and has manual settings set for exposure and focus so they can point and click and most of the pictures will be good enough to use.

How do you think cheap disposable cameras are made that have no adjustments you point you shoot you send the film to be developed.

Now just because YOU and the makers of the video don't understand photographic principles does not make it a hoax.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Above NOT real science that's for sure, the amount of work to fake not one but six landings would be more difficult than doing it, the amount of EVIDENCE against a fake is overwhelming , the one ace up the sleeve the hoax believers always had up until the LRO was launched was that no pictures could be taken of the landing sites.

Now not only thanks to the LRO can we so those sites in detail very small objects rocks,craters changes in terrain can be compared with the pictures taken on the surface by the Astronauts so do you want to explain that!

The funny thing about assumptions is that people don't realize they have them.

The merry go round goes from A to B to C and back again to A.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB

 

Lets look at two of the points quickly first that old chestnut the flag, the flag waves because the Astronaut was moving it back and forth to get it into the surface it continues to move for a few seconds because NO air resistance or is that to difficult for you to understand

I never mentioned the flag waving as that is video footage and you were specifically requesting photographic evidence...Or did you forget that?
Besides that is not the best footage that shows the flag waving...You can find that in two other videos:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

But while your at it, how did you miss the part about the shooting locations being obviously identical, despite supposedly being miles apart!

Now for the camera and photography, first the Moon is lit by the Sun so exposure can be preset we can do the same on Earth its called the Sunny 16 rule

We can do the same with focus it's called Depth of Field

All the exposures were not perfect as claimed by many hoax sites for example

Underexposed

This is exactly how most of the shoots should look, if the only light source was the Sun.

Bad framing

Not just bad framing as that pic, supposedly of Aldrin on the Moon, is one of best bit of photographic evidence of a hoax! Fill lighting has been used, the reflection in the visor has been doctored, and the "Sunlight" only illuminates a relatively small area around the Astronaut, the light gradually fading away the further from him it gets...The only explanation for this is that overhead studio lighting must have been used.

Any photographer worth his salt can lift a camera with its standard lens and has manual settings set for exposure and focus so they can point and click and most of the pictures will be good enough to use.

How do you think cheap disposable cameras are made that have no adjustments you point you shoot you send the film to be developed.

Now just because YOU and the makers of the video don't understand photographic principles does not make it a hoax.

edit on 30-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: new point added

Firstly I am a professional photographer, so don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about photography.
Secondly, you have completely avoided mentioning the fact that additional light sources MUST have been used to provide fill illumination for all the shots where the Astronauts and/or LM would have been in full Silhouette but came out perfectly lit, despite NASA saying the only light source was the Sun!
Or the fact that even the designer of the Hasselbald cameras used cannot explain it!
If you are a genuine photographer this would have stood out to you like a sore thumb!
Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots? Whichcraft?

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


No, you said "radiation" then provided several paragraphs of irrelevant information that in no way backed up your claim and have continued with your fingers in your ears ignoring all the people in the forum who've tried to educate you using the standard "NASA paid off hundreds of thousands of people" drivel. I'm also not American so there's another point you''ve gotten wrong. Your entire case is based on what you feel and think and not what the evidence shows. The funny thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Above NOT real science that's for sure, the amount of work to fake not one but six landings would be more difficult than doing it, the amount of EVIDENCE against a fake is overwhelming , the one ace up the sleeve the hoax believers always had up until the LRO was launched was that no pictures could be taken of the landing sites.

Now not only thanks to the LRO can we so those sites in detail very small objects rocks,craters changes in terrain can be compared with the pictures taken on the surface by the Astronauts so do you want to explain that!

Certainly...The LRO pics are controlled by NASA who obviously want to continue denying the hoax, so they have doctored any shots that could put them in an embarressing position.

Hoax researcher Jarah White has a whole series of videos proving there has been image doctoring on many of the LRO pics:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Secondly, you have completely avoided mentioning the fact that additional light sources MUST have been used to provide fill illumination for all the shots where the Astronauts and/or LM would have been in full Silhouette but came out perfectly lit, despite NASA saying the only light source was the Sun!

The sun was low on the horizon so when it bounces off the surface of the moon it illuminates what's in shadow, this is a basic principle and can be observed thousands of times a day. Ever walk by a building with the sun behind it? Can you see the building or is it complete darkness? There's no spotlights illuminating the front of the building, so is the building fake?

Or the fact that even the designer of the Hasselbald cameras used cannot explain it!

Yeah, this is a pretty silly claim to make without any kind of proof, please elaborate, unfounded claims will get you nowhere.

Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots? Whichcraft?

You claim to be a professional photographer but you don't understand something as simple as wash out? The bright white background overpowers the film and the thin black line gets washed out, this is photography 101

reply to post by ProfessorAlfB


And ATS has an entire thread exposing Jarrah White as a massive fraud and a liar. Please stick to sources who have at least some credibility left. Maybe a carpenter, or a mentally unstable cab driver?

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots?

"Reticules" surely?

How long have you been a photographer?

reply to post by PheonixReborn



I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by PheonixReborn

 

I think both sides of the debate can agree that attacking a typo is just poor form. We all know what they meant.

It wasn't an attack. Hence the wink.

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Firstly I am a professional photographer...

I do not for one microsecond believe you. A professional photographer would recognize and understand reflected fill-light from the ground when he sees it.

...so don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about photography.

You know nothing about photography. No mistake about it.

Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots? Whichcraft?

A professional photographer would also understand washout, or are you suggesting that a photo retoucher added white stripes to a red flag?

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Firstly I am a professional photographer, so don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about photography.
Secondly, you have completely avoided mentioning the fact that additional light sources MUST have been used to provide fill illumination for all the shots where the Astronauts and/or LM would have been in full Silhouette but came out perfectly lit, despite NASA saying the only light source was the Sun!
Or the fact that even the designer of the Hasselbald cameras used cannot explain it!
If you are a genuine photographer this would have stood out to you like a sore thumb!
Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots? Whichcraft?]

Well its just as well you are not using your real name or business name then because YOU don't seem to know your trade

You posted a link to the video I picked two things at random to comment on now lets see as a professional photographer how little you seem to know about photography.

THE fiducial or cross hairs are etched on to the plate inside the camera

The Reseau plate was engraved with a 5 x 5 grid of crosses . The intersections of the crosses were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the double-sized central cross, each of the four arms on a cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide

Here is a close up from an image



Now as a supposed professional photograph why do you think part of the cross hairs could seem to be missing go back to the basics of exposure if you don't know why

Here is a link that may be you will understand

Crosshairs

Why do you think part of the walls appear to be missing from this iconic Twin Towers picture.



Were they built with part of the left side missing or is it simply the bright background makes it seem like that.

As for your other claims I suggest you go out during the day get someone to stand against a wall with the sun behind them and see if there is any problem with them being in the shade.

Fill in light from the surroundings!!!

Here is how they set up the camera as a supposed professional photographer you should have no problem working it out from this image.



As for your other comments re photography do you think they went there without practicing what to do, do you think they didn't take pictures to see what worked and what didn't before they went

Your a professional photographer I DON'T THINK SO!!!!

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
But while your at it, how did you miss the part about the shooting locations being obviously identical, despite supposedly being miles apart!

That issue is a perfect example of the A, B, C merry-go-round that I mentioned.

This "identical terrain" issue does seem genuinely suspicious, and I can't see how anyone would blame an honest person for being suspicious when confronted with such information.

Apollo supporters say that the above anomaly is just an innocent mistake on the part of Nasa, mislabeling locations and such.

Apollo supporters say that the flag didn't move when astronauts went by. People found footage where it did in fact move. Apollo supporters said this was a result of static electricity.

The Nasa plans (I believe for LEM, it's been a while) are completely MISSING. Once again, just an innocent mistake by Nasa.

The one astronaut who is a very vocal critic of the Apollo program dies. Just a coincidence.

Each individual suspicious element can in some manner be explained away as coincidence or honest mistake or whatever.

It is only when one looks at the entirety of suspicious elements that one comes away with an overall impression that deception could very likely be involved in the Apollo program, for one reason or another.

Now before the mouth-foamers get all nuts, I'm NOT stating that the Apollo mission was a hoax. I'm saying that it is in fact totally reasonable for an honest person to have suspicions about it.

reply to post by BrandonD


What identical terrain?

As for flag movement have you seen this?



All the photographic problems have been explained and most can be seen on Earth as well as it's the same light source.

So what do you think is the best example?

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Because, like you they are very gullible and have swallowed the hoax as fact, hook, line and sinker!

Absolute nonsense.

Thanks, they back up what I have been saying. Here is an enlightening link for you to read...Particularly take note what Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center has to say.

science.nasa.gov...

The link you supplied supports that the Apollo missions happened, so I fail to see how it supports your argument that it was fake or that the radiation was too much. From your link:

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant … or just a headache pill.

Emphasis mine.

You make claims of Apollo being fake, but use links that support it. Brilliant.

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Secondly, you have completely avoided mentioning the fact that additional light sources MUST have been used to provide fill illumination for all the shots where the Astronauts and/or LM would have been in full Silhouette but came out perfectly lit, despite NASA saying the only light source was the Sun!

The sun was low on the horizon so when it bounces off the surface of the moon it illuminates what's in shadow, this is a basic principle and can be observed thousands of times a day. Ever walk by a building with the sun behind it? Can you see the building or is it complete darkness? There's no spotlights illuminating the front of the building, so is the building fake?

Never heard of the Earths atmosphere? Thats why we can see the building with the Sun behind it, the light is scattered everywhere around the building. On the Moon there is no Atmosphere so this light scattering cannot take place. And the reflectively of the Moons surface (its "Albedo") averages about 8%...Thats means it only reflects 8% of any light that falls on it, hardly enough to account for the fill effect we see in the obviously fake NASA photos. For comparison, note that the Earths average Albedo is between 30% to 35%.

Or the fact that even the designer of the Hasselbald cameras used cannot explain it!

Yeah, this is a pretty silly claim to make without any kind of proof, please elaborate, unfounded claims will get you nowhere.

Duh!, I gave you proof!...He is the man with the foreign accent in the video I linked to, basically saying he has no explanation for how it could be.

Oh, and while we at at it, how do you explain why the Recticles (the crosshairs) disappear behind objects in some of the shots? Whichcraft?

You claim to be a professional photographer but you don't understand something as simple as wash out? The bright white background overpowers the film and the thin black line gets washed out, this is photography 101

Washout on film images? Film doesn't suffer anywhere near as much from washouts as digital imaging.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

So what do you think is the best example?

Thank you I appreciate the information and posting of the video, I believe I've actually watched it already but I'll watch again in case.

Regardless as I said before, each individual element that an ordinary person might find suspicious has been given some sort of explanation, even if that explanation is "it's a coincidence".

And all these explanations are fine and dandy, I don't have a problem with them.

But an amassing of questionable elements leads most reasonable people to suspect deception.

THIS is the reason I used the girlfriend analogy, though people seemed to nitpick on irrelevant details because of course the analogy is not exact (and didn't need to be for the point I was trying to make).

In the girlfriend analogy, each individual element could have a very reasonable explanation given to explain it. One couldn't really argue with each one on an individual level.

However, all the elements taken together might lead an honest person to suspect that there is deception taking place, that all is not what it appears to be.

It's been a while since I did some in-depth digging on the subject, but there is a large amount of info out there regarding the photos of totally identical lunar terrain, in sites at least a kilometer from each other. I'll try to hunt down those images, perhaps the experts here on either side of the argument can lend a hand.

All the sites presenting that info could be lying. Anyone in the situation could be lying, I don't know.

And I'm totally fine with saying I don't know.

From all I've read, the circumstances seem suspicious. But maybe it's a case of paranoia and embellishment and all that.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Because, like you they are very gullible and have swallowed the hoax as fact, hook, line and sinker!

Absolute nonsense.

Yet you continue to argue that there was no hoax despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...Sure seems like you swallowed it wholesale!

Thanks, they back up what I have been saying. Here is an enlightening link for you to read...Particularly take note what Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center has to say.

science.nasa.gov...

The link you supplied supports that the Apollo missions happened, so I fail to see how it supports your argument that it was fake or that the radiation was too much. From your link:

Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant … or just a headache pill.

Emphasis mine.

You make claims of Apollo being fake, but use links that support it. Brilliant.

Ahem: "An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. These symptoms might persist for days."

This is what the Astronauts would have experienced after EVA's on the Moon during a CME event, which happens about 3 times day, every day, and this isn't even taking into account fatal effects that travelling through the Van Allen belts would have had on the Astronauts.
The fact is Apollo 11 took place at a period of high Solar Maxima yet none of the Apollo Astronauts ever had symptoms of exposure to radiation, at least at any level over what they would have experienced by staying in Low Earth Orbit...Damning evidence!

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Ahem: "An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. These symptoms might persist for days."

Yes, that's what would happen IF and astronaut were caught outside during a solar event. Fortunately none were.

This is what the Astronauts would have experienced after EVA's on the Moon during a CME event, which happens about 3 times day, every day...

Yeah, but how much radiation do they put out on average? That's the important part. There were no major flares during any of the Apollo missions and they had contingency plans in case one were to happen and ways to deal with it.

So saying that a Solar storm/CME can kill some one or make them sick, is not evidence against the Apollo missions, seeing as how no major solar events happened during the missions.

...and this isn't even taking into account fatal effects that travelling through the Van Allen belts would have had on the Astronauts.

Did you not watch the video I posted that showed the path they took through the belts? They went through the weakest parts.

The fact is Apollo 11 took place at a period of high Solar Maxima yet none of the Apollo Astronauts ever had symptoms of exposure to radiation, at least at any level over what they would have experienced by staying in Low Earth Orbit...Damning evidence!

Again, because there were no major solar events during the missions themselves.