Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
My understanding of hyperfocal distance is the focal point that extends the depth of field to infinity. So if they wanted a clear picture of earth, they would use the hyperfocal distance, but the lander would be fuzzy and the immediate for ground fuzzier. Perhaps not terribly so.

Show us a picture with the LM and Earth both perfectly in focus.

Which astronaut was a professional photographer?

They all had training in how to use the cameras.

The cameras they had at the time had very limited depth of field.

Really? Got any supporting evidence for that?

They were not intended for taking pictures of the earth from the moon. Yet they have it perfectly sharp from the immediate foreground to the vast distance of earth.

Your first statement is nonsense, and the second needs you, again, to provide us with an example.

originally posted by: choos

also your source link doesnt support your argument at all:

In August 2008, when faced with cost increases and funding shortfalls, the Constellation program responded by reducing program reserves and deferring development effort and test activities. These changes resulted in a minimized flight test program that was so success oriented there was no room for test failures.

...

NASA recognized that the program faces challenges and in December 2008 reported that the current program was high risk and unachievable within current budget and schedule constraints.

...

Furthermore, as noted above, both the Ares I and Orion projects continue to face technical and design challenges that will require significant time, money, and effort to resolve irrespective of the decision to defer lunar requirements

...

Efforts to establish a sound business case for Constellation’s Ares I and Orion projects are complicated by (1) an aggressive schedule, (2) significant technical and design challenges, (3) funding issues and cost increases, and (4) an evolving acquisition strategy that continues to change Orion project requirements.
www.gao.gov...

why does your link directly contradict what you are saying??

It doesn't contradict what I'm saying. Let's go through the points you think support your argument..

In August 2008, when faced with cost increases and funding shortfalls, the Constellation program responded by reducing program reserves and deferring development effort and test activities. These changes resulted in a minimized flight test program that was so success oriented there was no room for test failures.

Further development and testing was deferred/minimized because of increased cost, and decreased funding.

So basically, NASA had less money to waste on development and testing than they had wasted already. I'm good with that!


NASA recognized that the program faces challenges and in December 2008 reported that the current program was high risk and unachievable within current budget and schedule constraints.

Same as above. NASA had less money to waste than before.
...

Furthermore, as noted above, both the Ares I and Orion projects continue to face technical and design challenges that will require significant time, money, and effort to resolve irrespective of the decision to defer lunar requirements

This shows the fundamental problem is NASA's lack of technology. As I said it was.

...

Efforts to establish a sound business case for Constellation’s Ares I and Orion projects are complicated by (1) an aggressive schedule, (2) significant technical and design challenges, (3) funding issues and cost increases, and (4) an evolving acquisition strategy that continues to change Orion project requirements


Again it shows the problem is a lack of technology. Significant money, time, and effort are required for developing such technology. Because it doesn't exist yet.

I agree on all points.


Thanks.

a reply to: turbonium1

This shows the fundamental problem is NASA's lack of technology.

What, exactly, do you mean by "technology?"

a reply to: turbonium1

From 'About Orion on NASA's Orion page:

www.nasa.gov...

NASA’s Orion spacecraft is built to take humans farther than they’ve ever gone before.

It is not designed to do something they have already done.

Please do inform us why you think it is impossible for a rocket to launch something into space and then place an object on the lunar surface. It does not appear to have been a problem for the pre-Apollo program, or for the Soviets, or for the Chinese.

a reply to: ppk55

Well this much is for sure, it wasn't near time for them to reveal the
hoax, as three years later almost this discussion is still ongoing and
no revelation so far.

Also i disagree that we couldn't "handle" the truth on this one,
aliens i could see as that might cause a panic but this? nah i think
people would be shocked no doubt but then it would be just like
any other time a major revelation about how crooked out government
can be has been just accepted with ire and consternation.

Some folks would probably go to jail or get a slap on the wrist but
the general public wouldn't riot or panic. So i would say that nah
too big of a secret for so many to keep and no real reason to fake
it in the first place, other than crazy theories we cannot prove
such as alien moon bases or such.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Further development and testing was deferred/minimized because of increased cost, and decreased funding.

So basically, NASA had less money to waste on development and testing than they had wasted already. I'm good with that!

so you want NASA's contractors to successfully build the Orion and SLS with no testing?

anyway, development and testing costs money, if you are good with that then you are proving that the article is contradicting you.

Same as above. NASA had less money to waste than before.

ditto to above.. so far not looking good for you..

This shows the fundamental problem is NASA's lack of technology. As I said it was.

that can be solved with money..
i know you are thinking the missing technology is radiation protection but the problem is you have no idea how particle radiation works and what exposure time is..

Again it shows the problem is a lack of technology. Significant money, time, and effort are required for developing such technology. Because it doesn't exist yet.

the technology to get man on the moon and back in a short time period does exist however the hardware doesnt exist at this very moment as we do not have a rocket capable of getting man to the moon..

development of the SLS (brand new rocket) which is capable of getting a human payload to the moon is in development unfortunately it needs financing.. this new hardware is bringing newer technology to the equation which in turn brings its own issues.. homogolation is not an easy nor cheap task..

which again, contradicts what you are saying.. MONEY is an issue..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Show us a picture with the LM and Earth both perfectly in focus....

If the LM was far enough away to be in focus while using the "far" focus setting, then the earth could be in focus, too (i.e., both objects far enough away to be in focus), such as in thus image from orbit:

history.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The point there is 'far enough away', which it evidently is in this case.

Here's the Earth from that view



It's not exactly pin sharp, especially not compared with photographs taken specifically of Earth (which our contributor claims the camera 'wasn't designed for').

We can have lots of fun posting impossible photographs taken of the Moon from Earth where things in the distance have a similar level of focus, like this:

adventureswithandrea.com...

The claim we are dealing with, however, is that there are pictures on the surface of both the LM and Earth showing both to be perfectly in focus. I don't believe such a photograph exists.

originally posted by: choos
the technology to get man on the moon and back in a short time period does exist however the hardware doesnt exist at this very moment as we do not have a rocket capable of getting man to the moon..

development of the SLS (brand new rocket) which is capable of getting a human payload to the moon is in development unfortunately it needs financing..

Whoa there buddy. When you say "we do not have a rocket" you are talking about "we" the Americans. Meanwhile, some guy is still selling seats on a Soyuz for a cis-lunar mission using Russian rockets.
www.spaceadventures.com...

Even Buzz Aldrin agrees that it is possible,
"“THIS MISSION IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO BECOME ONE OF THE GREAT EXPLORERS OF THE 21ST CENTURY.” – BUZZ ALDRIN"

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

thanks for proving that the technology to get man on a free return lunar trajectory exists.

Turbonium1 might argue with you though.. he/she is pretty adamant that it is absolutely impossible because of radiation..

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

OMG - Doesn't he know about the glass ceiling???

The interesting distinction here is that it is a two stage mission - first getting to Earth orbit before heading onwards, which is obviously not the same approach used by the Apollo missions.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: ISawItFirst

regards photography - you clearly dont have a clue what " hyperfocal distance " means

regards the rest - please explain why the appollo program was not possible - hint a prior space program should make apollo easier to execute - not require fakery

My understanding of hyperfocal distance is the focal point that extends the depth of field to infinity. So if they wanted a clear picture of earth, they would use the hyperfocal distance, but the lander would be fuzzy and the immediate for ground fuzzier. Perhaps not terribly so. Which astronaut was a professional photographer? The cameras they had at the time had very limited depth of field. They were not intended for taking pictures of the earth from the moon. Yet they have it perfectly sharp from the immediate foreground to the vast distance of earth.

Hyperfocal distance changes with the focal length the aperture and also the film format size of the camera, as for the cameras they were HASSELBLADS (and adapted for use in space) the most used cameras by professional photographers using medium format cameras.

On the 60mm lens they used set at f11 the hyperfocal distance would be 5.2 mtrs which means everything from just over 2.8 mtrs (just over 8 ft) to infinity is in reasonable focus.

If I used a 35mm camera with a 60mm lens at f11 the hyperfocal distance is now 10.2 mtrs so everything from 5.1 mtrs to infinity is in reasonable focus.

I have been taking pictures using SLR'S for 35 years so I have an idea about the subject!

Many members on here are keen amateurs like myself or even professional photographers we even have a thread on here with the images we take!

Members Astrophotography

originally posted by: choos
that can be solved with money..
i know you are thinking the missing technology is radiation protection but the problem is you have no idea how particle radiation works and what exposure time is..


the technology to get man on the moon and back in a short time period does exist however the hardware doesnt exist at this very moment as we do not have a rocket capable of getting man to the moon..

development of the SLS (brand new rocket) which is capable of getting a human payload to the moon is in development unfortunately it needs financing.. this new hardware is bringing newer technology to the equation which in turn brings its own issues.. homogolation is not an easy nor cheap task..

which again, contradicts what you are saying.. MONEY is an issue..

Same as money is an issue for a manned Mars landing, or for developing the world's first 'time machine', too!

Money can be just a very convenient excuse, in other words.

It doesn't mean anything to say money is an issue for such examples, since that's a given.


Manned moon landings require technology we have not developed yet. And we'll never have a hope of developing the technology without funding, of course.

You claim NASA didn't get "enough money" to develop new technologies required for a manned moon landing, yet even NASA itself has no idea what "enough money" would be'!?!

Who cares about that, you just 'know' that Constellation failed because they didn't get "enough money"!

NASA said they already had such technology. NASA said how much money was required for a 'return' to the moon, assuming they had the technologies at hand. That's why NASA got all the money so easily. And why NASA blamed its contractors, etc. for the failure.

NASA got more money, and once again, wasted it all. NASA had no excuses, this time.


Documents state over and over again that NASA failed because they sorely lack the required technologies

originally posted by: turbonium1

Manned moon landings require technology we have not developed yet.

What technology didn't we have then that was needed?

Documents state over and over again that NASA failed because they sorely lack the required technologies

And what sort of mission profiles might we be discussing?

Documents from the Apollo era state over and over again that we went to the moon with the technology they had at the time and all the evidence supports that. What documents do you have that say they can't get to the moon?

NASA can't go anywhere without the budget to do so. You say so yourself. They had the budget then, they don't now.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Same as money is an issue for a manned Mars landing,

can be done, with enough money.

or for developing the world's first 'time machine', too!

the theory of how this would work doesnt even exist or cannot be proven, so no money cannot solve it.

Money can be just a very convenient excuse, in other words.

It doesn't mean anything to say money is an issue for such examples, since that's a given.

because you dont understand how the world works.. you have a limited view and if something doesnt follow the way you expect it to follow it is automatically called a hoax..

Manned moon landings require technology we have not developed yet. And we'll never have a hope of developing the technology without funding, of course.

and what technology is it that you speak of?? if its radiation protection then do you know what exposure time in relation to radiation means?? if you cant grasp the concept then how can you possibly call the moon landing a hoax??

You claim NASA didn't get "enough money" to develop new technologies required for a manned moon landing, yet even NASA itself has no idea what "enough money" would be'!?!

and??

Who cares about that, you just 'know' that Constellation failed because they didn't get "enough money"!

NASA said they already had such technology. NASA said how much money was required for a 'return' to the moon, assuming they had the technologies at hand. That's why NASA got all the money so easily. And why NASA blamed its contractors, etc. for the failure.

and they do have the technology to get man to the moon, they dont have the hardware..

NASA got more money, and once again, wasted it all. NASA had no excuses, this time.

they didnt waste it all.. Orion has already completed its first test flight, the SLS engines have already had its first test.. but it costs money, if the government wants to cut NASA's budget then this development will be delayed if it is delayed it will cost more in the long run..

you have no knowledge at all not even a basic grasp of design/development/engineering..

Documents state over and over again that NASA failed because they sorely lack the required technologies

technology for what?? Orion had its first test flight last year no missing technologies there..

if you are again trying to say that the missing technology is protecting against radiation.. then explain what exposure time is in regards to radiation..

Let's be more specific to help Turbonium out.

- Did the technology to launch a rocket exist?

- Did the technology to launch something to the moon from orbit exist?

- Did the technology to orbit the moon exist?

- Did the technology to land something on the moon exist?

- Did the technology to return back to Earth exist?

- Did the technology to keep someone alive in space exist?

Which answer is no?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

Manned moon landings require technology we have not developed yet.

What technology didn't we have then that was needed?

Documents state over and over again that NASA failed because they sorely lack the required technologies

And what sort of mission profiles might we be discussing?

Documents from the Apollo era state over and over again that we went to the moon with the technology they had at the time and all the evidence supports that. What documents do you have that say they can't get to the moon?

NASA can't go anywhere without the budget to do so. You say so yourself. They had the budget then, they don't now.

They cannot do any manned missions beyond LEO, even with an unlimited[/bb] budget.

I'm aware of the Apollo-era documents, which state how Apollo technology is 100% genuine.

That's why they can't understand Constellation was mangled, after the Apollo moon landings!


When Constellation started, the US government assumed NASA had already landed men on the moon, during the Apollo missions.

NASA hadn't done any manned moon landings since Apollo. So NASA will 'emphasize' their "heritage technology" in their 'return' to the moon, then!

Apollo-ites claim NASA had much better technologies for a 'return' to the moon, except for the specific technologies required in a manned moon landing! We haven't improved those, since we didn't need to. No moon landings were considered after Apollo!

Apollo-ites say NASA was trying to develop new technology for a 'return' to the moon, but didn't get "enough money" from the government to do it.

But we know that NASA was supposed to be 'emphasizing' the Apollo "heritage technology", to avoid those problems!


The government and/or NASA chose to emphasize "heritage technology" because they assumed it was genuine, and it worked, and we had nothing better, that proved to work, which had replaced it.

NASA already has the required technology, and NASA specifically set out to emphasize this technology in their plan to 'return' to the moon.

NASA had no reason to search for 'different' technologies, which are yet to even exist, just theoretical, or experimental. Some might be in testing stage, or perhaps beyond that.

NASA claims they don't need any more technology, since they already have it. They will replace computers, obviously, among other things. Anything else they can't replace would suffice as is, likewise.

However, technology became NASA's excuse for the whole thing, which is quite ironic.

a reply to: turbonium1

Once again, you seem to be a bit vague about the word "technology."

originally posted by: turbonium1

They cannot do any manned missions beyond LEO, even with an unlimited budget.

Says who? You? You're wrong. "Can not" and "Have not since Apollo" are not the same thing.

I'm aware of the Apollo-era documents, which state how Apollo technology is 100% genuine.

Such a pity you haven't bothered to read and understand them.

That's why they can't understand Constellation was mangled, after the Apollo moon landings!


When Constellation started, the US government assumed NASA had already landed men on the moon, during the Apollo missions.

Because it has been to the moon, you have never proved otherwise.

NASA hadn't done any manned moon landings since Apollo. So NASA will 'emphasize' their "heritage technology" in their 'return' to the moon, then!

Apollo-ites claim NASA had much better technologies for a 'return' to the moon, except for the specific technologies required in a manned moon landing! We haven't improved those, since we didn't need to. No moon landings were considered after Apollo!

Apollo-ites say NASA was trying to develop new technology for a 'return' to the moon, but didn't get "enough money" from the government to do it.

But we know that NASA was supposed to be 'emphasizing' the Apollo "heritage technology", to avoid those problems!

Talking loud, saying nothing. What's your point? The new technology is for a different type of mission as you well know.

The government and/or NASA chose to emphasize "heritage technology" because they assumed it was genuine, and it worked, and we had nothing better, that proved to work, which had replaced it.

Yes, it worked and was proven to work. You've never proved it didn't work.

NASA already has the required technology, and NASA specifically set out to emphasize this technology in their plan to 'return' to the moon.

Erm..hang on, I thought we didn't have the technology?

NASA had no reason to search for 'different' technologies, which are yet to even exist, just theoretical, or experimental. Some might be in testing stage, or perhaps beyond that.

NASA claims they don't need any more technology, since they already have it. They will replace computers, obviously, among other things. Anything else they can't replace would suffice as is, likewise.

However, technology became NASA's excuse for the whole thing, which is quite ironic.

Again, different mission profiles needs new equipment, which means money.

Now, did NASA have the technology to land there or not? Specifically which technology wasn't available?

Why have you avoided the questions I asked earlier?