New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 28
73
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Well a smal shallow crater for example. Those are quite common on moon. That would demonstrate nicely how the shadows follow the ground and how perspective plays into things.




posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yes, I'm am well aware of principals in photography. My father was a photographer in the 60's-70's. Local guy, nothing big. But he did teach me photography.

The point that I think you are missing.

This does take time, more than a couple of seconds.

I could argue and discuss anomalies in individual photo's. There are a great deal of them.

I could discuss that the astronauts were to have explored a great areas of the moon, yet the mountains and the ground seem to appear the same in many different pictures from different explorations. So similar and taken from different flight that they can be superimposed. Not just because they are from similar geographic areas, but the same areas.

They could all have some semblance of plausability either way.

I removed the little arguments in this post. There really is no way to take that many pictures.

No, you don't have to adjust the apature with every single picture, if you stay stationary. You move, your lighting changes that requires and an adjustment in the amount of light that the film gets exposed to keep the clarity of the images on each exposure. The pics look great.

BTW, same camera in both pics, just different lenses. Lenses can be exchanged on cameras. That way you can have different types of photos on the same roll of film.

In a lot of different, conspiracy theories (if you will allow me to use that term) tend to fall in place if you follow the money. Try following the time. It doesn't seem to add up.
edit on 30-11-2012 by froglette because: I removed a sentence that I had moved but forgot to orig. location.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by froglette
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

Yes, I'm am well aware of principals in photography. My father was a photographer in the 60's-70's. Local guy, nothing big. But he did teach me photography.

I am a photographer now. You won't believe me though will you?



I could discuss that the astronauts were to have explored a great areas of the moon, yet the mountains and the ground seem to appear the same in many different pictures from different explorations. So similar and taken from different flight that they can be superimposed. Not just because they are from similar geographic areas, but the same areas.

(Emphasis mine)

This is not correct. When you overlay the far mountains from many pictures what you see is slight perspective differences. The points at which lines cross change very slightly. This is exactly what you'd expect to see with distant mountains, and would be utterly impossible to fake with a projected backdrop.


I removed the little arguments in this post. There really is no way to take that many pictures.

How do you know? Do you trust the site you got the information from? Have you checked the numbers of photos and when they were taken yourself?

This is a common bias so don't feel that I'm attacking you, but you should verify the information you're using before you use it.
edit on 30/11/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


No, I don't feel that you are attacking me.

I wish you the best of luck in the field of photography. It is a hard industry. That's why I didn't go into it professionally.

I didn't count each pic as the author did, but if you give it the once over his figures appear accurate. Here is a link to the Apollo Lunar Journal site listing Apollo 11 pics.

Nasa Apollo 11 image library.

edit on 30-11-2012 by froglette because: I changed NASA to Apollo Lunar Journal.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well a smal shallow crater for example. Those are quite common on moon. That would demonstrate nicely how the shadows follow the ground and how perspective plays into things.


Gonna see if I can find my DEM to put forward some example shots, but I think we should try and construct a scene that explains the shadow distortion really clearly. Perhaps by altering only one dimension of the ground so we can show undeformed and deformed in the same smooth animation.

I'll have a look at it, it's easier to model a flat plane of course :p



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Exponent

Firstly this is a real world image. As such the sun is the single source of light. The shadows while being "roughly parallel" are not. You need a single source of light from a long distance. You need to find the horizon line as with the photo we are analysing.

I found the horizon line by tracing the poles back to the horizon. It was out of frame. Your shadows feel well below the horizon line.

img.abovetopsecret.com...

I've corrected your image here.

img.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by froglette
reply to post by exponent
 

No, I don't feel that you are attacking me.

I wish you the best of luck in the field of photography. It is a hard industry. That's why I didn't go into it professionally.

It's just my side business, I don't really make any money off it but it's such a fun hobby.


I didn't count each pic as the author did, but if you give it the once over his figures appear accurate. Here is a link to the NASA site listing Apollo 11 pics.

Nasa Apollo 11 image library.

I'm not so much saying that the figures are inaccurate. I haven't bothered to check the actual sums because I looked into the rate of actual picture taking. That's my point, that you shouldn't just trust your source when it takes an average over a long time and ignores any 'bursts'. There were many periods in Apollo flights where they were taking photos only a few times a minute. There were also many periods where they took photos almost as fast as they could for extended periods.

It's easy to obfuscate this by just giving two numbers and saying it averages out too high, but that's deceptive. Have a look at the actual mission logs and photo lists and you'll soon realise it makes sense. Not to mention there are videos of basically all of this so you can watch them taking photos



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Exponent

Firstly this is a real world image. As such the sun is the single source of light. The shadows while being "roughly parallel" are not. You need a single source of light from a long distance.

No, that is incorrect. The sun's rays are so close to parallel by the time they hit the earth there is no appreciable difference.


You need to find the horizon line as with the photo we are analysing.

No I do not, it has no effect on the image.


I found the horizon line by tracing the poles back to the horizon. It was out of frame. Your shadows feel well below the horizon line.

You found the vanishing point. See my latter picture, the shadows are practically identical in all respects.


I've corrected your image here.

I don't think you quite understand what you are doing while measuring vanishing points. Please see the later image I posted.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
WMD, Your image looks perfectly fine to me. It's a nice photo of the bridge near sunset and the shadows lead to a point just above the horizon. As is to be expected.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Nice work exponent.
I appreciate you taking the time to render those images.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I can appriciate your point.

You are correct that there is footage of men taking pictures.

I am looking at this a whole so averages help me stay focused and not get sidetracked.

2 men on Apollo 11 moon landing.

151 minutes on the moon.

121 pictures released taken by 2 men.
About 60 pictures a man.
About 2.5 seconds for each picture.

Is that possible?
Yes.

Is it possible when they are doing other things that eat away at that time?
I don't know let me see.

Even in photo blast sessions, there would require time to move from one location to another. That eats away at that average bringing it to less time per pic.

Even though it was a camera that could take rapid blasts it did require time to advance. 60 fractional seconds do add up and bring it to less time per pic.

It doesn't seem that this could be done.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by froglette
151 minutes on the moon.

121 pictures released taken by 2 men.
...
Is that possible?
Yes.



Even though it was a camera that could take rapid blasts it did require time to advance. 60 fractional seconds do add up and bring it to less time per pic.

It doesn't seem that this could be done.

You don't seem to be using any logic to dismiss this, just changing opinions with no facts to base it on. Perhaps you should factor in that a good 40-50 of these photos are panoramas, taken very quickly and at one location: www.hq.nasa.gov...

The complete timeline and each photo is also available on this site. If you really doubt it, follow the timeline and show us when they were superhumanly quick.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thank you, that helps me.

There were actually 123 pics taken.

I couldn't find a complete timeline on that page (If you could point it out to me I would appriciate it). This page goes into great detail regarding photogrammetrical location and not time.

The only thing revelant would be this picture. I am assuming that it is measuring time between each picture. The least amount of time I could find was 4 seconds. That would be 4 secound to step and turn a slight degree and shoot.






The complete timeline and each photo is also available on this site. If you really doubt it, follow the timeline and show us when they were superhumanly quick.


This is my point exactly! I never said they were superhuman.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Here are some smoking gun photos I found that will make you slap your forehead in embarrassment. You will probably be too embarrassed to speak after this. Take a good hard look at these photos. This will be the clincher that will change your mind if you are on the fence or an Apollo believer.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

5. Distinct line separating foreground from artificial backdrop

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures, and indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example:

www.spacewallpapers.net...

IMPORTANT! Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH SHEET can be seen placed over the dirt! This is a MUST SEE smoking gun that I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

upload.wikimedia.org...

4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

grin.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

history.nasa.gov...

Apollo defenders can’t explain this at all, so they’ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video “Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait”.

www.youtube.com...

8. Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon’s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:

www.aulis.com...

www.aulis.com...

9. Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

Examples:
www.aulis.com...
www.buckledcranium.com...
davesweb.cnchost.com...
davesweb.cnchost.com...

Are you Apollo believers slapping your heads in embarrassment now? lol



I think this is all evidence of the use of LOLA, artificial simulator --> www.abovetopsecret.com...

All the pieces are fitting together now!
edit on 30-11-2012 by Loopdaloop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by froglette
Thank you, that helps me.

There were actually 123 pics taken.

I'm sorry I have taken so long to reply, I was busy with work while making my last posts and had to complete it first. I agree that the number of EVA pictures I can find is 123.


I couldn't find a complete timeline on that page (If you could point it out to me I would appriciate it). This page goes into great detail regarding photogrammetrical location and not time.

I apologise, I meant that the Lunar Surface Journal contains an incredible timeline. There are a number of relevant pages, for the initial landing and pictures:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

For information on all the photos and their approximate times:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


This is my point exactly! I never said they were superhuman.

What I was saying is that if you found times that they took more photos than was possible by a human then that would prove there was something dodgy going on.

Because I took so long to reply, I thought I should do a 'proper' job of checking your claim out and I found quite a few mistakes. The first is that if we're talking about Apollo 11 we only have a single EVA camera and you calculate this:

121 pictures released taken by 2 men.
About 60 pictures a man.
About 2.5 seconds for each picture.

Based on 151 minutes available. That would of course then be 2.5 minutes per photo.

Still, I am a big fan of not criticising unless you can do better, so I did better. I wrote a program to scrape the second link I gave you and to parse out when photos were taken and the required rate of photo taking needed to meet these times. This gives us a much better overview of when pictures were taken. Here is the resulting data:

At time 109:30:53: 5850
+544 seconds: 5851, 5852, 5853, 5854, 5855, 5856, 5857, 5858, 5859, 5860, 5861, 5862
+30 seconds: 5863, 5864, 5865
+89 seconds: 5866
+32 seconds: 5867
+14 seconds: 5868
+11 seconds: 5869
+212 seconds: 5870
+87 seconds: 5871
+932 seconds: 5872, 5873
+429 seconds: 5874, 5875
+876 seconds: 5876, 5877, 5878
+111 seconds: 5879
+287 seconds: 5880, 5881, 5882, 5882a, 5883, 5884, 5885, 5886, 5887, 5888, 5889, 5890, 5891
+146 seconds: 5892, 5893, 5894, 5895, 5896
+414 seconds: 5897, 5898, 5899, 5900
+67 seconds: 5901, 5902, 5903
+79 seconds: 5904, 5905, 5906, 5907, 5908, 5909, 5910, 5911, 5912, 5913, 5914, 5915, 5916
+225 seconds: 5917, 5918
+47 seconds: 5919, 5920, 5921, 5922
+141 seconds: 5923, 5924
+63 seconds: 5925, 5926
+129 seconds: 5927, 5928, 5929
+131 seconds: 5930, 5931, 5932, 5933, 5934, 5935, 5936, 5937, 5938, 5939, 5940, 5941
+147 seconds: 5942
+8 seconds: 5943, 5944
+64 seconds: 5945
+328 seconds: 5946
+84 seconds: 5947
+14 seconds: 5948, 5949, 5950, 5951
+66 seconds: 5952
+123 seconds: 5953
+108 seconds: 5954, 5955, 5956, 5957, 5958, 5959, 5960, 5961
+222 seconds: 5962, 5963, 5964
+712 seconds: 5965, 5966, 5966A, 5967, 5968, 5969, 5970
There were 123 pictures in a total time of 1 hours, 56 minutes, 12 seconds
The average rate was one picture every 56.6829268292683 seconds
The minimum required rate was 3.5 seconds per shot for frames 5948, 5949, 5950, 5951


The source is still a bit of a mess with a lot of manual checking, but I believe the results are accurate. I can now modify this code to match any similarly formatted page with a list of photos and times, so if you'd like to nominate any other mission or magazine or similar I can produce the results for that too.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
...
Still, I am a big fan of not criticising unless you can do better, so I did better. I wrote a program to scrape the second link I gave you and to parse out when photos were taken and the required rate of photo taking needed to meet these times. This gives us a much better overview of when pictures were taken. Here is the resulting data:
...


Beautiful.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH SHEET can be seen placed over the dirt!


It's an interesting point you make.

However could it not be possible that there is actually some difference in the terrain that is creating that border? Maybe due to geological history?

However I am leaning toward your claim that it may be a backdrop.

One thing you cannot hoax however is a rocket launch. Did not everyone watch the rocket go up and the astronauts get into the rocket?

Did you see the documentary on the entire operation? You cannot hoax that entire thing.. at least I imagine.

Maybe it is the case that they did go into space, and even make it to the moon, or land, however parts of the operation went bad, and then they had to hoax some pictures to cover their asses.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by froglette
 


Well the picture you showed WASN'T with the lens the Astronauts used most often, I am well aware you can change the lens on a Hasselblad , I have being using SLR's since the late 70's


The exposures of the pictures taken by the Astronauts were not all perfect and not all in focus that was to be expected some pictures were dark by better being slightly dark than overexposed.

The camera was motorised which would help and as we have seen your maths was wrong with the time for each picture big BIG difference between 2.5 secs and 2.5 minutes and as exponent showed it works out around 56 secs avg.



posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well a smal shallow crater for example. Those are quite common on moon. That would demonstrate nicely how the shadows follow the ground and how perspective plays into things.


Certainly. Here's two views of the same scene. The first is from directly above with an orthographic camera. This shows that the shadows are completely parallel. The second is precisely the same scene but viewed with a normal lens from the side. The land gradually slopes upwards and curves around as you can see in the third image.

I've added some ambient lighting to distinguish the columns but you can clearly see how the shadows appear to curve and look to be converging.






posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I hate to do this to you, but I have to go to work.

It looks awesome and I didn't do my math well enough. Thank you for taking the time to not dismiss me and explain it to me.

When I get home, I will have the time to really look at this and get a better understanding. The kids will be in bed and the house will be calm.

Thank you again.





top topics
 
73
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join