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

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I have to saturate the image a hell of a lot to make it appear to have any colour. And then I'm sure what colour I'm looking at. It could be soil from my garden bed. A monochromatic jpeg image can't be resurrected.

Why do you do this Mort? You can't both admit to being wrong and insist you are still right in the same sentence. Its obvious that in fact the real Apollo image does have soil colour and it's not just brutally grey. You were foolish enough to believe a photo without doing any research and now you complain when people do the research for you.

The JPEG is not monochromatic. Do the analysis, you obviously haven't done a single check whatsoever.

I've heard multiple theories on many issues. For example why there is no blast crater. I read how the engines were switched off just before landing. From the video you can see that's not true.

Except from the video you can easily tell it is true: "Contact light, engine off". The contact light were the probes, several feet below the pads and further below the engine which was already at minimum thrust.

I read a long theory on how in a vacuum the pressure from the nozzle disappates so quickly. This is not true because we can see the dust moving when the LM is the equivalent of 4-5 stories in the air.

Except it is true, nobody is suggesting that the descent engine produced no thrust or turbulence. People are explaining why it didn't dig a crater. Because its exhaust spreads out over a wide area and it was throttled back to nothing by the time it got within feet of the surface.

So debunkers do not seem like credible sources of information either and are the opposite side of the same coin.

Why are you relying on what people say? Surely you should be doing the research yourself. It seems that's a common feature in these posts, you are happy to make claims and dictate what is true or not, but actually researching and investigating seems to be far too much work.

Do you think if the debunkers didn't act like dicks all the time you'd have a better chance of getting your point across?

Only one person has had a formal warning and their post removed in the last 5 or so pages. It was you. You're the one acting badly enough to need mod intervention, not us.

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by exponent
Explain how this picture is possible:

I don't see the resemblance ? the Apollo shadows are converging and diverging up to 180 degrees

And in this picture the trees shadows diverge at an angle approaching 180 degrees. The same as the second picture you posted.

It's called perspective, you really should look this up before you make a larger fool out of yourself.

reply to post by exponent


Why are you telling me that an obviously greyscale image has colour?

Perhaps blast crater was the wrong term. The question was why is there no obvious depression under the exhaust. We were told a theory that the exhaust wouldn't move the dust. And that it would settle just feet away. That was total crap. So it makes it difficult for me to accept what debunkers say when it often turns out false.

My particular interest is in art and am interested in these photos. Here you are telling me this photo has colour when I know it doesn't along with a multitude of others. What do you expect me to do with this?

Originally posted by mrkeen
Thanks for the clues. You suggest early dismissal of hypotheses, but I prefer to carefully study each one. This certainly deserves further research.

That is your prerogative certainly. I am just trying to make clear why it is not hugely convincing to someone who has a rough understanding of atmospheric physics. I thank you again for being civil.

I can see the blue atmosphere very clearly here. And the moon has a purplish tint in this photo, this may result from the superimposition of thin blue air over it's natural color.

Indeed, but a blue tint does not remove a brown colouration. The moon from the ISS appears much the same as it does from the ground. This would be strictly impossible if your theory was correct. Not to mention that at night there's very little rayleigh scattering but the moon does not significantly change colour.

Let's leave these b/w photos to mineralogists then. If you have a link that proves that the moon is grey from its mineralogical composition, please share it.

I provided a link that showed the iron oxide concentration in lunar soil. Perhaps you missed it? The same link that had first hand accounts of it being grey/white.

That's the core problem with all those moon photos. Your linked image is grey, but the similar image in my above post is brown. How can that be? Somebody had to alter the color in one of these images. Since you believe that the grey one is the original, you suggest that it was the blogger who painted the moon brown for some reason.

Not at all. This is a rare argument and so implying that someone intentionally corrupted an image is fairly tenuous. My impression is that a lot of these images are processed by eye or by 'auto white balance'. Both things that do not work effectively on photographs outside of the 'comfort range'.

But the problem is NASA itself has photos, in some of which the moon surface is brown, while in the others it is grey. Hence, NASA had to alter some of the photos, too. Why? The Apollo-8 pictures in which the moon is brown were made earlier than Apollo-11 images. By your logic, somebody had to open the archive, paint the moon brown and post it on the NASA site.

Not at all! See the gif I just posted. Two images on identical film taken within seconds of each other both show significantly different saturation. I think it's most likely the scanner but there are many explanations for this. Did Apollo 8 even use the 6x6 cameras or were they using the DAC or similar? Lots of factors will affect the colour of photographs, not least the film.

Also what happened to the Galileo photos, which show the Moon as tan-colored? And what happened to countless asteroid debris on the Moon's surface, did they all also turn grey?

edit on 6-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit

I'm not sure which Galileo you're talking about here. There are many photos showing significant colour variation yes. I don't understand why this is so surprising though. If you've ever played with cameras for a significant amount of time, especially pre-digital cameras you know that colours are a very flexible thing. Hell digital sensor colour reproduction is a hugely hot topic of debate and I assume you understand what 'white balancing' can do.

You seem to be acting as if it's a surprise that there are significant colour variations in photographs, but surely we've come to expect this? Surely it's intuitive to a photographer?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Why are you telling me that an obviously greyscale image has colour?

Because it has colour.

Perhaps blast crater was the wrong term. The question was why is there no obvious depression under the exhaust. We were told a theory that the exhaust wouldn't move the dust. And that it would settle just feet away. That was total crap.

How could a theory say that the exhaust wouldn't move dust that it is moving? You're not even making sense here. Yes, the exhaust definitely moved quite a bit of material. Yes it settled some distance away. No it did not dig a crater with a tip of flame or anything so hollywood. What is so confusing to you?

So it makes it difficult for me to accept what debunkers say when it often turns out false.

You don't seem to be able to accept anything that disagrees with you, so I can tell you I am not really shocked by this statement.

My particular interest is in art and am interested in these photos. Here you are telling me this photo has colour when I know it doesn't along with a multitude of others. What do you expect me to do with this?

I don't know, maybe open it in an image editor and notice that it has colour? Maybe you can do some actual work instead of just posting expecting others to research for you?

My point is when there is so much conflicting information it not at all hard to see why people still have questions or don't believe.

You posted an image and I resaturated it. But it is of no value as the colour is practically non-existent. Is it really accurate to say this image is in colour? Could you show me one Apollo photo that accurately depicts the colour of the area the photo was taken?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
My point is when there is so much conflicting information it not at all hard to see why people still have questions or don't believe.

You posted an image and I resaturated it. But it is of no value as the colour is practically non-existent. Is it really accurate to say this image is in colour?

Yes, 'practically non-existent' is not 'non existent'. The moon is grey, just exactly how much colour do you expect in a photograph of grey dirt?

Could you show me one Apollo photo that accurately depicts the colour of the area the photo was taken?

No, there were no grey card white balance shots taken that I know of. Therefore an accurate colour reproduction is pretty much impossible. Without a fixed reference point (see the various calibration targets on all modern rovers etc) then there's no way to know exactly what the balance should be.

Luckily we have an easier method. It's called look at the moon.

I literally don't know what to say if you don't consider those desaturated photos. If you can't recognise a monochromatic greyscale image from a vibrant full colour image full of various hues (which there are apollo photographs like this) I feel sad for you.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I literally don't know what to say if you don't consider those desaturated photos. If you can't recognise a monochromatic greyscale image from a vibrant full colour image full of various hues (which there are apollo photographs like this) I feel sad for you.

I can recognise a monochromatic, greyscale image. The image you presented was not monochromatic. I've proven you wrong on at least three occasions in the last few pages and not once have you had the good grace to apologise or to concede the argument.

You seem to think that sticking to your position despite all the evidence you've used being shown to be misleading or false is some sort of thing to be proud of. It's not, you're just being dogmatic.

Grow the hell up.

You've proven to me that a black and white image is in colour? I'm lost for words.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by exponent
Explain how this picture is possible:

I don't see the resemblance ? the Apollo shadows are converging and diverging up to 180 degrees

And in this picture the trees shadows diverge at an angle approaching 180 degrees. The same as the second picture you posted.

No, your shadows diverge less than 90 degrees maybe 60 degrees ? it's good whoever, that you now understand what's wrong with the apollo images.

Originally posted by I1Am1Ready1Are1You
Myth busters already proved that we went to the moon..... chalk one up for the skeptics, case laid to rest.

They did ?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
You've proven to me that a black and white image is in colour? I'm lost for words.

It's not black and white. How many times must I explain this to you.

Here is the histogram:

I assume you know how to read one.

Here is a monochrome histogram:


Image not monochrome. QED.

Originally posted by Ove38
No, your shadows diverge less than 90 degrees maybe 60 degrees ? it's good whoever, that you now understand what's wrong with the apollo images.

You must be really bad at drawing lines. They meet at over 150 degrees at the edges. As in the previous image I showed you:





Shadows on a flat plane with parallel rays do not meet at 90 degrees. They tend towards 180 degrees as the relative distance tends towards infinity.

The image is in RGB. I desaturated 40% of the image to greyscale. By eyesight alone tell me which part it is.

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by I1Am1Ready1Are1You
Myth busters already proved that we went to the moon..... chalk one up for the skeptics, case laid to rest.

They did ?

I'm referring to the main proving factor of the video that you left out for whatever reason, with 'mirrors' on the moon that reflected the beam back to Earth.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
The image is in RGB. I desaturated 40% of the image to greyscale. By eyesight alone tell me which part it is.

You picked the wrong image. Even if it were not the wrong image, is this test supposed to prove something? Yes the soil is very grey, exactly as the astronauts said. No, it is not completely monochrome.

So we weren't talking about the same image? Oh lol I got the cleaned version. Just tried it with the other version and it's impossible to see the difference there either.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
So we weren't talking about the same image? Oh lol I got the cleaned version. Just tried it with the other version and it's impossible to see the difference there either.

edit on 6-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

Like I said, it proves nothing. There clearly is colour and I can show you the map of it if you really want me to. The fact is that these images have not been manually desaturated, they just contain varying colours due to normal film processing.

The moon is not purely grey as I have said repeatedly, but unless there's some better evidence than a few old photos with very little info, it sure as heck isn't brown!

Some astronots reported the fake moon set as tan. Which is light brown. The photographs from the camera on the lunar module from apollo 11 and another mission showed the set to be tan. So according to you saying the moon is brown shouldn't be a problem. Should it? It really doesn't look greyscale to me when I look up in the sky.