Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 15
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well lets see I was a young boy when I watched Apollo 11 -17 but I have no emotional attachment as you put it


Hm. You acknowledge that you were in fact a little boy when you watched the Apollo program, and in addition to this you are here defending the official Nasa story, a story which has absolutely nothing to do with you personally.

I think you need to reassess your definition of emotional attachment.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


Fair enough.

It is a fairly well accepted notion that a lie of omission is still a lie... right?

So if you intentionally don't disclose something or worse cover it up...

It kind of snowballs.

The bottom line is NASA lies.

When enough people with specialized knowledge can show that there is a huge amount of cumulative deception..

It's a foregone conclusion that it is a hoax.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by BrandonD
 


Fair enough.

It is a fairly well accepted notion that a lie of omission is still a lie... right?

So if you intentionally don't disclose something or worse cover it up...

It kind of snowballs.

The bottom line is NASA lies.

When enough people with specialized knowledge can show that there is a huge amount of cumulative deception..

It's a foregone conclusion that it is a hoax.



Well if you were ask me what my GUESS is, I would say that out of all the possibilities my guess is that the mission was staged.

When a detective tries to solve a crime he asks, "Was there a motive?" and in this case I would say most emphatically YES.

But like I said this is definitely a guess, and if it turned out to be wrong then I wouldn't be upset.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


Instead of discussing people's emotional attachment to things and events, why don't you bring something else to the table then? Something that you claim to be very knowledgeable in, which is photographs and photo manipulation.

That's actual physical evidence that all can take a look at (provided that the subject you are bringing does not get derailed by others on here).
It's also very on topic since part of the OP's video discusses this area (care to make any comments from the OP's video, that is about pictures, film and video, instead of the video makers emotional attachments to things?).

You will find that there are a multitude of people on here that have photography as a hobby and those that to it professionally on here. Also there are many of us that do image manipulations quite seriously and even make whole virtual worlds using computer generated lighting systems (like me, with Blender, 3ds Max, UDK, Unity and Cryengine).



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You will find that there are a multitude of people on here that have photography as a hobby and those that to it professionally on here. Also there are many of us that do image manipulations quite seriously and even make whole virtual worlds using computer generated lighting systems (like me, with Blender, 3ds Max, UDK, Unity and Cryengine).


That is awesome and good to know. I also have a background in 3D manipulation software, my gateway program was Bryce and then I went on to learn Blender.

I'll just put up some photos and ask people to look at them without any pre-formulated conclusion:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

In the above photos Buzz Aldrin is climbing down from the Lem, he is on the side of the Lem that is in total shadow from the what is said to be the only light source at that time, the sun.

The photo that the video guy references is a different photo from these, by the way. These photos are much stronger pieces of evidence IMO. The use of multiple light sources is clearly apparent.

You will recall video guy made the claim that if there were multiple light sources, then there would be shadows in different directions. In these photos there ARE in fact shadows in different directions.

Apart from the main light source behind the Lem, there is also a localized light source far to the left of and above the camera, which casts a shadow in the Lem doorway.

There is also a localized light source immediately to the right of and below the camera which creates the shadow on the top of the astronaut's backpack, as well as the "hot spot" on the astronaut's boot.

In addition to these 2 localized lights (neither of which were supposed to be on the moon), there is almost an ABSURD amount of ambient light illuminating everything in the photograph, in an area that was presumably completely in shadow.

Keep in mind that I'm totally fine with you thinking how you like, I'm not a crusader trying to pressure people into thinking my way. It's just that unfortunately I won't allow technical jargon to over-ride empirical evidence that is sitting right in front of me.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


As one Blender user to another, maybe if you did some rendering with Global Illumination settings, maybe you'd understand exactly WHY the lighting in the photos appears the way it does.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


At a glance, I'm not sure what you are defining as a shadow and light sources.

Here is what I'm seeing (in my humble opinion, and from my experience in creating virtual, realistic looking worlds):

The back of the LEM structure and the astronaut is being lit up by the bounce and scatter of the sun reflecting off the moon's surface.

I'm seeing a darkening of the back pack, and the interior of the LEM hatch as they are angled away from the reflective surface of the moon.

In the 2nd picture, with the astronaut at the top of the ladder, had their been a 2nd light source off to the left of the picture, the body of the astronaut would have made a much more defined shadow outline cast onto the LEM's hatchway.

Worse: the metal of the LEM on that side is highly reflective. Any light source located to the left would have created specularity spots on the metal from the light source.
Instead, what we have is a very reduced and diffused specularity, who's angle of brightness tracks with where it's coming from: the ground.

That's just my opinion on that and how it looks to me.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by BrandonD
 


At a glance, I'm not sure what you are defining as a shadow and light sources.

Here is what I'm seeing (in my humble opinion, and from my experience in creating virtual, realistic looking worlds):

The back of the LEM structure and the astronaut is being lit up by the bounce and scatter of the sun reflecting off the moon's surface.

I'm seeing a darkening of the back pack, and the interior of the LEM hatch as they are angled away from the reflective surface of the moon.

In the 2nd picture, with the astronaut at the top of the ladder, had their been a 2nd light source off to the left of the picture, the body of the astronaut would have made a much more defined shadow outline cast onto the LEM's hatchway.

Worse: the metal of the LEM on that side is highly reflective. Any light source located to the left would have created specularity spots on the metal from the light source.
Instead, what we have is a very reduced and diffused specularity, who's angle of brightness tracks with where it's coming from: the ground.

That's just my opinion on that and how it looks to me.


Yea I have heard those explanations. Maybe you are right, but it doesn't appear that way to me. Localized light sources can be as focused or diffuse as one would like in order to address shadows and specular highlights, and light sources from multiple sides often cancel out multiple shadows in most areas.

BTW, I'm fairly new to ATS and the discussions on this subject here may get heated, but the discourse here is WAY more civilized than the website that I came from (GLP). I definitely appreciate that, it makes the whole discussion a lot more enjoyable.

(edit: one last point, light reflecting off the moon's surface would under no conditions create a directional shadow on the Lem's hatch, since 1) light reflected off the moon's surface would be ambient and not localized and 2) the moon is clearly on all sides of the Lem and not just to its left.)
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
In the 2nd picture, with the astronaut at the top of the ladder, had their been a 2nd light source off to the left of the picture, the body of the astronaut would have made a much more defined shadow outline cast onto the LEM's hatchway.


And yet there is still a shadow on the Lem's hatch. A light source creates a shadow. That shadow is quite defined, meaning a localized light source and not an ambient light source.

The reason I included both photos is because many people have argued that the shadow is being created by the astronaut, from ambient light cast up from the ground. The second photo clearly shows that the astronaut is not creating the shadow.

Now looking at the photo, does that shadow look like it is being cast by light coming up from the ground, or a light source above and to the left of the camera?

edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: misspelling



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


That's because GLP is not a friendly place to anyone that is a skeptic......of anything. Question anything, especially the outlandish, and you can find yourself banned from there.

ATS is about denying ignorance.

You can talk about just about anything you want here. Be prepared to be bombarded with questions or opinions however, and yes, things can get heated here (that's what the Alert button is for).

However, no one here get's banned because they dared question the subject. Look at you and others that are questioning whether the moon landings happened or not. While it's actually a tired subject on here (trust me, it's been beat to death so much that the dead horse that is being beaten does not even resemble a horse anymore), it's one that you can discuss all you like.

On the other hand however, just make sure you stick to the TCs (Terms and Conditions). Violating those can get you banned (some infringments will get you just a slap on the wrist, some will get you banned right away, like lying about who you are. That got one moon hoaxer on here banned....then repeatedly as they kept trying to make new accounts to get back on here).

Back to the pictures:

Lack of Specularity spot: yes, if the light source is very wide and close, and subdued, it would not make our nice bright spots.....but then, it would have to be very wide and very close.

Ask yourself this: why would they need to do that? Put a large enough, bright enough single light source, and you'll still get the same results:

shadowed areas lit by bounce and scatter, subdued specularity on the metal parts, very slight darkening with no real defined shadows by the things that are being lit up by bounce and scatter, from a very light reflecting surface of the ground, and yet, still have very sharply defined shadows from those objects that are being hit by that one light source.

Of course it would have to be a doosey of a light source to do all this.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD


Yea I have heard those explanations. Maybe you are right, but it doesn't appear that way to me. Localized light sources can be as focused or diffuse as one would like in order to address shadows and specular highlights, and light sources from multiple sides often cancel out multiple shadows in most areas.



Welcome on board what you say is true this place is better than most but what you will find that many who post on these types of threads re Apollo hoax, ufo pics etc have MANY years of experience in photography many are semi -pro or pro or are people like myself 30+ years as a hobby so comment like it doesn't appear that way to me need to be backed up in some way!

So why do you think that?
edit on 23-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful
In the 2nd picture, with the astronaut at the top of the ladder, had their been a 2nd light source off to the left of the picture, the body of the astronaut would have made a much more defined shadow outline cast onto the LEM's hatchway.


And yet there is still a shadow on the Lem's hatch. A light source creates a shadow. That shadow is quite defined, meaning a localized light source and not an ambient light source.

The reason I included both photos is because many people have argued that the shadow is being created by the astronaut, from ambient light cast up from the ground. The second photo clearly shows that the astronaut is not creating the shadow.

Now looking at the photo, does that shadow look like it is being cast by light coming up from the ground, or a light source above and to the left of the camera?

edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: misspelling


Here, come back in a little bit and I'll post copies of the photos after I've painted arrows and circles on it.

(I mean come on, it's a moon picture and what thread would not be complete with out a bunch of moon landing photos where people are drawing arrows and circles on it, right?).

That way we can make sure we're on the same page.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Welcome on board what you say is true this place is better than most but what you will find that many who post on these types of threads re Apollo hoax, ufo pics etc have MANY years of experience in photography many are semi -pro or pro or are people like myself 30+ years as a hobby so comment like it doesn't appear that way to me need to be backed up in some way!

So why do you think that?
edit on 23-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Yes you and many others may have many years of experience in related fields, but as I mentioned earlier, you guys also have something else: an emotional attachment to the Apollo program. This can affect objectivity, which is why I cannot just take someone's word for it.

As I mentioned earlier, I actually had professional experience in the field of digital photo manipulation at a Kodak photo lab. In addition, my best friend of over a decade is a professional photographer himself and over time I've become familiar with all the various lighting techniques used by photographers.

Even if you believe the official story 100%, you have to admit that these photographs are VERY good. And they just happen to have the type of cinematic lighting that is often artificially reproduced in photographs.

Astronauts on the moon, in a condition where in all likelihood one would come out with very poor photos, come out with *astoundingly* good photos that bear the hallmarks of artificial lighting techniques used by professional photographers.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You will find that there are a multitude of people on here that have photography as a hobby and those that to it professionally on here. Also there are many of us that do image manipulations quite seriously and even make whole virtual worlds using computer generated lighting systems (like me, with Blender, 3ds Max, UDK, Unity and Cryengine).


That is awesome and good to know. I also have a background in 3D manipulation software, my gateway program was Bryce and then I went on to learn Blender.

I'll just put up some photos and ask people to look at them without any pre-formulated conclusion:

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

.


Well maybe a look at the pictures before they were enhanced would help.







You see many hoax believers have been caught out by using edited publicity shots thinking they were the original scans as you can see above your pictures have had some work done.

That was always one of the excuses that the hoax believers used that the pictures taken were to good many have posted videos on youtube had threads on here an on other sites they had the wrong source for the pictures


The Astronauts had underexposed / overexposed and other problems with pictures, if you are a photographer worth your salt you can have the correct exposure (sunny 16 rule) and everything from a few feet to infinity in focus using the correct focus point and aperture.

How do you think cheap disposable cameras work!!!

There is one light source on the Moon the Sun, the claims of no stars, diverging/converging shadows , fill in lighting can all be duplicated here.

It's NOT rocket science or is it



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Okay, I'm back with my squiggly line arrows and circles.

Here's the first picture:



Blue circle is indicating the lens flare from the sun.
Green arrow on the bottom is showing the direction of bounce from the surface.
Green arrow at back pack is showing the difference in intensity of the bounce and scatter as the bottom of the back pack is face the ground more fully than further up the back pack.
Green and red arrows at the hatch way are showing the same thing: green arrow is further out than the red, so more light intensity.
Note too the gold foil on the bottom of the lander.......the reflected light seems to be on those ripples who's angles point them towards the ground, where as a 2nd light source to the left should light that foil up on both sides.

Next picture:



Again, the blue circle is pointing out the lens flare from the sun (and has changed since the angle of the camera has also changed).
Green arrow at the bottom showing the direction of bounce. And gain, the foil ripples are being lit from the angle that points towards the ground.
Same green arrow on the back back.

Now, inside the hatchway:
This should be a bit more interesting to look at, and here is why I think that:

If there were a 2nd, diffused light from the left, then yes, with the astronaut where he is, he would be blocking light. The hatch coaming area should be darker than in the first picture.

But if you look, it's not. The opposite is happening, the area in the hatch coaming is lighter.

It's lighter (in my opinion) because the astronaut's space suit, which is white, and highly reflective of light, is now taking the bounce light from the ground, and bouncing it into the hatch coaming, making it brighter.

That should help support that the lighting here is coming from the ground in the form of bounce and scatter.

Just my humble opinion of course.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Just my humble opinion of course.


Thanks for including that work and analysis. I'm having a hard time following what you are saying though.

What exactly do you think caused the shadow being cast on the Lem entrance? The shadow which is immediately to the left of the red arrow you drew. In the second photo, the red arrow you drew is tracing the fairly hard shadow line which is being cast by the coaming (I believe that is what you called it).

I'm not talking about anything else in the photo at the moment, but just that particular shadow. Look at where it is located, its intensity, and the fairly sharp outline. What created that shadow?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


Here are some another pictures from Apollo 11
Do you think hoax believers would post these as great examples of the Astronauts photography skills.







See you have to get your source right many hoax believers have agendas and from evidence on here a poor education.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well maybe a look at the pictures before they were enhanced would help.








A photo can be reduced in contrast just as easily as it can be increased in contrast.

I think we should defer to Nasa's website with regards to the amount of photo retouching that was done:

"minor adjustments of levels to ensure that (1) brightly lit areas of lunar soil were neutral grey, (2) objects with known colors (such as the CDR stripes or the LCRU blankets) looked right, and (3) information in bright or dark areas was not lost."

None of this involves radical adjustment of contrast, such as is seen in your photos.

Just sayin.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
That's because GLP is not a friendly place to anyone that is a skeptic......of anything. Question anything, especially the outlandish, and you can find yourself banned from there.


For what it's worth by the way, that statement is not true at all. They are not friendly to anyone, not just skeptics.

In fact, they have several resident Nasa debunkers over there who respond to absolutely every single moon hoax thread that appears - which of course wouldn't be the case if the site was not friendly to skeptics.

The skeptics over there are quite rude though.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Just my humble opinion of course.


Thanks for including that work and analysis. I'm having a hard time following what you are saying though.

What exactly do you think caused the shadow being cast on the Lem entrance? The shadow which is immediately to the left of the red arrow you drew. In the second photo, the red arrow you drew is tracing the fairly hard shadow line which is being cast by the coaming (I believe that is what you called it).

I'm not talking about anything else in the photo at the moment, but just that particular shadow. Look at where it is located, its intensity, and the fairly sharp outline. What created that shadow?


The base of the LEM extends outward, to where the ceiling of the hatch coaming is not exposed to the bounce as much as say the astronaut's suit.

at least that is what it looks like to me.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join