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

Originally posted by BrandonD
And yet there is still a shadow on the Lem's hatch.

I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the different colouring of the hatch itself. It definitely doesn't look like a shadow to me, and the little white lables on the hatch look exactly the same in both areas.

I'll try to find pictures of the Apollo 11 LM hatch.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
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.

I remain skeptical, but have run out of steam on this particular subject. I've talked about it many many times in the past, as I'm sure you have also.

You may be interested to know that the last Nasa supporter I discussed this subject with claimed that the shadow area I am indicating is in fact not a shadow at all. He wouldn't say what it WAS, just that it was not a shadow.

When it comes down to it I'm not really THAT concerned either way, I have no horse in the race it's just an interesting subject to me.

I may revisit it again if it comes up in the future. Then we can pick up the gloves and continue

Thanks for your input and a civil discussion, much appreciated!

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by BrandonD
And yet there is still a shadow on the Lem's hatch.

I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the different colouring of the hatch itself. It definitely doesn't look like a shadow to me, and the little white lables on the hatch look exactly the same in both areas.

I'll try to find pictures of the Apollo 11 LM hatch.

You know, that may be the case and if so then you've been very helpful. The last person who told me it was not a shadow would not clarify what he meant by this.

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by BrandonD
And yet there is still a shadow on the Lem's hatch.

I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the different colouring of the hatch itself. It definitely doesn't look like a shadow to me, and the little white lables on the hatch look exactly the same in both areas.

I'll try to find pictures of the Apollo 11 LM hatch.

You know, that may be the case and if so then you've been very helpful. The last person who told me it was not a shadow would not clarify what he meant by this.

Well the terms we use are important. For example here is how I look at them:

Shadow: something that is clearly defined with edges and high contrast. In your pictures the LEM's legs are casting a very well defined shadow.

Shadowing: a darker area that is such due to the lack of direct lighting. Does not always have distinct lines or borders and can vary in shades of darkness.

Inside of the hatch is tan colored panels with white trimming and metal fixtures.

Originally posted by BrandonD

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.

I also said this which you seemed to ignore with your selective reading and quoting

The reason I post on this type of thread is a lot of the claims are to do with photographs/video my hobby for 30+ years has been photography so when I see STUPID claims made by people that don't understand I try to give them a little education.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The reason I post on this type of thread is a lot of the claims are to do with photographs/video my hobby for 30+ years has been photography so when I see STUPID claims made by people that don't understand I try to give them a little education.

You're actually the one who is revealing your ignorance.

The best way to "educate" people, which you claim to be your intention, is not to belittle and insult them as you're doing.

So either you are trying to educate me and failing miserably because your desire to be a jerk and show off is just too irresistible, or you have no intention of educating anyone but simply preaching to the choir and having others stroke your immature ego.

Which is it?

Apollo 11 LM hatch


Source: www.collectspace.com...

And one from ALSJ: www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by BrandonD

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.

Well this is the link to were I got the Apollo pictures.

Apollo Image Atlas

Obviously not the same as yours!!

I don't no what your are trying to claim with your statement underlined above but if you are trying to accuse me of something SAY WHAT YOU THINK I won't be offended but I will quite happily tie you in knots re photography.

So if your up to find your best examples to back your claims I cant wait

Just wanted to mention that I've been doing a little follow up on this "2-tone door" claim, and it does appear that this is in fact true.

Here is another photo which shows the door in full light:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by BrandonD
Just wanted to mention that I've been doing a little follow up on this "2-tone door" claim, and it does appear that this is in fact true.

Here is another photo which shows the door in full light:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Well done star for you, you see we are not liars!!!

Then there's this:





All that lunar surface under the blindingly bright sun will reflect and scatter plenty of light.

Originally posted by wildespace
Apollo 11 LM hatch

Source: www.collectspace.com...

And one from ALSJ: www.hq.nasa.gov...

I was searching also, and found another photo which showed this detail. It seems I don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well done star for you, you see we are not liars!!!

edit on 23-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I never thought the Nasa supporters were liars, but I did have a VERY bad experience when I first approached this subject. The vitriolic responses were actually very similar to my experiences with my family, who are all born-again christians.

This led me to suspect that there is perhaps a sort of religious zealotry among the "pro-Nasa" people.

If anything you guys, keep in mind that a little consideration goes a long way.

Conspiracies happen, so it is actually not outlandish for someone to suspect them. When a person (who may not have expertise in your particular area) is treated very rudely for voicing suspicions, it often leads them to kinda harden their convictions. As I said I have no horse in this race, I only became more interested when people reacted to me so negatively.

I'll admit that the photos do appear suspiciously well-lighted, but you guys may be right after all.

reply to post by BrandonD


Well to be truthful, you weren't really arguing.

You presented photos and gave your opinion on them, and even conceeded that you might be wrong about them (BEFORE anyone else said anything about them).

You listened to our opinions. Agreed in some parts, disagreed in others. Asked for clarification of others.

I would say that you are discussing this with us and debating parts of it with us in a civilized manner.

Which is much more than I can say for most moon hoax threads over the past year or so.......



So even if you disagree and still think there are other light sources, you still get a big tumbs up from me. Nice to have a more civilized and willing to listen to other's discussion with someone on this for once.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well done star for you, you see we are not liars!!!

edit on 23-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Aha, I didn't notice this star feature before now!

posted on 1/20/2013 @ 03:58 PM - www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on 1/20/2013 @ 04:06 PM - www.abovetopsecret.com...





----------


Brilliant writing Shoujikina, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out.

Yes, I admit both sides are compelling.

For subjects like this, I think someone needs to come up with something like a conspiracy wikipedia.

For each conspiracy subject, there would be stated the 10 strongest points supporting this conspiracy, as well as the 10 strongest points refuting it. It woud not be a debate, but rather the 10 points would be laid out separately. People could read it come to their own conclusion, based on the available data.

Maybe they could get a group of people together on each side of the issue to arrive at a consensus on the strongest points, as well as agree that the topic is being handled in an unbiased manner.

I don't know if people could get along well enough to do something like that, but if so I'd love to read it!

reply to post by BrandonD

This led me to suspect that there is perhaps a sort of religious zealotry among the "pro-Nasa" people.

I have felt that way about NASA employees.
But that doesn't mean they didn't what they said they did.

In past postings they have left me with these impressions:

It can't be done without spending this much money.
If you reduce our money we will stretch the time to launch instead of reducing mission profile.
It's not our fault the price went from 1 billion to 10. It was harder than we thought.
If they can do it we can do it for more.

Exactly, the most compelling inconsistencies lie within NASA's claims, not within capabilities.