More Moon fakery

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by webstra
 


Neither do those fake pictures. And how is it that we can take pics of the farthest reaches of the universe and we can't get a decent image of the "landing sites"? Why not put a rover on the moon with a good camera and roll up on the sights to shut everyone up? I know taxpayers and priorities. We know thats the govt's main concern don't we.



Just may be if people like YOU actually made an effort to LEARN about photography and optics members on here that do know a about the subject wouldn't need to read STUPID comments like that.

Just to prove a point Members Astrophotography

Some of us that post on the Apollo threads post on the link above!!!!




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Did Stanley Kubrick get a Medal or and Oscar for his work on the Moon Landing ?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets? What about the radiation? Why do you think we can't get a decent picture of those landing sites? How come we never returned?

And just because you think your Ansel Adams doesn't mean Armstrong was, how did he take one perfect picture after another with that camera strapped to his chest?

Taking it all into consideration your arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. And just because your willing and capable of making brave statements about others viewpoints doesn't make you right. Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your right.

But I won't belittle your vein attempts at convincing me or yourself.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


At least you have something to show me that I haven't seen before, it's hardly convincing however. I see some indication of a pattern, but I see similar patterns at right angles to your area of focus, and regardless of your explanation it is my understand that moon dust is quite fine, it doesn't pass the smell test.

I have a problem with the photo "evidence" NASA provided on the landing sites. I have to believe we should be able to get higher resolution pics of those lunar landing sites.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but my instincts are usually spot on. I think sometimes people get wrapped up in details (especially in areas of their own expertise) and don't see the whole picture.

I could be wrong, but there is no shame in questioning, and I will, regardless if your other members think my questions are "stupid".

Have you seen the footage of Apollo 11 where they darken the cabin and claim to be half way to the moon, when it is revealed that they are in near Earth orbit?

Hey I'm all ears, even if you guys want to bash away, I am my own man and can take it from the best (or worst) of em. I am also capable of admitting when I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


If they landed a rover and took pics and they had no obvious issues, as the existing ones do, I would put the baby to bed for sure. Look I don't "want" this to be a hoax, far from it, I think it should be a great source of pride, like it used to be for me, but there are so many questions and things that don't jibe.

Like I said in my original post, if we went there in 1969, it stands to reason we'd have returned there subsequent to the Apollo missions.

We explore, leaving a trail that turns to a road and return to exploit. We don't slap the dust off our hands and say "been there, done that".



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 

Your generalizing, maybe for good reason. Look, not all hoaxers are hell bent, it's just that when your constantly being served crap, everything starts to look like crap.

I for one can think for myself, if and when I see some decent pics of those sites, I'm satisfied and to be honest with you, relieved. I take NO pleasure in questioning the greatest achievement our country ever made [sic].



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


I'm just speaking my mind, I wish some of these folks would give their opinion without throwing in words like "stupid". I may not know everything about everything like some people pretend, but one thing I'm not is, stupid.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by webstra
 


I'm just speaking my mind, I wish some of these folks would give their opinion without throwing in words like "stupid". I may not know everything about everything like some people pretend, but one thing I'm not is, stupid.


That's one of the problems that many apollonian propagandists at the end will do.

If you poke holes in their fairytale they will get nasty and call you stupid, amongst other namecalling.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by angryhulk
 


Basically the videos discuss ed how the Russian Flag sprint a year out in space and there were only a couple strands left. But yet they want us to believe the American flags are still there after forty years. They are saying there would be nothing thing left of our flag.

I agree there should be nothing left at all. Just another of the many lies they have told us over the years

The Bot



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   

onebigmonkey

zatara


Not to forget there is also the connection NASA and Kubrick. His movie Barry Lyndon needed a special lens which only NASA could provide.


Not true. Kubrick bought the lens from Zeiss, the same as NASA did. NASA used that lens to take photographs of the moon, which is how Kubrick got to hear about it.



Then there is of course the question about the many many pictures taken on the moon. IMHO too many questions about the pictures and the rocket-hardware to say.... it can all be explained away with reason....and there are people who say ...yes it can.


All fo the hoax allegations can be explained away with reason and an understanding of science and engineering. None of the hoax claims stand up to rational scrutiny. None. Not one.



An other thing to take in consideration is Nixon. He was corrupt and paranoia as a president of the USA can be.


Yep, but he was not in charge when the moon landing was conceived. He was not in charge of Mercury or Gemini, the two programmes that led to Apollo. He was not in charge at the start of Apollo. Apollo 8 had already been around the moon when he was elected, but he was not yet inaugurated. All he did was get the glory. His inept and corrupt nature does not invalidate science and engineering.




I have the gut feel that a lot of money already was invested and many contracts closed. There was no way for the US government to say to the world..or the companies involved....sorry but, we do not have the technology at this moment to go to the Moon. Nixon and his pals decided to fake it instead of losing face and credibillity to the world. Maybe there was some money to be made for the insiders too...Anyways, that is where Kubrick comes in..


A lot of money was invested. The invested it in equipment to get to the moon.

I find it amazing that people will still happily flap around in this swamp of denial but will completely ignore solid stone cold evidence that we went. See my previous post with the pretty pictures in.


Sorry my info must be old...you know how these things go..



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by eNumbra
 


At least you have something to show me that I haven't seen before, it's hardly convincing however. I see some indication of a pattern, but I see similar patterns at right angles to your area of focus, and regardless of your explanation it is my understand that moon dust is quite fine, it doesn't pass the smell test.

The regalith(sp?), moon dust is quite fine, but two inches or so beneath it is hard as rock. If you can find it(I'm typing from my phone) the original video of the astronauts planting the flag shows them struggling to embed it deep enough for it to remain upright, they even relate this story in interviews later.

The problem, with the video in the OP is that it's making an assumption based upon one flag, that therefore the same must happen to all flags. As far as other hoax believers go, the overwhelming majority of their "evidence" follows similar lines of thinking.

They are misunderstandings of one thing or another( no stars in photos of astronauts, lack of distinct tire treads from the rovers in images). People find something that they don't understand the reasoning for and instead of researchin it or legitimately asking a question about it, they frame it and hold it up as proof that nasa's been lying for 40 years.

And then once evidence has been provided as to why there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in said "evidence" what you get is people talking down their noses, using words like propagandists, apollogist(that's a purposeful misspelling for those of you who missed it, the actual word is apologist) or even shill or sheeple, all while mentioning how they don't resort to name calling.

I can't fault you if you're following your instincts, regardless of how wrong I think they are in this matter, but evidence trumps instinct any day of the week, gut feelings aren't scientific.


That is why I personally have little patience for moon hoaxers, I've been on this site for a long time, I've seen this thread a lot; and it's always the same thing. Over and over again, while there may be legitimate, level headed moon hoax investigators out there, the majority of them compare to the rabid atheists who would pose "if god exists, then why doesn't he exist?" There is no argument or debate, 99% of people are too in love with their own opinions to ever change them.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Stackpot
 


Intuition and "gut feeling" are subjective, factual evidence is objective. All you questions and concerns voiced here can be answered in a factual manner, using technical explanation. But will you listen to it, or will you decide to follow your gut feeling?

LRO provided the best views of the landing sites we have (and as I mention, I think they are very decent). The resolution on those photos is the direct result of the spacecraft's optics and the hight of its orbit at the time it took those images. NASA even got LRO into a lower orbit than usual, to photograph the landing sites at an incredible 25 cm per pixel! www.universetoday.com... That's as good as any spy satellite orbiting Earth. You can see the astronaut's foot trails, rover tracks, various equipment they left on the Moon, and some detail in the Apollo descent stages. Photos were taken at various sun angles, and match what we see in the photos and videos taken by the Apollo astronauts themselves. featured-sites.lroc.asu.edu...

Your concern about us being able to take pictures of space many light years away, but not being able to see the landing sites at "decent resolution" as you put it, is due to angular resolution, i.e. size versus distance. Try spotting a gnat on an elephant's ass from 10 meters away with the naked eye. Even the Hubble Telescope, when pointed at the Moon, can only see objects approximately the side of a stadium.
edit on 19-2-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Stackpot
The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets?


I gave you a detailed response to that question here. Funny that you responded to every post except that one...



What about the radiation?


What about it? If you spend a month in the thickest part of Van Allen Belts, you'll get a life-threatening dose. The Apollo missions flew past the belts in a couple of hours, and avoided the thickest parts.



Why do you think we can't get a decent picture of those landing sites?


What's wrong with the LROC images? If you zoom-in on this image just over 2/3rds of the way down, it's pretty darn obvious that something amazing happened here. LROC was designed to map potential future landing sights (i.e. flat areas free of craters & boulders above a certain size). It doesn't need to have any more resolution than that. Bigger optics would require a bigger, heavier, more-expensive spacecraft. They didn't need that. They certainly don't need to "prove" anything to people who would just accuse them of lying, no matter what picture came back.

Come to think of it, if they were faking the LROC images, why wouldn't they just produce pictures that showed everything with crystal clarity? After all, if you insist that higher resolution pictures would "would put the baby to bed for sure" then why not just produce them to shut you up?



How come we never returned?


That's easy. The decision to stop going was purely political. Are you going to sit there with a straight-face and say political decisions usually make sense?



We explore, leaving a trail that turns to a road and return to exploit. We don't slap the dust off our hands and say "been there, done that".


Sometimes we do. After Britain & Norway raced to the South Pole in 1912, no one set foot there for more than 45 years. After two men visited the deepest ocean on earth in 1960, no one went back for more than 5 decades.



And just because you think your (sic) Ansel Adams doesn't mean Armstrong was, how did he take one perfect picture after another with that camera strapped to his chest?


You mean like this one, this one and this one? Once again, you are confidently claiming something that, if you'd taken just a few minutes to research, you would have found to be untrue.

This page shows every frame taken by Armstrong & Aldrin during their EVA - in all their un-cropped, un-corrected glory. There are over-exposures, under-exposures, inadvertent shutter-releases and a whole bunch of tilted images. Even the famous shot of Buzz Aldrin facing the camera was nearly ruined because Neil didn't have Buzz properly centered and thus nearly cut off the top of his head (the image is also badly tilted). Often-times, when this picture is reproduced, the artist un-tilts & crops it and adds black at the top to make it look better.



Have you seen the footage of Apollo 11 where they darken the cabin and claim to be half way to the moon, when it is revealed that they are in near Earth orbit?


That was decisively debunked here.


Taking it all into consideration your arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. And just because your willing and capable of making brave statements about others viewpoints doesn't make you right. Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.


Your arguments are simply a long list of thing that you do not understand (to which we can add knowledge of the thermal environment on the Moon). There's nothing wrong with not knowing things, but I do find it troubling that you seem to have no interest in actually learning about the things you're arguing about.


But I won't belittle your vein (sic) attempts at convincing me or yourself.


Does this mean that you will not change your mind, no matter what the facts say?



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Stackpot
...I have a problem with the photo "evidence" NASA provided on the landing sites. I have to believe we should be able to get higher resolution pics of those lunar landing sites.

There ARE very good images of the landing sites. You may be looking for a picture similar to those "Google Earth" images where you can make out your car in your driveway, but please be aware that those more detailed images on Google earth are NOT taken from satellites, but are taken from airplanes; as you zoom farther out on Google Earth, then you get to the images taken from satellites. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) images of the Apollo landing sites are generally comparable to those satellite images from Google Earth.

Saint Exupery gave an example image from the LRO in his post above in which (once you zoomed in on th image) you could see the Apollo 15 landing site clearly, including the footpaths made by the astronauts as they walked, and the wheel tracks made by the rover.

Here is the full image that Saint Exupery mentioned in his post:
LRO Image

To help you find the landing site on the zoomed out version of the photo, use this as a guide:


...and here is the image once you zoom in:





Stackpot
The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets?

The descent engine thruster was able to be fully throttled back; it did not always fire with maximum thrust all of the time. Plus, there was a 5-foot long contact probe sticking down below each landing pad on the LM. When the contact probe touched the surface, the astronauts shut down the engines. This means that the engine was turned off 4 or 5 feet above the Moon, and was not creating any thrust at that time.

Plus, as others have mentioned, the fine dust on the moon was only a few inches deep at the landing sites. Below that was a solid surface. As you can see in this image (which, by the way Saint Exupery DID provide when he answered this question the first time for you), the dust has been blown away (you can see the streaks), and the hard surface is exposed:

AS11-40-5921




Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.


The film magazine was reflective enough to reflect the heat of the sun away from it, so it stayed cool in the Sun.

You may have heard that it is "almost 250 degrees F in the Sunshine on the Moon", but that is not a completely accurate statement. The only things that are hot are things the sun shines on. There is no atmosphere on the moon, so there is really nothing in the virtual vacuum of the moon that the sun's radiation can heat up.

Granted, the film magazine is a "thing" and the Sun's radiation could certainly heat it up. However, it was painted a reflective color, so most of that solar radiation is reflected away, keeping the film magazine cool enough. When they say that it is 250 degrees F in the sunshine, they are talking about how hot a "black body" would get while exposed to the sun. A black body absorbs the sunlight, heating it up much more than something that is reflective -- such as the film magazines.

edit on 2/19/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Maybe they didn't have to worry about the heat on the Moon, if the pictures were taken in a studio?

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images



The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.


www.aulis.com...

I believe they DID go to the Moon, but lighting conditions may hve been so difficult that they perhaps needed to do studio shots as well.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

GaryN
I believe they DID go to the Moon, but lighting conditions may hve been so difficult that they perhaps needed to do studio shots as well.


The sun was shining, and the surface of the Moon has the reflectivity similar to old asphalt in a parking lot.

Therefore, considering what the lighting conditions are in a parking lot on a sunny day here on Earth, I would guess that the lighting conditions for the Apollo astronauts on the moon were adequate for photography.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The one thing this site doesn't lack is self absorbed know it all's. So your an expert on cameras and such, did you want to comment on the point I made about the there being no wash from the guidance rockets? What about the radiation? Why do you think we can't get a decent picture of those landing sites? How come we never returned?

And just because you think your Ansel Adams doesn't mean Armstrong was, how did he take one perfect picture after another with that camera strapped to his chest?

Taking it all into consideration your arguments have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. And just because your willing and capable of making brave statements about others viewpoints doesn't make you right. Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your right.

But I won't belittle your vein attempts at convincing me or yourself.


Once AGAIN if YOU BOTHER TO LOOK CLOSELY at your own claims YOU wouldn't make them!!!

First of all there are MANY members on here that have LOTS of experience of photography myself for over 30 years as a hobby some semi pro others even professional.

Not every picture was perfect so YOU got that wrong!

Not Perfect

Just one example of MANY, the problem is on here it takes more effort to find out than to SPOUT OUT!

I suggest yet again GO LEARN something before you comment look up depth of field and sunny 16 rule ANY decent amatuer can set his camera up to give maximum depth of field in his image and can have a good guess at exposure due to EXPERIENCE!!.

Do YOU think they didn't practice using the cameras before they left?
Do YOU think it wasn't possible to work out exposure to use before they left?

Exposure Settings

Gut feelings etc DON'T count when you don't even understand the subject, ALL your questions have been answered 1001 times on here try search!



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

wmd_2008

webstra

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.


It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.


YOU have not contributed one thing to this thread but asinine (look it up) comments not one piece of information or a useful link !!!!


Like GaryN mentions The aulis.com site is a good one.

'An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White'

It's a site where you can learn a lot wmd_2008. Not only people who are new with the apollo fakery, also apollogists maybe finaly can come to grips with the apollo scam.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People


Go pat yourself on the back, but your knowledge of cameras and because you think the film could survive the heat, cold and radiation, none of it gives me an inkling that your (sic) right.


The film magazine was reflective enough to reflect the heat of the sun away from it, so it stayed cool in the Sun.

You may have heard that it is "almost 250 degrees F in the Sunshine on the Moon", but that is not a completely accurate statement. The only things that are hot are things the sun shines on. There is no atmosphere on the moon, so there is really nothing in the virtual vacuum of the moon that the sun's radiation can heat up.

Granted, the film magazine is a "thing" and the Sun's radiation could certainly heat it up. However, it was painted a reflective color, so most of that solar radiation is reflected away, keeping the film magazine cool enough. When they say that it is 250 degrees F in the sunshine, they are talking about how hot a "black body" would get while exposed to the sun. A black body absorbs the sunlight, heating it up much more than something that is reflective -- such as the film magazines.


The last link in my above post was to this post:
How Hot is it on the Moon?
Sorry, I should have linked it by name.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 



I believe they DID go to the Moon, but lighting conditions may hve been so difficult that they perhaps needed to do studio shots as well.


In Hollywood, they call those "pick-up shots", it's a common practice in making movies.

What would you say if I told you that nobody knows exactly how many Hasselblad cameras were taken to the "moon"?
What if I were to tell you that nobody knows exactly how many Hasselblad cameras were brought back from the "moon"?

Would that be a Red Flag for you? Or is that something that you can easily overlook? Just askin', not fightin'.





new topics
 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join