More Fodder for Lunar Landing Hoax: Earth Scale

reply to post by muzzleflash


Actually it's quite impossible because of a few factors.

Now regarding the moon picture, we can find out what mission that was taken on, and by extension, the camera used and it's focal length.

The same can not be said for the second picture, beyond not having a clear image of the moon at all (obscured by clouds, couldn't resist a Floyd reference)

We don't know where it was taken (altitude)
What it was taken with, and the specs of that particular camera
when it was taken and the distance between the camera and the subject. In fact, the sax image appears to be using a fisheye lense effect, either an actual lense, or a post effect, either way, it makes it impossible to use that image as a valid comparison.

I'm not trashing the OP, at least he took some time and formed a theory. His evidence is lack luster at best but doesn't mean it should be ignored.

How can we debunk this?

Get the exact specific information about that nasa image (if we can even find out how far away the camera was which is doubtful)
Get a VALID image of a clear shot at the moon with visual references for distance, even if this requires taking the picture yourself.

Only then can we "debunk" it.

Originally posted by alfa1
The distance from the camera to the humans also needs to be taken into account.

What did you do to compensate for that difference?

This is VERY important: You have not stated the focal lengths of the lenses of the two cameras which took the two photographs. If the "astro-not" photo was taken with a wide-angle lens, it would make the Earth look smaller than it should - same for the sax player photo. Telephoto lenses would make Earth and Moon look too big.

reply to post by blamethegreys

Even though i agree that some footage has clearly been tinkered with, i dont agree with the scale thing. It depends a lot on the camera/lense, zoom and so on as well. If you take a picture of the moon here on earth then it often might look way smaller on picture as well compared to in real life. It all depends on zoom, camera and where it is relative to horizon or other objects.
And the other picture is not even comparable since it is taken on a cloudy day. Also even the atmosphere affects how it looks to us here on earth.

That dosent mean it hasnt been tinkering with though, but i dont think this is good enough evidence.

Edit: I still think this picture is fake though. when playing with levels it looks like the earth was just copy & pasted into the picture and not in a professional way.

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Another interesting note on the topic I just found: NASA did not release any photos of the earth until Apollo 17. Apparently an activist began a button campaign for pics of the whole earth in 1966, and finally in 1972 NASA released some. Odd. You'd think that would be a crowning achievement, bringing the world the first photographs of Earth as a whole.
www.nasm.si.edu...

That is super messed up!
I never knew about this.

You just caused a major red flag to go up and the alarms to sound off in my head.

Something definitely ain't right about this!

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yes, considering how much time NASA spent on the moon and how many thousand of pics they took, they took VERY FEW that included the Earth in them..

The reason given is that they were not there to take pictures to please us people back on Earth but were there for scientific reasons..

Though that's not really the impression I got from JFK's speech..

The camera used on the surface of the moon (lol) was a Hasselblad (not modified apart from the cassette)

The one used for the first mission had f/5.6 and a focal length of 60 mm.

The Lunar Orbiter I used an 80mm lens...there was also a 610mm lens for the camera.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


The 60mm lens should have provided an almost "normal" viewing distance, still somewhat zoomed. A 50mm lens is the "normal" view on a camera body (except on a DX body) The 610mm would have made the earth look bigger than the 60mm if focused on the astronaut from a distance. Compared to the black and white NASA photo of earth, the earth in the newer picture should have appeared just as big, maybe a little smaller. If the 610mm was used, then it should have appeared even bigger than the earth in the black and white photo. I'm not claiming I'm 100% right, maybe I'm missing something, but I do like photography and own big zooms as well as primes... so.... that's my experience when taking pictures of the moon with similar lenses.

Even if there was some science behind this it does not mean the lunar landing did not happen, Nasa obviously edit images so perhaps they just altered its size for whatever reason.

There are so very many evidences now of NASA lies and deceit. From them admitting "some" Apollo photos were in fact, staged, to the endless technical problems that we are all now aware of, to the laughable photo and video record of "man walking (and staying for days) on the moon".

At one time I thought we surely orbited the moon but never landed, but now it looks like we never even left low Earth orbit.

Comically, ever so often you see news blurbs about solving this or that space flight problem or this or that mystery about the moon- all of which we supposedly mastered in 1969! LOL.

Nice grab by the way .

Add this one to the collection for comparison , no real detail as to the camera used but we do get away from the earth atmosphere behaving like a diffuser panel . They have so many cameras at the ISS any way .

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

reply to post by 2manyquestions


Hi all.

Interesting thoughts there op.

I am not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that Hassleblad cameras used the old 120 roll film, in which case a 60mm would be like a wide angle 30mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Tell you what, that 610mm lens must have been a handfull, even in zero gravity.

Here is how they faked the footage of earth from the spacecraft



they never left earth orbit, they just covered up the window so it made a circle, and then film it in a dark cabin..

I hope everyone can find enough proofs for this hoax.

NWO

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Another interesting note on the topic I just found: NASA did not release any photos of the earth until Apollo 17. Apparently an activist began a button campaign for pics of the whole earth in 1966, and finally in 1972 NASA released some. Odd. You'd think that would be a crowning achievement, bringing the world the first photographs of Earth as a whole.
www.nasm.si.edu...

That is super messed up!
I never knew about this.

You just caused a major red flag to go up and the alarms to sound off in my head.

Something definitely ain't right about this!

Surely you thought something was wrong before?

ETA: I don't doubt we have been to the moon. They're hiding something though.

Regards moon photos, I'm thinking this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. To wit, the purported camera chassis of choice were manufactured by Hasselblad. Given that this was the late 1960's, these would have been film cameras, and camera film is very susceptible to damage from radiation. Thus, how is it even possible to take a photo on the moon in the first place, given the levels of solar and ionizing radiation on the moon?

Dude, awesome thread. But, couldn't you have found a pic of the moon without the cloud cover? It just would have made it waaay better... Still s n f but... Just sayin. You did a lot more work than me so I can't complain too much

People (and, new visitors to the thread) - Please, go back and read these 2 posts - check and mate (well done, OP )...

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by blamethegreys

 

It should really be quite simple.

If we see the moon, and you can use theoretical numbers here, but if we see the moon from Earth (which has an atmosphere which reduces light somewhat) and the moon appears 1inch in diameter from here in Adelaide. Given the mean diameter of the moon is 3474.20km and the mean diameter of the Earth is 12742km then from the moons surface the size of the Earth should be:

12742km divided by 3474.20km = 3.668km....so if the moon is 1 inch in diameter from our perspective on Earth WITH an Atmosphere then there is no reason to disbelieve that from the Moon the Earth should appear to be 3.668inches without an atmosphere which in that photo it clearly does not!!!

This seems to be the exact math used by the OP, no?

And...

Originally posted by Highlander64

On Aug. 23, 1966, the world received its first view of Earth taken by a spacecraft from the vicinity of the Moon. The photo was transmitted to Earth by the Lunar Orbiter I and received at the NASA tracking station at Robledo De Chavela near Madrid, Spain. The image was taken during the spacecraft’s 16th orbit.

www.nasa.gov...

^^^ I can't recall ANY pictures from any moonlanding missions that showed the earth with THIS perspective (that is to say, correct relative size... 3.66 to 1) - this is all, of course, assuming that comparable camera settings (lens, zoom, etc) were identical in the face off. I'm not saying the OPs jazz player/astronaut example is an accurate one, but surely someone on Earth could (has) easily have duplicated exactly the conditions the few astronauts performed on the moon with their equipment. (no?)



Thank you, OP, for bringing this subject to light (literally), and the others for supporting contributions. S & F(s). Only question I have left is... Why wasn't this considered long ago? I couldn't find anything on Google, either!(?) - other than the aulis.com link, that is.

Personally, I believe that we did go to the moon, just that (as many threads like this have swayed me, over the years) most of the media we've been shown as supporting evidence of this fact is fabricated / doctored.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
Personally, I believe that we did go to the moon, just that (as many threads like this have swayed me, over the years) most of the media we've been shown as supporting evidence of this fact is fabricated / doctored.

Do you have any idea why that might be? Surely that is a massively important question, or am I just a stupid conspiracy nut-job?

Be nice with your reply, if you can manage one, as I'm basically a good person.

reply to post by Pimander


I'm assuming it was all about politics & economics of the day. Winning the space race was a cornerstone in establishing technological dominance and superiority.