Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Obviously shadows follow terrain, but some hoax proponents also seem to ignore the effect of perspective has on shadows on FLAT terrain. Perspective (especially with relatively wide-angle lenses) will also cause non-parallel shadows. Hoax proponent often use images such as this to support their claims:




Howeve, the non-parallel shadows are perfectly normal, even on flat terrain. The reason they do this is because of perspective, plus the the relatively wide-angle lenses used on the Apollo cameras.

As any photographer would tell you, wide-angle lenses will create a wider foreground, which in turn will give you non-parallel shadows due to perspective, when the light source is at your back. Objects to the camera's right and left will appear farther forward, and cast a shadow that follows the laws of perspective to a common vanishing point.


Here are two examples:



[thanks to ATS member "Saint Exupery" for this second example, which I took (i.e., stole) from one of his old posts]

You actually get this same effect with a normal lens (like the ones built into basic consumer cameras), but depending on the scene and lighting direction, it may not be as pronounced. The first picture above is probably taken with a wide-angle lens, while the second picture may just be a normal lens.

It seems the people who make these Moon hoax claims don't quite understand nature, perspective, or photography. The people who repeat these claims don't seem to want to understand that reasons behind these claims. if they did their due diligence and attempted to understand, they would see that the "non-parallel shadows" argument does not hold any water.

reply to post by webstra

Even if he'd managed to debunk those three images (which he hasn't), he'd still have 3,984 more to go, and that's just for Apollo 17.

Hoax believers really do have a mountain to climb. I wonder when they will give up...

fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

FenceSitter...

I've waffled about the moon landing. There are a few pieces that suggest "hoax." The main points that I believe to possibly make it a hoax are thus:

1. The USA gained far more by winning the space race by being the first to land on the Moon.
2. This even means quite possibly hoaxing the landing to "win." (The USA would never cheat, would it!?)
3. The technology wasn't there vs. the risks and exposures the astronauts had to endure. I know it's been "debunked" but it still seems very strange that in the span of approx. 20-years we went from prop planes to rocketry. And on top of that, not just rocketry (engineering) but that includes space survival. (Given we used Nazi scientists it makes sense, but still rather unbelievable on the human survivability level since we had never been there before. Or have we?)

But regardless, IF it was faked here's why I think it would be faked:
1. We went to the Moon
2. We faked it because the "why" and the "what" regarding our trip to the Moon couldn't be shown to everyone on national TV.

So, what was broadcast was a pre-recorded "walk in a studio." While the actual astronauts went to the Moon to accomplish their actual mission. But then again this is a conspiracy theory website.

Maybe one day we will know the truth and it will either be stranger than fiction or utterly boring.

Rob48
reply to post by webstra

 

Even if he'd managed to debunk those three images (which he hasn't), he'd still have 3,984 more to go, and that's just for Apollo 17.

Hoax believers really do have a mountain to climb. I wonder when they will give up...

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

We have been told they were astronauts...not photographers...

It's all a BIG lie Rob.

reply to post by webstra


Keep deluding yourself.

If they'd gone all the way to the moon and come back with a couple of albums' worth of photos you'd be using THAT as evidence of a hoax - "what, they went all that way and only took a couple of hundred snaps?"

It's really not that hard to click a shutter while you're doing other things. The cameras were mounted on their chests so they didn't have to stop, put a camera up to their eyes and take a shot.

Rob48
reply to post by webstra

 

Keep deluding yourself.

If they'd gone all the way to the moon and come back with a couple of albums' worth of photos you'd be using THAT as evidence of a hoax - "what, they went all that way and only took a couple of hundred snaps?"

It's really not that hard to click a shutter while you're doing other things. The cameras were mounted on their cheats so they didn't have to stop, put a camera up to their eyes and take a shot.

edit on 24-3-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry Rob, those numbers don't lie.

Look at the youtube movies of Foosm, and hopefully you understand how it worked with the hasselblad.

webstra

FoosM

FoosM

Soylent Green Is People

FoosM
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

But I did speak for myself... and those are my videos.

edit on 24-3-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

The videos are not working (at least not for me), so I can't address them.

However, in general, I have yet to see a convincing video made by a Moon hoax proponent. The "evidence" presented in the videos I have seen hold not water because they are usually made from ignorance of the subject matter (i.e., they are debunkable using real facts, real knowledge, and a real understanding of science, nature, photography, and technology -- and usually easily so).

However, I don't want to dismiss the evidence in your videos without seeing them, so please fix the links.

www.youtube.com...

Are you guys saying that link I posted was not click-able?
Or did you just miss that post?

Welcome back Foosm in educating apollo believers in their wrong way of thinking.

Those youtube-video's are nice to watch and showing the obvious, that it all was a big hoax

...Thanx !!

Welcome back webstra. Did you enjoy examining the collection of Apollo lunar samples at the Vernadsky Institute?

WCmutant

fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.

FenceSitter...

I've waffled about the moon landing. There are a few pieces that suggest "hoax." The main points that I believe to possibly make it a hoax are thus:

1. The USA gained far more by winning the space race by being the first to land on the Moon.
2. This even means quite possibly hoaxing the landing to "win." (The USA would never cheat, would it!?)
3. The technology wasn't there vs. the risks and exposures the astronauts had to endure. I know it's been "debunked" but it still seems very strange that in the span of approx. 20-years we went from prop planes to rocketry. And on top of that, not just rocketry (engineering) but that includes space survival. (Given we used Nazi scientists it makes sense, but still rather unbelievable on the human survivability level since we had never been there before. Or have we?)

If you doubt the technology of Apollo, then why not doubt the technology of the Space Shuttle. The construction of the first Space Shuttle began only 6 years after Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and just 3 years after the end of the Moon missions. The first space shuttle flew less than 10 years after the last man went to the moon.

Other advanced aviation technologies were also around in the pre-Apollo era. The SR-77 blackbird, for example, was flying in the 1960s. The SR-77 was a plane that was fundamentally impossible to fly manually. It required computers to constantly make tiny corrections in its aerodynamic surfaces that would be impossible for a human to do, just to make the plane stay in the air. There were also computer-controlled guidance systems in the 1950s and 1960s that could track a planes motions and know exactly where that plane was without any human intervention. These automated inertial guidance systems could auto-pilot a plane from one end of the U.S. to a specific point on the other side of the U.S.

So even though the Apollo program required some cutting edge technologies, those technologies existed -- although sometimes only in theory, and some brand-new execution of engineering was required.

As for astronaut survivability, the biggest danger (other than catastrophic vehicle loss) was a solar flare. Luckily, no solar flare pointed toward the Earth/Moon occurred during any Apollo mission. Sure -- there was danger involved in the Apollo program, but these guys were test pilots to begin with, and test piloting was already one of the most dangerous jobs in the world.

At the time these guys became astronauts in the early to mid 1960s, there were dozens of test pilots dying every year is aircraft mishaps. Heck, in some ways, the Apollo program may have been safer than being a regular test pilot (at least hardware-wise) because of the importance placed upon the program.

reply to post by webstra

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Oops! There were always two on the surface of the Moon, so that brings the total time up to 9,668 minutes. Assuming that all 5771 photos were taken on the Moon (and not in orbit) that is roughly one photo every two minutes. Given that many, if not most of the photographs were panoramas, in which a sequence of up to twelve photos were taken in under a minute, it seems to me there was more than enough time for them to accomplish all of their other tasks.

Edit to add: As you said, the numbers don't lie.

DJW001

webstra

FoosM

FoosM

Soylent Green Is People

FoosM
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

But I did speak for myself... and those are my videos.

edit on 24-3-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

The videos are not working (at least not for me), so I can't address them.

However, in general, I have yet to see a convincing video made by a Moon hoax proponent. The "evidence" presented in the videos I have seen hold not water because they are usually made from ignorance of the subject matter (i.e., they are debunkable using real facts, real knowledge, and a real understanding of science, nature, photography, and technology -- and usually easily so).

However, I don't want to dismiss the evidence in your videos without seeing them, so please fix the links.

www.youtube.com...

Are you guys saying that link I posted was not click-able?
Or did you just miss that post?

Welcome back Foosm in educating apollo believers in their wrong way of thinking.

Those youtube-video's are nice to watch and showing the obvious, that it all was a big hoax

...Thanx !!

Welcome back webstra. Did you enjoy examining the collection of Apollo lunar samples at the Vernadsky Institute?

No russian, no american..no human will bring me back on earth about this DJW001, the only thing i need is real honest science and with that, logical thinking...and that tells me : it's all a lie, the apollo landings.

reply to post by DJW001

It's coming to something when hoaxers are using "There's too much evidence we went to the moon!" as evidence that... we didn't go to the moon.

I honestly think that most of these guys don't actually truly believe their story. It's just a game, or elaborate trolling or attention seeking. I really shouldn't even humour them, but I just can't resist


Webstra: a straight question. What evidence would convince you that the landings were genuine? I've asked this question of many hoaxers and most say that no evidence would convince them because they know it's a lie. That to me says it's more of a religion than any reasoned position.

I would certainly change my view if solid evidence of a hoax came to light, but the hoaxers won't. I wonder why that is?

webstra

Rob48
reply to post by webstra

 

Even if he'd managed to debunk those three images (which he hasn't), he'd still have 3,984 more to go, and that's just for Apollo 17.

Hoax believers really do have a mountain to climb. I wonder when they will give up...

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

We have been told they were astronauts...not photographers...

It's all a BIG lie Rob.

The total number of minutes you listed (4834 minutes, or 80+ hours) are for EVAs only -- i.e., the actual moon walks. That's not the total duration of the missions. They took pictures during the entire duration of the missions, not just for the 4834 minutes that they spent actually outside of the LM while walking on the moon).

The actual time spent taking pictures during the Apollo missions would have included ALL pictures taken by all three astronauts for the entire duration of the missions, including pictures taken in orbit and on the way to and from the moon.

DJW001
reply to post by webstra

 

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Oops! There were always two on the surface of the Moon, so that brings the total time up to 9,668 minutes. Assuming that all 5771 photos were taken on the Moon (and not in orbit) that is roughly one photo every two minutes. Given that many, if not most of the photographs were panoramas, in which a sequence of up to twelve photos were taken in under a minute, it seems to me there was more than enough time for them to accomplish all of their other tasks.

Edit to add: As you said, the numbers don't lie.

edit on 24-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

So where do you read that i think there was only 1 astronaut to take all the pictures ?

reply to post by webstra

Because you said "total minutes on the moon" and hoped we'd do a simple division. If you gave the total man-minutes, or the total minutes and a number of photos per man, that would be a fairer comparison, wouldn't it?

In any case, taking photos is one of the main tasks they had! Why on earth do you think they wouldn't take as many as possible?

I'm sorry, you can't use "there's too much evidence that they went" as evidence that they didn't. It's, not to put to fine a point on it, a silly argument.

Rob48
reply to post by webstra

 

Because you said "total minutes on the moon" and hoped we'd do a simple division. If you gave the total man-minutes, or the total minutes and a number of photos per man, that would be a fairer comparison, wouldn't it?

In any case, taking photos is one of the main tasks they had! Why on earth do you think they wouldn't take as many as possible?

I'm sorry, you can't use "there's too much evidence that they went" as evidence that they didn't. It's, not to put to fine a point on it, a silly argument.

So after you are thinking what the USA has told you...that they landed man on the moon you now fill in what you think that i think ? Please stop those silly thoughts.

reply to post by webstra

So after you are thinking what your land has told you...that they landed man on the moon you now fill in what you think that i think ? Please stop those silly thoughts.

And you can't believe your country lost.

webstra
reply to post by webstra

 

So after you are thinking what the USA has told you...that they landed man on the moon you now fill in what you think that i think ? Please stop those silly thoughts.

edit on 24-3-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)

I don't think men went to the moon "because the USA told me" (and the USA is not "my land", as you wrote before the edit - I am British). I know they went there because there is mountains of evidence that they went, and not a shred of evidence that they didn't. I prefer to form my opinions based on evidence, not on "what people tell me".

So, what evidence would convince you that the landings were genuine? I don't believe any evidence would change your mind.

Rob48
I don't think men went to the moon "because the USA told me" (and the USA is not "my land", as you wrote before the edit - I am British). I know they went there because there is mountains of evidence that they went, and not a shred of evidence that they didn't. I prefer to form my opinions based on evidence, not on "what people tell me".

Exactly. I never blindly base my opinion on what some guy on some YouTube video tells me.

The reasons I have for believing we went to the Moon are based on information that I confirmed for myself by double-checking the science and logic behind those claims. For example, the first time I read the hoax theory that the shadows aren't parallel, I admit that I did find that to possibly be strange -- until I did some basic research for myself and found that it is perfectly normal for shadows not to be parallel in pictures.

The same thing goes for the hoax promoters' claims about no stars in the pictures. At first I asked myself "Yeah -- why exactly aren't the stars visible?", but after researching the logic behind camera exposure times and aperture settings used by the astronauts on the moon, I no longer asked "why?". A third example would be the question "why wasn't there a blast crater under the LM" (which is a valid question). However, after little research I learned that the descent engine was throttle-able, was turned off 4 or 5 feet above the surface, and the Moon was a hard surface under the first couple of inches of loose dust. After learning that, the reason there was no blast crater made sense.

However, some people seem to read these hoax claims, and instead of trying to confirm/unconfirm those claims, they simply blindly believe them.

FoosM

Soylent Green Is People

choos
reply to post by FoosM

 

your video is of the assumption that schmitt jumped into the seat only once..

I think he jumped "into" the seat once, but going by what they said to each other, it could be that Jack Schmitt "bounced" up and down a few times to ham it up for the camera. Schmitt laughed after Gene Cernan said "I got three of them" (three pictures while Schmitt jumped/bounced in his seat).

It could even be that several seconds had passed while Cernan was taking the three pictures.

edit on 3/24/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Watch the following videos in the series.
We will see how many of your "could be's" hold up.

did.. and its still of the assumption that it was only one jump into the LRV..

who is to say that Schmitt did not have a practice jump and realised the scoop/sampler was in the way (without realising cernan had already taken a photo)
thus he removed it holding it in his right hand and while jumping into the seat for the photo, not realising that he had dropped the scoop/sampler onto the ground..

being of the assumption that it all happened in one jump is also a "could be"

webstra

Rob48
reply to post by webstra

 

Even if he'd managed to debunk those three images (which he hasn't), he'd still have 3,984 more to go, and that's just for Apollo 17.

Hoax believers really do have a mountain to climb. I wonder when they will give up...

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

We have been told they were astronauts...not photographers...

It's all a BIG lie Rob.

They were trained to use the cameras.

The big lie is the claim that too many photographs were taken for the time available. In many places the astronauts took panoramas, several photographs taken in quick succession. There are whole magazines devoted to driving on the rover and nothing else. It's a pointless argument that proves nothing apart from the person making it has never been anywhere interesting with a camera.