Is something wrong with the moon?

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Proof, or it didn't happen.

a reply to: Helious

and whoooosh - the goal posts move again

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Look, I am of the opinion that a lot of the early Apollo photos were fake for publicity purpose. Not even a professional photographer without the handicap of gloves and fixed focal length can take that many perfect images one after another. Possible : yes, likely : you have got to be freaking kidding!

There are lots of bad or poorly-composed Apollo photos, feel free to loook through thousands of images at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal: www.hq.nasa.gov...

AS16-114-18433


AS11-40-5871


Obviously, such photos don't get published much.

a reply to: wildespace

I'm particularly fond of this one from Apollo 11:

a reply to: onebigmonkey

That one reminds me of this..



Off topic I know, but yeah that's what came to mind!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: wildespace

I'm particularly fond of this one from Apollo 11:

And the photo that comes just before it in the film roll, AS11-40-5903, which is probably the most iconic and most-published (in edited form) Apollo photo, is still poorly-composed, being tilted with respect to the horizon and nearly cutting the top of Buzz's EVA suit off.



The image and its public use is further discussed here: www.hq.nasa.gov...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just another person curious to see where NASA were ‘caught red handed’ doctoring images. Surely we have a quorum now?

Come on, stop holding out on us.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
yes, they were caught red-handed...in the 60's...0r 70's..I was there....the first days after a mission they got the hill with extremely recognizable features as two locations...we laughed it off back then.......the two locations were supposed to be 2 milesw apart almost.......same dad gum hill....and more

originally posted by: hellobruce
How far away was the hill? Remember, it is hard to judge distance from a photo on the moon!

NASA was not caught red handed here, just some people have no idea about perspective on the moon.

GBP/JPY is most likely talking about these images (below) from Apollo 15. However, the "hoax!!" claims for these images can be, and had been, easily debunked.

The claim by the hoax believers goes that these two images show the exact same view of the exact same hill in the background, but totally different foreground -- so the hoax believers proclaim "how can that be? Where is the LM in the second image?"


The reason for this is easily explained. First of all, those hills are not very close to the camera, but rather they are a couple of km in the background. As 'hellobruce' alluded to in his post above, part of the way we judge distance here on Earth is by the certain haze we see when viewing things that are far away through an atmosphere On the moon, there is (virtually)no atmosphere and no haze, so that visual clue is missing. Hills that are a few km away will look as sharp and clear as hills that are a few hundred meters away.

Secondly, consider this thought experiment:
Say you are at the front door of your house looking at a group of rolling hills that are a couple of km away from you. In the foreground you see you front yard, your street, and the house across the street from you. In the background you see the hils....

Now, go down the road a few house to one of your neighbors' house. Stand at his front door and look at those same hills. Your view of those hills in the background would look virtually identical as it previously did from your front door. However, the foreground would be completely different; you would see a different front yard, and different part of the street, and a different house across the street.

That's what's happening here in these Apollo 15 images. The astronaut may have moved to a different location so the foreground is completely different, but the hills in the distance could still look virtually identical in both images.



By the way, the view of the hills in the background are not 100% identical in both images; the change in perspective does (understandably) result in a few changes in perspective that are imperceptible at first glance, but are there:

a reply to: Enochstask

Why drag race into it? Are you a racist? People on this forum don't care for racist.

White trash isn't an actual race...it's a way of life.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Enochstask

Why drag race into it? Are you a racist? People on this forum don't care for racist.

White trash isn't an actual race...it's a way of life.

So "whites" aren't even a race anymore. Okay I got it.

a reply to: Enochstask

So "whites" aren't even a race anymore. Okay I got it.

Did I say that...No.

White is a race...white trash isn't.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Enochstask

So "whites" aren't even a race anymore. Okay I got it.

Did I say that...No.

White is a race...white trash isn't.

So what's the difference between white trash and black trash? Why wasn't the term trash used by itself instead of being classified with a race?

This planet has 2 moons and 1 transparent moon. Most earth humans who dwell here are not able to distinguish what they see, therefore they give up and quickly get back to their hand held electronics, and all other forms of circuitry and entertainment that consumes their thoughts and minds. Their lives are like mazes, they sleep and dream day and night....

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Add me to the list of people who think that you should back up your outlandish claims with evidence.

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Add me to the list of people who think that you should back up your outlandish claims with evidence.

I do back up my statements, but I don't do it for the ignorant and idiots who have never done a drop of their own research first. Which one are you?
When the first steamboat sailed up the Hudson river there were idiots on the shore who were still saying it was impossible.
People that stupid can't be shown anything. It's like showing trigonometry to the neighbor's cat. The cat just cares about his food bowl.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

translation :

" NoCorruptionAllowed " has zero evidence for thier claims

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

translation :

" NoCorruptionAllowed " has zero evidence for thier claims

You seem much more comfortable being "IgnorantApe"

Why should I ruin your comfort with knowledge. You know what happened to Adam when he ate from the tree of knowledge don't you?
Besides, I like you much better when you are just ignorant. Much entertainment there. Please don't hope for being smarter, mkay?
Thanks!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yes, ‘I don’t know’ would be so much classier. But they never see that...

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

now you have got the ad homs. and insults out of the way - one question :

why bother being on a DiSCUSION forum if you are not prepared to defend your claims ?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Add me to the list of people who think that you should back up your outlandish claims with evidence.

I do back up my statements, but I don't do it for the ignorant and idiots who have never done a drop of their own research first. Which one are you?
When the first steamboat sailed up the Hudson river there were idiots on the shore who were still saying it was impossible.
People that stupid can't be shown anything. It's like showing trigonometry to the neighbor's cat. The cat just cares about his food bowl.

If you're going to make claims on a message board, you should be prepared to back them up with proof. Calling other posters names and telling them you won't back these claims up does nothing except make it look like you are obfuscating and have nothing to show.

I am more than open to look at and consider any photographic evidence produced.