The Russians Are Going To Verify That The Moon Landing Was Real

a reply to: toms54

So no matter what the Russians say it will prove nothing. Those who want to believe will. Those who don't won't. Not until humans return or go there the first time will anyone really be convinced of anything.

I've been cogitating over a theory that says essentially, and literally, we as humans are entering an age of informational fluidity so vastly manipulable that the only currency worth a damn anywhere, pretty soon, will be one on one, interpersonal trust.

I don't know to what extent our current global systems are tainted & corrupted, or whether there;s any possible reason worth a damn which could explain any of the crazy BS shenanigans of lying, lying & more lying that we see everywhere in politics, big corporate, intel or mil-industrial. But to what extent our system is meritocratic, well that needs to be enhanced by any & all who are privileged to change the system from the inside out.

If we are dominated by corrupted plutocrats from >7 generational bloodline with occult practice linked to their system of governance, wealth & power, then we'd better start praying, because those people are at risk of being under the control of people who aren't really people. I think.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Maybe shadow, you think? Duuu!

No stars on the Lunar surface should be a no brainer for anyone with photographic knowledge.

Even the best film can only capture a range of light. Just like your eye, the camera has an iris to adjust the light intensity striking the film, based on the given ambient light, to match the range of the film. As the iris is adjusted for the intense brightness on the surface, it takes the camera system far out of range that's needed to capture faint stars.

If a human was there, they would not be able to perceive both the bright surface AND the stars at the SAME time....neither can a camera. If you rotated your view upwards, and waited for your eyes to adjust, maybe you could see the stars while on the surface, same for a camera....it could barely capture the stars. The scene is heavily washed out.

Think of it this way. You couldnt' go outside and capture stars with your cell phone camera, but could easily take razor sharp selfies on the Moon. Closes thing on Earth would be an Arctic setting....you know how bright that is, you have to squint. Ok, can you see the stars now???

Really, it's a no brainer. I was a skeptic for a long time. There are other fishy things about Apollo. I believe the hero astronauts remained in Earth orbit, and a disposable team make the trip to the Moon. In case anything went wrong, cut the feed and the hero astronauts still pop out of the hatch.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Done a bit of time in a dark room myself mate, never could afford to keep up with my old hobby though so let's just say that point is up for debate, it depend's on a number of factor's and yes the high intensity of optical wavelength solar radiation reflected from the lunar surface would have made imaging them harder but you know they may still be there in the negatives but making them visible would then make the lunar scenery a white out - with modern techniques though if we could get our hand's on the Original negative's it may just be possible to perform a clean up of that image and balance out the brightness revealing any stars they did capture.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

That's very kind of them but I don't need their confirmation , the evidence is on the Moon.

Pics or it didn't happen.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Photographic exposure has 3 components film speed /iso now with digital SHUTTER speed and aperture as the Moon is lit by the Sun exposures are similar to daylight on Earth the shutter was open for a fraction of a second film speed was not fast so stars DONT show.

Ask any photographer how exposure works its the exposure triangle.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Have you heard of shadows ?

a reply to: LABTECH767

A fast aperture lets in more light you don't even know the terminology so how can you understand the process.

Pictures of the stars from the Moon with a Hasselblad would have been pointless due to NO tripod poor shutter speed range and film speed better shots could be taken from Earth with telescopes.

Even the Hubble with it's 2.4 mtr mirror has to expose some objects for days.

You should learn about a subject before making stupid claims.

Wait you mean the guys who trolled the election?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: LABTECH767

You are welcome to your belief but in time you will see that is not the case.

It is not that the government wouldn't lie, they would. But the photos are real, and once the moon is regularly seen by other nations and private entities it will be clear. I don't begrudge you your belief though.

You have zero proof of that...and it has been 50 years now...and not a real solid picture to verify after the fact...FIFTY YEARS.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Absolute nonsense..anyone with a cellphone does and has taken pictures of stars.

And too believe in all the times or Any of the times they supposedly were on the moon..they never tried taking pics of the stars from the most likely area EVER that someone WOULD take them is so laughable it beggars belief.

And yet not a thing.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Another one that doesn't understand photographic exposure have a look on the web you can look at Moon pictures and get exposure dteails and the same for stars they are vastly different only the really DUMB can't understand that so that would be you

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Has the moon got resources that money can be made from?

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Their suits had no rediationprotection.....
Big buzzer goin off....with a really low tone

You know the advice of covering up with a t-shirt or something in the hot sun? That's radiation protection. Anything that that is between you and a radiation source is radiation shielding, it doesn't need a sticker on it with 'radiation shielding' written on it.

Yep....and we should have seen a glint from Earth as they made their way inorbit......we got squat......

What??

Ya know, they would left a video cam pointing back at the Earth as they left it for the last time

They did. The rover mounted camera was remotely panned around and did zoom in on Earth.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: CharlesT
www.space.com...
NASA Unveils New Detailed Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Sites

That looks so edited if you want my honest take on that image by Nasa. Its almost 2020 and ever since the 60s there have no new space missions no moon landings at all nor.

The question is are they are trying to hide something up there?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The telemetry date, most of the reel's of film including almost everything the public had never seen and a whole host of other material was classified behind closed door's and taken away so that the public could never ask for it.
There was a thread the other day about going back to the moon if they can ever figure out how to do so.

The telemetry data from one mission was lost. What use, exactly, do you think telemetry data would be? Apollo is one of the most documented science and engineering programmes ever carried out, and you can search for documents about the project and get many many result on the most arcane of topics covering it at Nasa's technical resource server. The lunar samples are available to anyone who cares to ask for them providing they can come up with a good enough experiment.

I do not for one second accept that the SKY is black in space with no stars that is a lie, in fact the visors ARE tinted but you should still be able to see stars.

Why, they are sun's some much brighter than your own, there is no Atmosphere to get in the way and attenuate there light and for camera images the argument has always been that the reflection from the moon was so bright that the camera aperture speed had to be very fast which does not cut it either since even a fast aperture speed would not block out those bright objects.

IF we could not see stars in space then what is the point of space telescopes.

But here is the orthodox argument.
www.physlink.com...

Now to my mind those star's should be brighter than laser pointer's at least those that are relatively near to us and so they should still show up in images, of course if they have also tinted the camera lens then that may explain some stars away.

Apollo astronauts saw, described, navigated by and photographed stars in space. Claims that they didn't, or couldn't, are a lie.

onebigmonkey.com...

My opinion is that they did go to the moon but that there are thing's on the moon such as ancient technology and ruin's from a possible war or catastrophe which the elite want to control for the technological resource these thing's represent allowing them to literally jump thousands of years ahead of there rival's, they also do not want the public to be frightened or to have a CULTURE SHOCK which would destroy some people's religious faith's and even traumatize the stock markets.
They may also have found history from this lost civilization and decided not to make some of it's mistake's so may actually be benignly - at least partially - introducing some of that technology to us over time but given argument's that they know of clean energy sources etc it is mostly just about keeping themselves rich as they obviously care a lot less about the environment down here on earth than we the ordinary people whom they see as sheep do.

www.alternatememories.com...

Unfortunately your opinion about the alien stuff that is there is not borne out by examination of the facts. There is nothing there but rocks and the machinery people left.

originally posted by: AtlasHawk

originally posted by: CharlesT
www.space.com...
NASA Unveils New Detailed Photos of Apollo Moon Landing Sites

That looks so edited if you want my honest take on that image by Nasa. Its almost 2020 and ever since the 60s there have no new space missions no moon landings at all nor.

The question is are they are trying to hide something up there?

Looking edited and it not being genuine are two different things. The fact is that China, Japan and India have all photographed the Apollo landing sites and they all show evidence of human activity exactly as they should. Photographs taken on the ground by Apollo show details such as small rocks and craters that were not known about prior to the missions.

You can't something that anyone could get to and look at. The only things stopping people doing that is cash.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Unfortunately your opinion about the alien stuff that is there is not borne out by examination of the facts. There is nothing there but rocks and the machinery people left.

So the Moon is but rocks and the machinery left by powerful NASA in the 60s and which today in the modern times isnt able to go back to moon? ok sure i believe Nasa!

a reply to: ParasuvO

Your ignorance of the existence of stellar photography by Apollo does not mean it doesn't exist.

onebigmonkey.com...

Let's see your phone photos of the stars.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: LABTECH767

You are welcome to your belief but in time you will see that is not the case.

It is not that the government wouldn't lie, they would. But the photos are real, and once the moon is regularly seen by other nations and private entities it will be clear. I don't begrudge you your belief though.

You have zero proof of that...and it has been 50 years now...and not a real solid picture to verify after the fact...FIFTY YEARS.

There are plenty of photos proving it, you have just decided that you don't believe them.