china to expose americas moon walk

Originally posted by Biscuit
reply to post by Phatcat

 

You get all uppity when I state, "thats been debunked before" but then you go ahead and say you have footage of the astronauts changing film on the surface? Nice one!

How about this I have debunked those stupid shadow lines, numbers on the rocks, multiple light sources, and the ridiculous video with the British voice over so many times that I will only do it again if you show me the footage of the film being changed on the surface first, deal?

Why do you get in my face for not wanting to rehash two of his points when he didn't provide a single piece of evidence for his conspiracy? Double standard?

I have to provide proof of everything I say but you and the other CTers just get to make statements? Come on now, respond with your footage and we will go from there or I get to put you on ignore.
Canisters

about one hour into the first half of the movie 'What Really Happened in the Moon' , you will be able to see first an expert from Kodak testifying changing lenses and film material had to be done inside the 'lunar lander', ànd footage of the 'astronauts' both changing lenses ànd the film container outside of the LL..

This one reply shows me you have not taken the trouble of actually watching what really happened on the moon..

Watch it first, I'll be happy to discuss any inconsistencys you may have found, but, to my mind, it seems easy to 'debunk' statements you have not even investigated.

*edited for adding the link again*

video.google.com...

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Phatcat]

reply to post by Phatcat


The so called evidence involves pictures. In all the pictures taken by the astronauts, the shadows are not black. Objects in shadow can be seen, sometimes fairly clearly, If the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon, they say, and there is no air to scatter that light, shadows should be utterly black.

This is one of my favorite claims. They give you the answer in the claim itself: "...if the Sun is the only source of light..." It isn't. Initially, I thought the Earth was bright enough to fill in the shadows, but subsequently realized that cannot be the case. The Earth is a fraction of the brightness of the Sun, not nearly enough to fill in the shadows. So then what is that other light source?

The answer is: The Moon itself. Surprise! The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came. So if you were to stand on the Moon and shine a flashlight at the surface, you would see a very bright spot where the light hits the ground, but, oddly, someone standing a bit to the side would hardly see it at all. The light is preferentially reflected back toward the flashlight (and therefore you), and not the person on the side.

Now think about the sunlight. Let's say the sun is off to the right in a picture. It is illuminating the right side of the lander, and the left is in shadow. However, the sunlight falling beyond the lander on the left is being reflected back toward the Sun. That light hits the surface and reflects to the right and up, directly onto the shadowed part of the lander. In other words, the lunar surface is so bright that it easily lights up the shadows of vertical surfaces.

Another argument deals with shadows. Several photos from the Moon are shown where objects on the lunar landscape have long shadows. If the Sun were the only light source, the program claims, the shadows should be parallel. The shadows are not parallel, and therefore the images are fake.

This is an interesting claim on the part of the video because on the surface (haha) it seems to make sense. However, let's assume the shadows are not parallel. One explanation is that there are (at least) two light sources, and that is certainly what they are trying to imply. So if there are multiple light sources, where are the multiple shadows? Each object casts one shadow, so there can only be one light source.

Another explanation is that the light source is close to the objects; then it would also cast non-parallel shadows. However, a distant source can as well! In this case, the Sun really is the only source of light. The shadows are not parallel in the images because of perspective. Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions. When the Sun is low and shadows are long, objects at different distance do indeed appear to cast non-parallel shadows, even here on Earth, Hears an example: Strange Shadows?

So i just summed up 30 min of your video in a couple of paragraphs. Hes trying to sell his book wouldnt sell if he said the truth huh?

the moon does indeed reflect light... about 7% of it, which can by no means account for the brightness some of this footage is.

this can be easily proven, too..

in 'What really happened on the Moon' , 2 portions of video footage is shown, allegedly showing the same event.

Neil armstrong video taping Buzz Aldrin exiting the 'Lunar Lander'

In the shot showing Neil taking his part of the shot, you can clearly see Buzz Aldrin is in definite shadows. maybe you could make out his form, maybe even some details.

In the shot allegedly taken by Armstrong, no sign of shadow whatsoever.. shown as if in bright daylight..

First watch the entire docu, thén come back to debate/debunk.

Arguing without having seen this docu I keep refering to is just unproductive and misleading.

reply to post by Phatcat



Thank you for restating that. I guess some people just feel that they already know it all and do not have to even try to listen to what anyone else might have to say. I would really like someone to come back and debunk the entire film. Notice 'mythbusters' did not touch any of the real evidence that this film puts forward.

reply to post by Phatcat



Thank you for restating that. I guess some people just feel that they already know it all and do not have to even try to listen to what anyone else might have to say. I would really like someone to come back and debunk the entire film. Notice 'mythbusters' did not touch any of the real evidence that this film puts forward.

Actually, I have indeed seen that footage of camera 'delta.' Thank you for pointing it out to me again.

That clip doesn't actually show anything in my opinion. He states, "Magazine Delta is working, starting with slide, oh, 1." Who is to say he changed that role on the surface? That 20 or so seconds certainly doesn't show that. As it is attached to his chest it is going to be the Hasselblad 70mm specially adapted to Lunar use. See a diagram here Look where the chest mount is in relation to the film canister, I doubt the film could even be changed without removing from the chest. The footage you referenced clearly shows the camera attached and the astronaut fiddling with the camera, probably adjusting settings for the new role. He probably states "mag delta" so that they have a reference for when that role started for analysis purposes.

It is interesting, if you search for info on the lenses it appears they were meant to, as a precaution, change lenses in the lander but decided to take the risk. Obviously this would not be to hard to do in a space suite especially as they had practiced extensively with the cameras. They even took them home with them! Practise makes perfect!

So far I have not seen footage of the film being changed in any of the cameras being used.

On a side not I apologize for the snarling nature of my earlier post to you. I had a bad night.

What else would you like more information on?

Can you debunk the lunar reflectors? Lunar Laser Ranging

I feel that this experiment, still in use today, debunks everything else. It is proof we were there. On a personal note my father worked on projects that used data from these reflectors.

fact is fact, USA faked moon landing , no doubt as they were lacking to soviets in space tech ...

the much touted space shuttle is a failure and maintainence nightmare, compared to the effective russian soyuz TMA capsule craft , which is much cheaper and successful than the crappy shuttle

Originally posted by Phatcat
the moon does indeed reflect light... about 7% of it, which can by no means account for the brightness some of this footage is.

Where is the science that says 7% of the sun reflecting off the moon would not be enough? You state it is easily proven but you need to prove it with science not opinion. Show me the equation that proves this.

My Family use to manufacture solar filters for terrestrial telescopes. The filters would reject over 98% of the total incoming light and isolate only one single wavelength and still could take photos like this guys. Solar Pics

So that is just 2% on earth with a single wavelength...

What about the Lunar Laser range experiments? Can you debunk these?

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Biscuit]

Originally posted by Phatcat
the moon does indeed reflect light... about 7% of it, which can by no means account for the brightness some of this footage is.

this can be easily proven, too..

in 'What really happened on the Moon' , 2 portions of video footage is shown, allegedly showing the same event.

Neil armstrong video taping Buzz Aldrin exiting the 'Lunar Lander'

In the shot showing Neil taking his part of the shot, you can clearly see Buzz Aldrin is in definite shadows. maybe you could make out his form, maybe even some details.

In the shot allegedly taken by Armstrong, no sign of shadow whatsoever.. shown as if in bright daylight..

First watch the entire docu, thén come back to debate/debunk.

Arguing without having seen this docu I keep refering to is just unproductive and misleading.

!st where is this fact about the moon reflectivity coming from? wow if the moon only reflected back out 7 percent of light it would be pretty dim at night. The moon is almost a mirror the surface is highly reflective and as i previously stated this causes shodows to disapear now if you choose not to believe that thats your choice. Just the fact that the moon is white tends to remove shadows as well case in point go into a white room with only 1 light source. You will have no shadow or very week one now use same light but repaint room blue the shadows will become darker. Interior decorators understand this why cant you?

Originally posted by sadchild01
fact is fact, USA faked moon landing , no doubt as they were lacking to soviets in space tech ...

the much touted space shuttle is a failure and maintainence nightmare, compared to the effective russian soyuz TMA capsule craft , which is much cheaper and successful than the crappy shuttle

You have already been shown how that first statement is wrong.

The space shuttle has nothing to do with this and comparisons to the Soyuz are irrelevant.

reply to post by Biscuit


moon landing is fake , a fact

please continue ranting

Originally posted by Phatcat
the moon does indeed reflect light... about 7% of it, which can by no means account for the brightness some of this footage is.

Actually the the entire face of the moon as seen from Earth, has an albedo of about 8.4%. However there is a very wide variation when individual regions and features are considered. Generally speaking, almost any particular spot on the moon is really pretty bright.

Darkest areas: 8.6%
Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
Plato's floor: 9.6%
Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
Nectaris: 11.4%
Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
Arzachel: 17%
Tycho ejecta: 20%
Aristarchus: 20%
Aristarchus interior: 22%
Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
Proclus E wall: 28%
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%

Source


[edit on 7-10-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by expatwhite

 

King9072
posted on 6-10-2008 @ 03:28 AM ...

Yup im 12, and I just made it to bed for my 6pm bedtime. I hope you dont learn all your history from movies, I can't believe you suggested I go study Apollo 13... lol, hey wait, is anyone ever gonna talk about the fact that its still 1000 times the distance?

"i assume your 12 years old and its your bedtime so no hard feelings, ask teacher tomorrow in class if you can learn about Americas space program and the brave men who took part in it.. Good night"

Hah looks like we got another liberty from freedom trader, yay I LOVE AMERICA! I love America so much, that the government would never lie to me to push its agenda, ever... cause I love them.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by king9072]

another staggering display of muppetry

" i love America" Im english you absolute clown - heres some good advice for you, dont come to a battle of wits unarmed

And i addressed your "1000" times the distance issue repeatedly, not my fault you too simple for it to sink in is it. I will say it again, what bloody difference does the distance make?????????????

Because i mentioned the film apollo 13, those events are not true then? Its absolutely true you spanner. It addresses your "1000" times the distance issues by highlighting the fact that they DIDNT just one day decide to pop off to the moon as you suggest, trajectories were carefully planned.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if this still doesnt sink in though, you remind me very much of another poster on here called big brain-are you the same person?

What a waste of bandwidth

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Phatcat
the moon does indeed reflect light... about 7% of it, which can by no means account for the brightness some of this footage is.

Actually the the entire face of the moon as seen from Earth, has an albedo of about 8.4%.



Generally speaking, almost any particular spot on the moon is really pretty bright.


[edit on 7-10-2008 by Phage]

You do realize how contradictory these statements are when you put them right next to each other right? If the moon's over all albedo is 8.4% then, generally speaking, any particular spot on the moon is going to be within the range that averages out to 8.4%. This would mean that these exceedingly bright spots are really quite rare. But then your incredibly short list of overly bright spots does that too. Now I see why you believe in the moon landing. It only takes you one sentence to remove yourself from your own words. It must not take much to get you to fall for anything.

thanks, phage, for taking the trouble of looking for a source with some data.

Now.. in order to be applicable to this discussion, several key factors have to be researched.

What area the lander was in, how much luminoscity there was at the time of the takes, and which equipment was used in order to film it.

Was an ultra-lowlight lens used, or was it basically just an enlarging lens ?

tip on the lens: that's also touched upon in the docu..

reply to post by Phatcat


I guarantee you these folks are not going to watch it. They think they have heard all the arguments before and they know they are right so why bother. That is the reaction I get usually and that is how I felt. Then I watched these movies and they presented all kinds of things that I had never heard before in any moon landing conspiracy theory. There is a reason that 'mythbusters' stayed away from the type of evidence this doc presents. They would have had to prove it was a hoax or admit they suck. And I love that show. I seriously want to hear some actual debunking of the film, not random hot spots on the moon that do nothing to change the overall average of 8% anyway.

Now wait just a second guys. I have watched that whole film and researched some of the stuff you had questions about. Such as the lens change, which has been explained, and the purported film magazine change that is just an astronaut fiddling with his camera.

Everything having to do with shadows is easily explained as well are most other items from that film. Tell me something specific I need to debunk and I will but you guys need to do the same for me, thats fair right? I do not have time or resources to make my own 2 hour documentary.

So one of you or all of you please explain the Lunar laser range experiment I linked to earlier.

Here is a NGC bit on the experiments please watch this before you comment.

Originally posted by Phatcat
thanks, phage, for taking the trouble of looking for a source with some data.

Now.. in order to be applicable to this discussion, several key factors have to be researched.

What area the lander was in, how much luminoscity there was at the time of the takes, and which equipment was used in order to film it.

Was an ultra-lowlight lens used, or was it basically just an enlarging lens ?

tip on the lens: that's also touched upon in the docu..

I know a bit about photography but I don't know what the significance of using an "ultra low-light" lens (never heard of the "ultra" part) is to this. A large aperture lens does allow more light to reach the film. This does allow photography under lower light conditions but the main advantage is that faster shutter speeds and/or higher f-stops can be used. The the higher the f-stop, the longer the field of view. The faster the shutter speed, the less motion blur will occur with moving subjects. Both of these would be considered desirable under these circumstances. The Hassleblads carried on the Apollo 11 mission had standard, f-2.8/80 mm lens not "ultra low-light lenses". Nice fast lenses, but not what could be called "ultra", or even low light. A low light 80mm lens would have an aperture more like 1.9.

In comparing the black and white video image with the color still image some basic photographic problems are presented. The black and white video camera seems to have very low dynamic range characteristics. These images have a very bright background, necessitating "stopping down" the aperture. The result being the the highlights are very bright and the shadows are very dark, with very little midtone. On the other hand, the still photos were, of course taken with film, not video. Film has a much higher dynamic range and thus midtones are much more visible. Remember too, that these were very high quality cameras, using very high quality film. Comparing the result of the video camera to the results of the Hassleblad is apples and oranges. Two of the still images shown have no backlighting, allowing the full dynamic range of the image to be displayed. The third image does have some background lighting and the brightness of the spacesuit is correspondingly reduced. I notice too that there are still very dark areas on the lander. Wouldn't a fill light have illuminated them as well?

The lander was in the Sea of Tranquility which by that chart shows an albedo of 9.1%. There is bound to be some variation in Tranquillitatis and I don't have any way of finding the albedo at Tranquility Base. It could be brighter or darker in that location.
This chart: shows that the surface at Tranquility Base may have been about equivalent to a (darker) grassy meadow or dark soil on Earth. Not exactly a day at the beach but then, not a coal pit either.

edit to add details about lenses

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Now albedo is based off all light visible spectrum and ultraviolet and infra red the moon dust absorbs most of the ultra violet so albedo is not just concerned with visible light but the entire spectrum. Now back to the video ive already proved several points of the video wrong. But as in any video trying to prove a conspiracy they throw a lot of information at you hoping you buy some of it which will validate the rest. now since this is supposed to be a discussion and your trying to prove we didnt go to the moonI believe you would have to prove we didnt.

Heres another one for you everybody likes to say that videos of the astronauts was shot on earths gravity, due to astonauts couldnt jump 15 feet in the air. The reality is the space suits they wore weighed 82 kg or 180.4 pounds. now as an experiment grab 180 pounds of weight and jump see how high you get. If your in good shape maybe 3 inches now since gravity is lower on the moon that 3 in becomes 18 inches. The space suits were so heavy when nasa tested them and an astronaut fell over it took 2 people to get them up.

So now there goes that so now i explained shadows the lighting theory. Ive explained the van allen belt and how the radiation effected the astronauts. Now in a discussion i believe its your turn show me proof scientifically of why we didn't go to the moon. And i am not talking about trying to show anomalies because all that proves is somebody doesn't understand what there looking at.

reply to post by Phage



I really do hope that you realize that no matter what you put here, you are either backing up one photo or the other. Unless you watch the film, you cannot really even address the specific shots being spoken of. Either way though, you already proved that you do not understand that overall 8% does not equal overall really super bright. Now you are going to go ahead and prove that one photo debunks the other. Good job! Either way, you prove one of the shots must be faked.