Recent Moon Hoax Ideas

reply to post by Donny 4 million


I rest my case. There is nothing you will ever accept as proof we went. You could be standing there on the moon and still say that it doesn't prove a damn thing. You have decided that everyone that agrees we went is a paid agent, and have closed your mind off to the evidence that we went.

Yet again, someone who disagrees, and listens to evidence and logic is labeled as a paid agent. Typical reaction anymore.

, treply to post by jra


Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Can you read Zaphods mind?

YOU SAID this
"It's not hard to know what he meant. "


I said
"Was it possible to photograph the face of a man with the Earth in the background?"


You said
"Of course it's possible, but the guys in mission control probably wouldn't be keen on the idea. Nor do I think any astronaut would want to risk themselves for a photo."

Now that is not a lie but it is things like that, that continues to make you and your task force pretty un -beliveible.

Ok , this may sound a bit lame or not. But shouldnt the earth in this photo be like 6 or 7 times bigger then it appears in this photo? I mean the earth is much bigger then the moon but it looks to be the same size as the moon when you look at it from earth. This just seems odd to me.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Now that is not a lie but it is things like that, that continues to make you and your task force pretty un -beliveible.

I still don't get it. What am I supposed to apologize for?

Originally posted by Reevster
Ok , this may sound a bit lame or not. But shouldnt the earth in this photo be like 6 or 7 times bigger then it appears in this photo?

I talked a bit about this on page 2 of this thread. It has to do with the size of the lens that's used. Most of the time they photographed with a slightly wide angle lens. This will make the Earth (or any object) look a smaller than normal. The opposite happens with a telephoto (zoom) lens.

Originally posted by Reevster
Ok , this may sound a bit lame or not. But shouldnt the earth in this photo be like 6 or 7 times bigger then it appears in this photo?

6 or 7 times? It's a fair question, but I think this stems from a common misunderstanding of just how small celestial objects are in film with wide-angle lenses, like the kind used for most apollo images (and this one). The moon is very difficult to record any detail with using a wide angle lens, the fact that you can clearly make out clouds on earth says a lot. Here's what the moon looks like from earth with a hasselblad and 80mm lens:
www.usefilm.com...
The moon is only about 3 pixels wide, though it is a low res image I grant you. Resizing the apollo picture down to the same size (400 pixels) I get a diameter of the earth of roughly 17 pixels.

Here's a higher res picture of the moon:
www.flickr.com...
I get a moon size of 12 pixels and an earth size of about 37 pixels when sized to the same resolution. Since the moon is completely overexposed it's hard to say what the true pixel size would be if it were properly exposed for the moon instead of surrounding terrain.

Overall, the fact that one image shows the earth to be slightly larger than expected and another shows the earth to be smaller than expected tells me that it's in the right range, and the earth-based images are inconsistent due to the elliptical nature of the moon's orbit, exposure settings, etc. One thing is certain, the earth is not 6 to 7 times too small.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by ngchunter]

The two camps always work with the following lemmas:
Fake photos => fake landings
vs
real landings => real photos

But what if the landings were real and the photos were fake.
There are several good reasons to think that the astronauts couldn't take good photos on the moon.
If Nixon saw lousy photos taken by the astronauts and very good photos made in a studio which were looking like they were taken on the moon, isn't it conceivable that he might have chosen the latter?
I have good reasons to think that there are severe problems with the photos which can't be overlooked.
I have made a thread to explain what these problems were, which make very difficult for me to accept these photos have been taken on the moon.
See my thread (at the end I give a link to a video I made on youtube):

www.angelfire.com...

I have made this video in two versions: one for large monitors (by default), and another one for small monitors you can accede by clicking a link at the start of the thread.

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


It's extremely difficult to read your web page. The huge font doesn't really help matters either. And what's with the Jeep photoshopped into the images? The lack of photo reference numbers doesn't help either.

But from looking over your site. I can see many flaws in your argument. The stars for example don't show up because star light is too faint to show up on film when set for day time exposure settings. It has nothing to do with the luminosity of objects in view of the camera. What you're talking about on your site sounds like it has more to do with the human eye and how it reacts to light and nothing to do with camera's what so ever.

But I'd rather discuss your issues here than try to read through your site or watch your video. So feel free to start a thread here and we can go through what you feel are the problems. I'd like to know the reasons why you think the astronauts couldn't take good photos on the Moon.

The photos I have shown on which Surveyor has been able to catch stars have been taken by daylight and not by night.
So the argument of the brightness of the day is not valid, it should work the same for Surveyor.
The argument of the brightness of the suits of the astronauts may be a point, but is it still valid when the astronauts are taken at some distance?
However, it's not my main point.
My main point is the difference of light in the photos, the foreground which has more luminosity than the background or vice versa.
The fact also that a hill or an astronaut is lit in a too even way.
The fact that the moon reflectivity only applies to the astronauts and never to the moon rocks.
It seriously gives to think, more than the stars or directions and lengths of shadows.


If you think that I have used a too big font, it's possible.
I just thought it might help those who don't have a too good view and like big characters.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by InquisitiveGuy]

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


By 'moon reflectivity' I am assuming you mean when objects in the shadow of another object nevertheless are lit well enough to be photographed?

Well, if that's the case, it's not just Astronauts in shadow, you can see it with other equipment as well.

However, if you simply point to the very dark shadow cast on the ground by a rock, what you are missing is the HEIGHT of the object casting the shadow and the angle (slope) of the terrain the shadow is cast on.

This is counter-intuitive to we who live on the Earth, since our atmosphere scatters light and we don't see deep inky black shadows.

The height of the objects?
But there are also big rocks which are higher than the astronauts which don't benefit of the moon reflectivity; yet they are supposed to give the reflectivity which lights the astronauts.
And there is absolutely no explanation for the difference of light between the foreground and the background on some photos other than the fact that the scene was lit by a projector which is unable to light a landscape the same way the sun does, whatever its quality.
There is even a photo I find outright delirious; it absolutely doesn't look like it was lit by the sun; it rather makes me think of a landscape of the alps by night lit by torchlights!

If you want realistic photos of the moon, look at the photos of surveyor; they look perfectly normal, and I trust them.
They look very different from the color photos with the astronauts, definitively:

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


Again, you're looking at the shadow of a large rock. IS the side of the rock that is on the shadow side completely black?? The 'footprint' of the shadow it casts on the ground is dark, since there's nothing reflecting into it.

IF there were multiple light sources, (as in your "torchlight" analogy) there would be multiple shadows.

Here:

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy

The images you say are from Surveyor are not. They were taken by Jim Irwin from inside the LM after the first EVA.

Here is an example of the Surveyor images:




What you think are stars are dust spots on the low quality scans found here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

In the high quality scans found here the spots do not appear.


There is scanner dust visible in some of the high quality scans as well, as can be seen in this image.





[edit on 5/11/2009 by Phage]

I don't say there are multiple light sources.
There is only a very big costly projector, very powerful which is supposed to replace the sun.
However, for as powerful it can be, it can't replace the sun.
The sun is an incredible powerful source of light, very far away, very concentrated which is able to light all the face of the earth or the moon which is exposed to its light in an even way.
If they had used several sources of light, several powerful projectors, they could have lit the scene in a more even way, but in that case they couldn't have avoided the multiple shadows.
Conclusion: Whatever the way they light the scene, they can't reproduce the effect of the sun.
About your demonstration of Mythbusters, I well know it.
I should like to point out that the experiment was done with the light of a projector and not the sunlight; however, it's true that even with the sunlight, with the help of the relief and reflection you can have shadows of various directions and lengths.
But the sun will always light the foreground and the background the same way, provided that nothing bars its way.

"What you think are stars are dust spots on the low quality scans found here: "

dust spots?
May be, may be not.
But however, I told you it's not my main point.
I didn't insist too much on it.
It's a secondary point for me.
I posted it as secondary evidence.
The light is my main evidence.

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


Guy, if you're attempting to allege that there is some sort of magical man-made light projection technology that could sufficiently mimic the Sun on an alleged 'stage' and be able to illuminate for hundreds if not thousands of meters....then you have a long row to hoe!!

The ability of 'faking' it doesn't exist today, not to mention it didn't exist 40 years ago.

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy

Apparently there is quite a lot you do not understand about photography. Stars are not very bright. In order for them to appear on film there has to be a long exposure time and a wide aperture. If the aperture on the camera in the Apollo photos were opened wide enough and the exposure time were long enough, stars would appear. But if the stars appeared, the surface of the moon would be very very overexposed.

The images that you think show stars do not. The images that, for some reason, you think are from a Surveyor probe, are not. You need to do more research.

The NASA had the budget to have an extremely powerful projector.
Now, since one of you had the goodness to post pictures of Surveyor, look how the foreground and the background are close in luminosity on these pictures.
Now look at the color photos with the astronauts, and notice the important difference of luminosity between the foreground and the background.
How do you explain it?
Witb the sunlight, I can't; on the other hand, with a projector,...

OK, may be the spots are not stars.
However, I have seen a photo with the bright blue atmosphere of the earth and stars visible.
But may be these are just white spots, like you say and not stars.
However, I classified this point as a weak point.
Let's rather discuss my strong point: The difference of luminosity between the foreground and the background.
(and the difference between the reflection of the sun in the visor of an astronaut floating in space and the reflection on the visors of the astronauts supposedly on the moon is also striking).

reply to post by InquisitiveGuy


Sun's reflection in the visors is an invalid comparison.

Too many variables -- lens in the camera used (wide angle or not), distance from the subject, and focal length of the lens.

See, these 'strawman' fallacies crop up (no pun) in the "Hoaxer's" lexicon of 'ideas' and disrupt and deflect the investigation of accuracy.