NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

Only have time for a brief post... But here we go, point by point...

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I am a keen armature photographer...

That would be 'amateur'? So in other words, you have no training or commercial or scientific experience.

I am not disputing that there is lens flare. I am however pointing out that the uniform size and shape of the luminous object in the OP images is very very odd indeed.

Just because an amateur finds something odd doesn't mean it is..
How exactly is it odd? Haven't you seen this enlarged effect before? Is it too big? How big did you expect it to be?

In other words, all you do is handwave - how about some SPECIFICS.

The images were taken at different angles, if this effect was purely lens flare the image would bleed differently as the light source would enter the aperture at different angles. The result would be a difference in size / colour and shape of the luminous object.

MORE handwaving. How should it have 'bled'? Have you ever used a medium format camera with reseau plate? How would you expect a reseau plate to affect the amount of 'bleed'?

I'm sorry, but this is the sort of thing that marks you as a NON-researcher. Vague, unsupported, uneducated claims. No contrary examples, no attempt to quantify what is wrong, or to be specific.

In addition, back then many filters were available that would have filtered out the light at a threshold to avoid over exposure, this fact in itself hints at something not right here.

Sigh. These were snapshots taken by the astronauts. THEY WERE NOT SCIENTIFIC SOLAR MEASUREMENTS. They were not doing solar photography, the sun just happened to be in shot, and the astronaut decided to take the shot.

consider this, knowing how thin the atmosphere is on the moon and so knowing the suns strengh would be vastly greater.

Vastly greater???? Ridiculous. Again, this reveals your complete lack of knowledge on this topic. The difference between the sun's BRIGHTNESS is minimal. Have you never been on a plane at 30-40,000 feet, above much of the atmosphere? How much brighter was the Sun? The evidence for this is right in front of you - WHAT EXPOSURE SETTINGS WERE USED BY THE ASTRONAUTS? HOW DO THEY COMPARE TO EARTHLY SUNLIT EXPOSURES?

See where I am coming from??

Yes, I do. The only explanation I can find is that you are biased towards a view, that you are unwilling to look at realities or specifics, that you refuse to admit you aren't qualified to comment, and that all of this is tinfoilhat handwaving..

By the way, Korg, if you *have* travelled in a plane at >30,000 feet, how on earth did you survive the radiation? Them planes aren't exactly loaded with radiation protection... Others have already taken you to task over that additional area, where again you are clearly unqualified to comment.

So many biased and incorrect comments, so little time.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

It's made by a Frenchman.

I know,
They could have made a documentary about the fact that the Moon is made of cheese instead, and that's why the Moon landings were faked. They do have a sense of humour though, look at all the 2CV's they made...then sold them to us in Limeyland

Originally posted by bochen181

BTW I posted this challenge from the very beginning and so far no one has been able to face the issue head on?


""I challenge anyone (photographer or not) anywhere, to find any photography /original image on the internet (or elsewhere) that has the real "sun" looking like so below when color corrected:

It doesn't matter if it in on Earth, in space or any other NON-Apollo missions, find me ONE single photo of the sun (regardless of SIZE..) that when color corrected comes out looking like the one I show above... ""

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Many members did approach your challenge head on, but instead of finding an arbitrary picture that happens to look like yours after some even more arbitrary editing, they tried to explain to you how such an artefact may come to be.

To me it seems like it's time to forget about the technical details (they have been thoroughly explained by now) and instead focus on the images you provided.

If I'm not mistaken, the images you have put forth as evidence are AS17-134-20410, AS12-46-6739, AS12-46-6765, AS17-147-22509, and AS17-147-22554. Since the principle I'd like to show is the same for all of these, I'll focus on the one you specifically intended to be challenged (on page 3); AS12-46-6765.

If you allow me to sidetrack for a second: why didn't you clearly state which image it was? If you're really trying to get others to see the truth, why won't you make it easy for them to get to the same conclusion? Either way, I found the very image you've used for the cropped version on page 3 (AS12-46-6765).

In your "color corrected" version, the source of light appears to be some kind of amorphous blob. Certainly not the round sun as we see it in color-corrected versions of photographs without flares; neither is it the star-like form you produced from photographs of the sun with intense flares. If I'm not mistaken, that is the pivotal point of your argument.

When you attempt to improve on any image (i.e. alter it as to uncover information less or not visible previously), it's important to use the highest resolution of the image you can find. This is especially true when manipulating the dynamics of light.
So I did a google image search and came up with a version of AS12-46-6765 of size 3900 x 3900. With such a resolution, "color correction" is not even necessary; simply turning down the brightness and raising the level of contrast will result in a clear image. Respectively, your version and my version of AS12-46-6765.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/b3790ec24267bd4a.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/f557b0a2946ecd00.png[/atsimg]
(full size images respectively here and here)

I had to scale up your version to match half of the resolution of the image I used, so there might be some artificial artefacts in your version by my account. None of them, however, are of the order of magnitude as the artefacts you have produced by "color correction".

In my version you can clearly see the sun in the center of the flare, with a sundog above and to the right of it (unless that's supposed to be a smaller lightbulb, mounted askew). It also becomes apparent what is a flare and what is not; light artefacts are never as bright as the source of light itself, and therefore we can separate the artefacts from the source of light by lowering the brightness and raising the contrast.

You can verify this in any photo of the sun; try to make the center of the sun disappear by above mentioned actions. You'll notice that every artefact disappears before the center of the sun, but that the border of the sun stays visible as much as the center; that's because there is relatively little difference in the amount of light originating from the center of the sun versus the border of the sun. The difference in direction of radiation is counterbalanced by the fact that more of the suns surface is visible per square inch at the border of the sun (since the angle of vision is tangential in relation to the surface of any sphere at the 2d border). Note however, as demonstrated by the images above, that problems arise when the quality of the image is not great enough to properly relay the dynamics of light (whether due to compression or simply resolution itself).

Of course you could argue that there is no way a flare from the sun as photographed from the moon could be that big or bright. At the very least, though, I hope you'll agree that my version of AS12-46-6765 shows the following:

1. The source of light is singular, circular and homogeneous (resembling a light-emitting sphere); it is not amorphous nor as big as depicted in your version.
2. The large and bright circles are light artefacts, not a source of light itself; for they are not as bright nor of the same quality as the source of light in the center of the circle.

P.S. Please realize that I took the time to track down the image you have used, find the highest resolution, edited it to depict the source of light as accurately as my skills allow me to using only brightness and contrast, rescaled and cropped both your and my version so they match exactly, and tried to articulate my thoughts as to the meaning of it all. All this to end up at the conclusion that your version depicts a shape that isn't really there. The reason I took this time is that I hope you too take the time to reflect on what is accurate, and what is not. It would be appreciated!

hi i think after looking at your picture scraze thanks for that, anyway my conclusion after looking i think i can see the edge of the whole "lamp' or?

peace

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki
hi i think after looking at your picture scraze thanks for that, anyway my conclusion after looking i think i can see the edge of the whole "lamp' or?

peace

Hi MrAnn,
What Scraze is demonstrating is the same as the OP's picture, only Scraze's picture has more emphasis, and what it shows easily is that there is a much smaller central ball of light, (the source) which is brighter than the periphery, and that is really all you need to know. It could be a torch, a lightbulb, a spotlight or even the Sun.

Originally posted by bochen181
It appears that despite all that has gone on, still no one has successfully taken me up on my challenge.

Are we reading the same thread?

Or what about the fact that there is no flume coming out for the ascent stage of the lunar module at liftoff...

First of all, I think the word you want is "plume".

Secondly, Phage explained on page 3 that the Shuttle's RCS thrusters use a different propellant then the LM's Ascent engine. So of course they are not going to appear the same.

I'd also like to reiterate my request that I made on page 12 for more information on the angle of the Sun in your 3dsmax file. In fact, it would be even better if you could send me the .max file so that I could take a look at it myself, if possible.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Different shadow angles.

Though I still don't get how the angles of a shadow can be different if the source is the sun... I mean its sooooo far away and light surely always hits from the same direction because of this right?

Is confused how this could happen...

Korg, it's not only the lay of the ground that matters, as phage rightly mentioned but also remember that what you're seeing is an optical illusion. If you measure the distances between any two points of the shadows they'd be the same, meaning the shadows are parallel. It's just perspective created by:

1. The angle of the Sun above the horizon.
2. The lay of the ground.

Now apply this to that Moon photograph.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

I dont want to come across as rude, even though i seem so with this post....
seriously peeps i can watch this he said she said bussiness go on all day, but the anti moon landing conspiracy buffs have to get a grip, why you guys may ask? simple.....the COMMIES.....remember them, remember the space race...who beat the yanks with the first satellite and man, dog, cat, plant whatever into space....do you guys really think that if it was faked the commies would have allowed the yanks to get away with it and tarnish their prestigious victories, think of how they would have peddled the might of communism etc if it was all a hoax just to rub the capitalists noses in it....there would have been nothing the usa could have used to bargain with the ussr to keep their mouths shut....

[edit on 18/3/10 by spender]

What's that object in the far left hand side?? I circled it.

reply to post by negplus


TV camera

[edit on 3/18/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by scraze
...
Many members did approach your challenge head on, but instead of finding an arbitrary picture that happens to look like yours after some even more arbitrary editing, they tried to explain to you how such an artefact may come to be.
...
I'll focus on the one you specifically intended to be challenged (on page 3); AS12-46-6765.
...
In your "color corrected" version, the source of light appears to be some kind of amorphous blob. Certainly not the round sun as we see it in color-corrected versions of photographs without flares; neither is it the star-like form you produced from photographs of the sun with intense flares. If I'm not mistaken, that is the pivotal point of your argument.

When you attempt to improve on any image (i.e. alter it as to uncover information less or not visible previously), it's important to use the highest resolution of the image you can find. This is especially true when manipulating the dynamics of light.
So I did a google image search and came up with a version of AS12-46-6765 of size 3900 x 3900. With such a resolution, "color correction" is not even necessary; simply turning down the brightness and raising the level of contrast will result in a clear image. Respectively... my version of AS12-46-6765.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/f557b0a2946ecd00.png[/atsimg]
...
In my version you can clearly see the sun in the center of the flare, with a sundog above and to the right of it (unless that's supposed to be a smaller lightbulb, mounted askew). It also becomes apparent what is a flare and what is not; light artefacts are never as bright as the source of light itself, and therefore we can separate the artefacts from the source of light by lowering the brightness and raising the contrast.

You can verify this in any photo of the sun; try to make the center of the sun disappear by above mentioned actions. You'll notice that every artefact disappears before the center of the sun, but that the border of the sun stays visible as much as the center; that's because there is relatively little difference in the amount of light originating from the center of the sun versus the border of the sun. The difference in direction of radiation is counterbalanced by the fact that more of the suns surface is visible per square inch at the border of the sun (since the angle of vision is tangential in relation to the surface of any sphere at the 2d border). Note however, as demonstrated by the images above, that problems arise when the quality of the image is not great enough to properly relay the dynamics of light (whether due to compression or simply resolution itself).

Of course you could argue that there is no way a flare from the sun as photographed from the moon could be that big or bright. At the very least, though, I hope you'll agree that my version of AS12-46-6765 shows the following:

1. The source of light is singular, circular and homogeneous (resembling a light-emitting sphere); it is not amorphous nor as big as depicted in your version.
2. The large and bright circles are light artefacts, not a source of light itself; for they are not as bright nor of the same quality as the source of light in the center of the circle.

P.S. Please realize that I took the time to track down the image you have used, find the highest resolution, edited it to depict the source of light as accurately as my skills allow me to using only brightness and contrast, rescaled and cropped both your and my version so they match exactly, and tried to articulate my thoughts as to the meaning of it all. All this to end up at the conclusion that your version depicts a shape that isn't really there. The reason I took this time is that I hope you too take the time to reflect on what is accurate, and what is not. It would be appreciated!

Wow, scraze - bravo! I'd like to pretend that I would have done an equally good job when I continued my analysis, but I doubt it..

One additional thing. I would lay a very sizable bet that if we did a raytracing of the internal design of the Hasselblad, showing the reseau plate, we could work out the angles and show that the larger circle corresponds to the rays that bounced off the film/backplate, hit the reseau plates bottom and top surfaces, and then returned to the film. That would have created two correspondingly wider circles, relatively close together, exactly as shown by the 'double-edged' effect in your (exceptionally well) gamma-adjusted version (NOT color-corrected - that would be a useless thing to do).

I don't have the accurate numbers for that final analysis to hand, but I would imagine they can be dug up if anyone other than bochen seriously still believes he has 'found something'.

What would impress me more is for one of the folks promoting these theories to actually get off their butts, realise that the internal design of the Hass (esp. that reseau plate) was a VERY significant issue, and then go and do the necessary legwork themselves, instead of flinging bull---- around.

It's called 'burden of proof'. Genuine researchers know what that is - their worklives depend on it.. And they LEARN stuff. Some people don't want to do that, especially if it threatens their pet fantasy.


Thanks again, scraze - you've saved me a lot of time..

And AGAIN, for those with reading comprehension difficulties, if a large spotlight was used, every shadow would have a penumbra. You can pore over every film scan from every Apollo mission - there is no sign of a penumbra.

(funnily enough, I can think of a way around that for the hoax-believers - it surprises me (..joking!!) that they aren't smart enough to have come up with it...)

No one really wants to talk about the "waving flag" at 2:37 into the clip. I've heard all kinds of fantastical stories and "excuses and explanations" ranging from static discharge, to shaky camera, to moving camera, to earthquake on the moon, to UFO influence, to residual vibrations/ residual motion, to "the moon has a very thin atmosphere", endless "explanations" - but no one really wants to admit that the flag waving at 2:37 could only have happened in a staged environment.

No-one 'admits' it because it isn't true. The flag movement has been discussed ad infinitum on this and many other forums before over many years. It's been thoroughly debunked and there's a simple explanation - it's down to inertia. The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Due to the lack of an atmosphere to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag.

As I've already said, every single anomalous claim raised by the tinfoilhat pro-hoax lobby has been thoroughly debunked before and there exists not a scrap of scientific evidence to suggest the landings were faked.

It astounds me that the same lame accusations are repeated time and time again by the hoax fans when even the most elementary and basic research can easily establish the truth.

I'm sorry if you've all wasted hours hunched over your laptops drooling over bizarre Youtube video junk and the ill-informed ramblings of crackpots and 'earn a fast buck' hucksters on their 'knocked up in a day' conspiracy websites, but we went to the moon and this is easily verifiable with even a small amount of research.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Different shadow angles.

Though I still don't get how the angles of a shadow can be different if the source is the sun... I mean its sooooo far away and light surely always hits from the same direction because of this right?

Is confused how this could happen...

Korg, it's not only the lay of the ground that matters, as phage rightly mentioned but also remember that what you're seeing is an optical illusion. If you measure the distances between any two points of the shadows they'd be the same, meaning the shadows are parallel. It's just perspective created by:

1. The angle of the Sun above the horizon.
2. The lay of the ground.

Now apply this to that Moon photograph.

Astonishing. Korg proclaims that s/he is good at this photography stuff and image analysis, yet s/he hasn't seen converging lines, or recognise them when they are sticking out like the proverbial you-know-whats????

I guess s/he's never taken a sunset image either?:

Tell us, Korg, are those lines effectively parallel, or not? Think VERY carefully before you answer, and remember how far away the sun is...

May I suggest Korg does a little research on:
perspective
and then go to the advanced stuff, like:
anticrepuscular rays
moon tilt illusion

Have fun!

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Different shadow angles.

Astonishing. Korg proclaims that s/he is good at this photography stuff and image analysis, yet s/he hasn't seen converging lines, or recognise them when they are sticking out like the proverbial you-know-whats????

I guess s/he's never taken a sunset image either?:

Tell us, Korg, are those lines effectively parallel, or not? Think VERY carefully before you answer, and remember how far away the sun is...

May I suggest Korg does a little research on:
perspective
and then go to the advanced stuff, like:
anticrepuscular rays
moon tilt illusion

Have fun!

firstly. CHRLZ you seem to be trying to provoke me for some reason, is it a battle of intellignce then? to enter into a battle as such without first understanding who you are conversing with is an indication of either utter arrogance or lack of what you feel you poses..

secondly, Just because I’m into photography does not make me an image analyst, I take pictures that are aesthetic... I am not a technical photographer..

I take pictures such as this..







and lastly, I'm not afraid to learn new things and if I find something out that is against my previous understanding I will learn as opposed to being stubborn...

is that so wrong?

I concur that the image above looks correct for the aforementioned phenomenon.

However, non of these effects can explain why the luminous object in the op post is a uniform shape and size regardless of angle and position of the camera.

Did you check out red dot yet??

Korg.

OK, I'll concede my post was a little cheeky. I apologise.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
firstly. CHRLZ you seem to be trying to provoke me for some reason, is it a battle of intellignce then? to enter into a battle as such without first understanding who you are conversing with is an indication of either utter arrogance or lack of what you feel you poses..

First up, and I truly mean this - there are some very nice images there - and I'm presuming they are yours.. So you clearly are quite a bit more than just an amateur.

There, see how nice I can be!

secondly, Just because I’m into photography does not make me an image analyst, I take pictures that are aesthetic... I am not a technical photographer..

Well, even though cameras these days are pretty good at doing all the hard work, the images you posted suggest more than a passing knowledge of how to use a camera. Like I said, nice work.

However, even if you are a brilliant technical photographer in those respects, that doesn't mean you are good at photogrammetry, or analysing lunar images.

and lastly, I'm not afraid to learn new things and if I find something out that is against my previous understanding I will learn as opposed to being stubborn...

Excellent. The hope that some folk will learn is why I spent some time a few pages back doing a very extensive preliminary analysis of the key issues in coming to any conclusion about the image in question. Now, scraze has followed on with a very good example of the next step, that being to properly use post-processing techniques on the best possible version of the image to extract whatever information is possible.

Next would be a process of identifying exactly how these effects were likely to have been created, taking into account the optical design of the camera/lens/reseau plate/backplate/aperture, film sensitivity, etc.

It's a long process, not simple, and it's possible that at the end of it no conclusion can be absolutely, verifiably reached.

Now IF you have any issues with the process that I have outlined, or scraze's next steps, then please be specific.

What I would be doing next is to demonstrate the concepts and issues using different cameras, but I currently don't have access to an MF camera with similar lens. And even that would not be sufficient - it would really have to be a Hasselblad of the right model, with the fairly rare 60mm Zeiss Biogon lens, and of course a reseau plate...

As I said earlier, a reasonable simulation might be doable from specifications and ray-tracing, but I'm not sure if those spec's are easily available, and it would be reasonably challenging. I may chase that up, but frankly, I'm a bit over it!

I concur that the image above looks correct for the aforementioned phenomenon.

Again, that's good. Scraze has done a fine job of post-processing and finding what must be a very good quality scan. It can be difficult or impossible to extract useful information from a 'blown' area of an image, no matter how good your technique is. Once an image is completely blown to white, then there is nothing you can do to delve 'into' that area.

However, non of these effects can explain why the luminous object in the op post is a uniform shape and size regardless of angle and position of the camera.

??? Seriously, after what you have just said, I don't understand.. Do you dispute that it should be round? On what basis - after all, it is easy to just Google up sun glare, and see plenty of similar big round blobs. And what do you mean by the angle/position of the camera? The lenses used are of exceptional quality, and they do not do much in the way of distorting things. So for a given exposure, why on earth or moon wouldn't they be similar sizes, and round or close to it?

Did you check out red dot yet??

Do you mean The Red One, perhaps? If not, then no - link?

Yes, I certainly know of the red one... But frankly I'd prefer to just use a Canon 7D or similar. The movies from that type of camera are just stunning, and one day I might be able to afford one... The red one is a bit like a Lamborghini.. Won't be one of those in my garage without a very major lottery win.


I hope you'll take this in the spirit intended. I'm not trying to be an ..... (insert favorite term), but I do get very sick of the sheer volume of misinformation posted on this topic. I'm very happy to deal with point by point, careful dissections of information, but when someone just says "that doesn't look right!!!" without supporting information, or on the basis of very amateurish analyses, my blood temperature rises a little.

Anyway, I shall try to stay nice.

Red Dot

Thank you and of course they are my images some of the best I've taken thus far I feel.

As you may be able to tell from the link above that I tend to favour Leica Cameras though the higher spec ones are wayyyy over my budget... maybe re-mortgage my house to get one lol

Leica seems to be able to react quickly enough to take good shots on the fly, I seem to have an eye for what will look good as it happens, rarely do I set things up.. Ohh that and picking the one out of the squillions of shots I take.

These shots were all taken at one of my best friend’s wedding the guy shaving (though I wasn't best man boooo).

The old guy is some relative not sure who exactly but i love the way this turned out, I think it’s one of my favourites because you can really see his character in his face.

And I’m not saying that the luminous object should not be round, but honestly have you ever seen identical lens flare when taking multiple images from multiple angles? I certainly haven't in all the time I’ve been shooting.

All the best,

Korg.


[edit on 18-3-2010 by Korg Trinity]

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Red Dot

Ahaaa. I saw that link, but as I'm not from the uk and it just seemed to be a camera store, I didn't bother checking it. That's why I figured you might have meant the Red One.

I've always lusted after a Leica, but never had one pop up at the right time. And I'd have to be brutal and say that some of their digital efforts have left me a little less enthusiastic nowadays! Hmm, maybe that wasn't the right thing to say - is yours a digital? I did say 'some'... hope it's not one of the recalled ones..!

Leica seems to be able to react quickly enough to take good shots on the fly, I seem to have an eye for what will look good as it happens, rarely do I set things up.. Ohh that and picking the one out of the squillions of shots I take.

Yes, you have the right camera for 'the moment'. That aspect - the ability to react quickly, is one of the worst aspects of most consumer digitals. It's gradually improving, but not before time.

These shots were all taken at one of my best friend’s wedding the guy shaving (though I wasn't best man boooo). The old guy is some relative not sure who exactly but i love the way this turned out, I think it’s one of my favourites because you can really see his character in his face.

I agree - I think it's the best of the group.

And I’m not saying that the luminous object should not be round, but honestly have you ever seen identical lens flare when taking multiple images from multiple angles?

I agree. But only to the second part.

The thing is, that big round circle is not 'lens flare', at least in the 'normal' sense of the word. It is caused by two separate effects - first of all, the blooming/spreading that appears simply because of a HUGE overload of photons that completely overwhelm the film's ability to 'stop' them. By backplate reflections, transmission sideways in the film, and numerous other mechanisms, the sun image simply spreads out.

Now if that was all it was, then I agree, it looks a bit big (but that is more handwaving - shame on me!). However, there is also the reseau plate issue. That additional piece of glass sitting in front of the film absolutely guarantees that all of the sunlight reflecting back off the film during that (over-)exposure then travels up, hits both the bottom and top glass surfaces of the reseau plate, and then a significant amount comes down again from those two additional 'mirrors' and (over)exposes more film.

You need to remember that the bundle of light rays that is hitting the film is NOT a straight set of perpendicular, parallel rays. They are spreading out in an upside down V shape when they hit the film. So as they bounce back upwards, they are spreading further out. They hit the reseau, still angling outwards, then come back down going even further outwards and hit the film again. Hence the much wider circle. This might be repeated once, twice or more until the flood of photons is finally soaked up....

I certainly haven't in all the time I’ve been shooting.

Well, I'm sure you have seen a big blown out sun before.. And if you try taking several pictures of that at different angles, you will find that all those blobs are fairly circular and consistent, given fixed manual exposures (it depends to an extent on the lens design and focal length).

What you probably haven't seen (nor have I, except in the Apollo photography!), is what happens if you have a (fairly thick) glass filter mounted behind the lens and significantly above the sensor or film.

Yes, the other sort of lens flares, caused by refractions and reflections off lens barrel internals, aperture blades, lens elements, film box components, etc, will indeed get skewed into odd shapes scattered around the image. But not the big blob..

Maybe I should try to draw a ray-tracing diagram to explain, but I'm hoping that will make sense. In summary, that big circle is not your ordinary lens flare.

Anyway, getting back to your images, you have a genuine talent - keep it up. You remind me of me when I was younger (immodest grin!). Used to do weddings once, but am now more of a land/cityscape and panorama shooter. Also used to do photography/imaging in a research environment, and also teach it.. no kidding.

But I do tell people to not believe everything you read on the web, so I'd be skeptical if I was you... I should post some of my images, but I'm tired and going to bed. Maybe later.

Originally posted by aik4on

No one really wants to talk about the "waving flag" at 2:37 into the clip. I've heard all kinds of fantastical stories and "excuses and explanations" ranging from static discharge, to shaky camera, to moving camera, to earthquake on the moon, to UFO influence, to residual vibrations/ residual motion, to "the moon has a very thin atmosphere", endless "explanations" - but no one really wants to admit that the flag waving at 2:37 could only have happened in a staged environment.

No-one 'admits' it because it isn't true. The flag movement has been discussed ad infinitum on this and many other forums before over many years. It's been thoroughly debunked and there's a simple explanation - it's down to inertia. The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Due to the lack of an atmosphere to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag.

As I've already said, every single anomalous claim raised by the tinfoilhat pro-hoax lobby has been thoroughly debunked before and there exists not a scrap of scientific evidence to suggest the landings were faked.

It astounds me that the same lame accusations are repeated time and time again by the hoax fans when even the most elementary and basic research can easily establish the truth.

I'm sorry if you've all wasted hours hunched over your laptops drooling over bizarre Youtube video junk and the ill-informed ramblings of crackpots and 'earn a fast buck' hucksters on their 'knocked up in a day' conspiracy websites, but we went to the moon and this is easily verifiable with even a small amount of research.

hi

tinfoilhat, crackpots peeps xD lmfao øD but hey u didnt debunk the "waving flag" the "experts" did always them.

And if some suggest a hoax it automatically turn into sh1t and after a while even more sh1te we are the tinfoilhat, crackheads drug fcked for life people yey ^^ not fair.

deal with it we are being screwed over and over until we accept it lol for that.

peace

reply to post by bochen181



i also believe it was staged for the most part

ohh it is true humans were on the moon !! but its not what people think how the Astronauts got there ! the Astronauts got there by other means just imagine how ( beyond our technology )



love the pic you display of Stanley Kubrick 2001: A Space Odyssey ironically there is a fake documentary floating around cyberspace about Stanley Kubrick directed the stage moon landing and the shots of Apollo 11

there are many skeptics in a few Authentic Camera Shots you can see a Video/Movie /stage camera outline johngushue.typepad.com...

moon landing conspiracy's
en.wikipedia.org...

here is the video of Stan Kubrick claim he directed the hoax but it is claim to be faked the documentary Dark side of the moon
a little blurry but watchable if you can find a better video please post

video.google.com...#

but really could be be done ! well the orbiting around the moon they could ! here's a bit of evidence of that fact

LOLA moon model at Langley near Hampton (Virginia), foto of 1.8.1965, foto no. L-65-5579. With this model you can make many beautiful "moon fotos", even with a little railway with camera to simulate moon orbits...

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...


the source of above

www.geschichteinchronologie.ch...


is this on the stage >? they taking publicity shots for the elite before the big show LOL i dont know as im just guessing here it i really do not have the real info of this picture notice the gray like moon dust like ground ? and everything is sort of darken out except them the rover THE Lunar! in the picture Apollo 15
www.honeysucklecreek.net...


here is something interesting you think maybe Kubrick got his ideas from a soviet movie called Road to the Stars ? it makes you think

here is the source that i found that out from ! very convincing
www.astronautix.com...











[edit on 19-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 19-3-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by MrAnnunaki


hi

tinfoilhat, crackpots peeps xD lmfao øD but hey u didnt debunk the "waving flag" the "experts" did always them.

And if some suggest a hoax it automatically turn into sh1t and after a while even more sh1te we are the tinfoilhat, crackheads drug fcked for life people yey ^^ not fair.

deal with it we are being screwed over and over until we accept it lol for that.

peace

Yes, experts have debunked these claims conclusively, that's my point.

As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't understand you. But I guess it's typical of the level of debate we've come to expect from the hoax believers.

Guys, you have been thoroughly duped and conned by a bunch of shysters trying to make a fast buck with their vids, books and adsense goldmine websites. If you are angry then direct your ire at these con artists, not NASA.