More Fodder for Lunar Landing Hoax: Earth Scale

Alpha: Thanks for the info, your explanation made great sense.

Byteshertz: I was pretty upfront in the original post as well as subsequent ones that I am not a camera guy by a LONG shot. I made a casual observation, figured I'd compare some photos in photoshop. To my mind, the results seemed off, so I made a thread. The thread generated healthy debate, which quickly showed me I was wrong, due to a profound lack of knowledge regarding camera hardware (Or at best my "test" is completely invalid).

Sometimes in life you learn more by trying something that fails than by not.

I think we're all failing to ask the most obvious question...

Forget lenses or dolly-zooms, or any other reason (read, 'excuses'), don't you think the astronauts would have been compelled to take MANY pictures of the beautiful Earth that (regardless of the afore-mentioned technologies or techniques) would appear to be 3.66x bigger than the disc theyre used to seeing with their naked eye.

I recall no such pictures. (?!)


This pic speaks volumes:

reply to post by SquirrelNutz

I recall no such pictures.

There are a few, but remember that the Earth was fairly high above the horizon during the Apollo landings. You can research that if you wish.

The Hasselblad cameras that the Astronauts carried on their EVAs had no viewfinders. Also, as has been pointed out already, the focal length of the lenses wouldn't result in any spectacular images of Earth.

There were plenty of other reasons to take photos, and plenty of specialized cameras used to take photos of Earth, not just using the photographic equipment carried by Apollo. Also, there are the ones taken while in Lunar orbit, and enroute to/from.

Here....look at the angle, how high above the horizon the Moon was, in this photo:

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
...don't you think the astronauts would have been compelled to take MANY pictures of the beautiful Earth ...

Remember also that they didnt have an infinite amount of film.
The mission was to take photos of the moon and "wasting" them on photos of earth that could be taken at any other time on any other mission as had been done many times before, might not have been the best idea.

A google search tells me that Apollo 11 astronauts only had one film magazine per camera for their EVA.
Use them wisely.

reply to post by ProudBird

It should be larger than that. I'm sticking my neck out here. The Earth looks too small in that pic!

reply to post by Pimander


Your neck is fine. Let common sense and intuitive knowing prevail. If you haven't taken a look at David McGowan's
piece "Wagging the Moondoggie" ...do ...I thought Moon Hoax CT's were off the deep end until I read his research. He goes toe to toe with NASA's pet debunkers and makes them look like disingenuous fools, or the liars that they are. Check it:

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...

You'll be glad you did.

reply to post by Pimander

The Earth looks too small in that pic!

It is a result of the lens focal length. Canon has a site that shows examples of how focal length will change the relative sizes in an image, depending on how far away it is from the plane of the film. (And, the Earth is essentially at infinity, in the example taken from the Lunar surface).

www.usa.canon.com...

Here's a list of camera equipment just on Apollo 16 (the still and film movie cameras were mostly the same, each mission that landed. The last three 'J' missions, 15, 16 and 17 carried different video cameras, made by RCA, compared to the earlier TV cameras made by Westinghouse):

history.nasa.gov...

The Hassies used on the EVAs had the 60mm lenses.....they had the 500mm telephoto lens too, but in the photo linked above, I doubt the foreground Astronaut and flag would have been in focus, at that distance if using the 500mm lens.


I was not aware of this camera, listed on Apollo 16, the battery operated 16mm film movie camera:

16mm Battery Operated Camera (movie)
10mm Lens

As you see, with a 10mm lens, would give quite a "fish-eye" effect. If that image was simply one frame from a series of 16mm film footage, would also account for the relative size of the Earth in the distance......will have to find the photo reference, from the ALSJ site perhaps.....

reply to post by Pilot


Why not take a look at my post, to Pimander just above.

Before investing into the nonsense from "Wagging the Moondoggie"....

Just on page one (and, it was a bit of a trudge to wade through all the garbage and verbiage from McGowan....)....he mentions the "700 cartons of missing tapes", and claims they are the video tapes of the Apollo 11 EVA.

WRONG!

They are inconsequential telemetry data recordings. All of the "oh, so important" *details* like the Astronaut's heart rate and CO2 levels at every flipping moment during the mission.

Gee.....here's where the "Hoax Nuts" like him, and a few very vocal others you find in Web searches that still make the Apollo* fake* claims shoot themselves in the foot.....if NASA wished to perpetrate a *hoax*, then the very last thing to do is something on purpose, to give the nuts ammunition....right?

Of course, McGowan's article came out in, what? 2009? Just at or before the LRO camera began to return the excellent images that prove the Apollo landing sites are there. Oh, he references them, but poo-poos them ignorantly. I got to page two of his mess of diatribe....it is utter rubbish. The man is a fool (or, a provocateur who knows what he writes is hogwash, but does it for publicity and notoriety)...or, it shows in his inability to comprehend the science and technology.

Just recently, the LRO satellite and camera were maneuvered to a lower altitude, to get better resolution photos. The era of the "Apollo hoax" is over, and many a crow have gone into hiding, lest they be on the menu.

Apollo 17, still there after all these years:

This is an issue of focal length.
Get somebody who understands photography to explain it to you OP.
I've tried to take pictures of the moon over the years with various cameras and lenses, they all come out different, in some of the pictures the moon looks tiny like a pea.
This kind of thing is just what hoax believers love: bad science, misinterpretation, ignorance.

reply to post by ProudBird

Yes, they have been to the Moon. That does not mean that none of the images are suspicious. I think they aren't telling us the whole story.







None of the above prove anything. Very odd though.

A guy I spoke to from RAF Human Intelligence insists that the body language and intonation of the astronauts of Apollo (post mission) are what they look for in someone hiding something. They should know.

reply to post by Pimander


The Apollo 17 video with the cake cutting ceremony is not "evidence"...it is a compilation of assumptions and nonsense from 'LunaCognita'....the injuries are there, you can clearly see...it has been documented that their fingers would get sore from the gloves. But, what is NOT understood is that after their EVAs were completed, they lived in a 100% oxygen atmosphere for the entire trip back to Earth, and the injuries had all that time to heal.

Also, the video attempts to make it appear that they were plucked out of the ocean after splash down, and whisked immediately to cut the cake! Without a chance to rest a bit, get showered, clean up? To have a medical check-up? Does anyone think that's the way it happened?

The other ones are also bandied about far, far too often by "hoax" believers:

A guy I spoke to from RAF Human Intelligence insists that the body language and intonation of the astronauts of Apollo (post mission) are what they look for in someone hiding something. They should know.

Proves nothing, since you can see what you want to see. I say that what we are seeing is guys who have realized they've just hit the high point of their careers, and nothing in future can ever top what they've accomplished.

Also, they are tired of being in the spotlight, and maybe are just resentful that their duties include such press conferences.....especially Armstrong who shunned the press in those days.

The older Armstrong video shows only that he is more comfortable with public speaking (after all the years, and also a stint as a University instructor), but people who so desperately want him to be "covering up" something cling to that wish, and see whatever they imagine.

Twelve men, and their different demeanors afterwards.....eighteen if you add the six CMP (Command Module Pilots) who didn't land. Twenty-one if you add in Apollo 13, for three more who circumnavigated the Moon......heck, make it twenty-four men, because Apollo 8 also went.

So, 24 potential candidates to have "spilled the beans", and all the *hoax* believers find are a few vague "hints" (that they imagine) from Armstrong, many, many years after the fact???

On a related topic, there was a HUGE amount of "evidence" floating around ATS a few months back that "proved" that NASA was lying about comet Elenin.

But in the light of hindsight, it is now clear that all this "proof" was garbage and NASA were actually telling the truth all along and hiding nothing. Many people owe NASA an apology.

I'm of the opinion that one can find "proof" for anything at all if one searches hard enough.

reply to post by blamethegreys


I for one just want to say "well done" example that was fun to read. Although not scientific, your theory and pictures were not the usual (sax player was great). Fun to read

CJ

reply to post by alfa1
I thought all along that the Elenin furore was nonsense. I'm not just some believe anything you read type of moron. I notice how you keep disingenously trying to pretend that anyone who thinks there is something suspicious also believes we have not been to the Moon or other nonsense. Well I DO NOT. GEDDIT?

However, we are not being told the whole story. I'm suspicious, and think in time you guys will look foolish and I will be vindicated - as I was when I posted the thread below.

Originally posted by Pimander posted on 20/9/11 @ 23:14

Apocalypse/Elenin tripe is something to waste Zombie Sheeple's time and stop you finding the truth

Cant you guys see what is happening here? All this end of the world, apocalypse, Elenin tripe is clearly just a way of getting conspiracy theorists to waste their time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d9426498349.png[/atsimg]

While you're all arguing which of this rubbish is the closest/furthest from reality you could be investigating something of substance. If you believe there is an ultra-powerful cabal out to keep you all chained to oil, a screwy economy and and a corrupt banking system then do something about it and stop wasting your time with the nonsense. You could even go further than researching - you could think about how to change the future.

Come on. Let's not be Zombie Sheep. Wake up.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce374111fef9.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 20/9/11 by Pimander because: typo/change title

edit on 20/9/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/9/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/9/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

SOURCE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

See also: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I turn out to be right it won't be the first time.

reply to post by Pimander


That's kinda like saying 'my conspiracy is better than your conspiracy'.

I fully give you permission to prematurely feel 'vindicated', go ahead knock yourself out kid, after all you deserve it, all that 'awake'-ness must be tiring actually? It certainly is tedious for the rest of us.

reply to post by seabhac-rua

Pretending I'm saying something I'm not won't make any difference.

It's actually kind of like saying it is disingenuous to try to associate one clearly discredited theory with the other in order to try to scare members off the topic.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

Pretending I'm saying something I'm not won't make any difference.

It's actually kind of like saying it is disingenuous to try to associate one clearly discredited theory with the other in order to try to scare members off the topic.

...so you're saying the moon landings happened? Just kidding.

reply to post by seabhac-rua

I think we have landed there. I'm not convinced it happened exactly how we are told though. I'm not convinced there is nothing worth going back for either. There are so many little things that don't quite add up in my opinion.

LOL, you hit all my arguments.

Also, there is no way of knowing if the sax player in the foreground and the shot of the moon on a cloudy night is a real picture or a composite one. I would imagine it is a composite. It is also arguably WORST possible picture that could have been chosen for this test. The OP is a little disingenuous as well: Why was it nescessary to resize the sax/moon image so that the saxophonist and the astronaut were the same size? Obviously the size of the individuals in the foreground has no effect on the size of the earth/moon as pictured from the surface of the earth/moon. The pictures should simply have been resized to the same size. The individuals are inconsequential, and I think OP would had to have realized that. It's just an excuse to make the moon bigger in the overlay.

Originally posted by czerro
LOL, you hit all my arguments.

Also, there is no way of knowing if the sax player in the foreground and the shot of the moon on a cloudy night is a real picture or a composite one. I would imagine it is a composite. It is also arguably WORST possible picture that could have been chosen for this test. The OP is a little disingenuous as well: Why was it nescessary to resize the sax/moon image so that the saxophonist and the astronaut were the same size? Obviously the size of the individuals in the foreground has no effect on the size of the earth/moon as pictured from the surface of the earth/moon. The pictures should simply have been resized to the same size. The individuals are inconsequential, and I think OP would had to have realized that. It's just an excuse to make the moon bigger in the overlay.

Hey, call me a photographic moron, call me naive, call me a dumbazz...I am cool with that. But please don't insinuate I did anything maliciously with the intent to deceive. Because I didn't. If you go back and read my posts through the thread, I recognize my mistakes and acknowledge them openly.

I submit my thread list as well: I have been here a long time, and I don't really carry the flag for any particular conspiracy. I don't make things up to deceive, and in the case of this thread I made a naive mistake because I had little understanding of photographic principles.

All the same, I really hope someone can compose a technically-matched photograph to compare to the lunar shot in my OP. Not because I still think I am right, but because that would be the goal I tried for, and the results would be the answer to the question that started this thread.