New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

reply to post by Fr3bzY

Your studio picture shows how a subject can be lit by multiple light sources and still have only one shadow, so are you trying to say that the flagpole in your picture had its very own set of lights and the astronaut also had his own different set of lights? That's the only way what you are suggesting would work.

If a light source is strong enough to create a shadow, and if more than one of these light sources is used then each object illuminated will have more than one shadow.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY

 

Divergent shadows are due to perspective and show the unevenness of the terrain they fall on, nothing more.

Explain this photo, more than one light source?:

edit on 28-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

lol of course not...but it IS perspectively correct...the ones on the moon are not
oh well...endless discussion

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY

 

Your studio picture show how a subject can be lit by multiple light sources and still have only one shadow, so are you trying to say that the flagpole in your picture had its very own set of lights and the astronaut also had his own different set of lights? That's the only way what you are suggesting would work.

If a light source is strong enough to create a shadow, and if more than one of these light sources is used then each object illuminated will have more than one shadow.

again your are using strong floodlights as example but ignoring the use of soft fill lighting
i know how light works man...lol
what i am saying is that the shadow of the flagpole indicates that the sun is not the source of the light...(unless the sun was hovering a few meters above the moon)
the distortion in the angle of the shadow is to great to be caused by the sun...

reply to post by Fr3bzY


Hang on, you started by stating that multiple light sources were used, now you are saying the angle of the shadow(of the flagpole) is wrong? Which is it?

You can't see the sun in the picture, how are you evaluating the angle?

Originally posted by Brown Bear
OK... I'm not involved in this debate one way or the other but have always been curious about why there are no stars, or anything for that matter, in the black sky on the mission tapes?

It was called a "space race" at the time and that alone gives reason to suspect that cheating might have been a considered option because the US needed a "win" over those evil rooskies and NASA needed more money.

The US was just getting warmed up in Vietnam in 69 and available technology at the time would be considered dark age compared to present.

edit on 28-11-2012 by Brown Bear because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2012 by Brown Bear because: add content

No stars EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE nothing else, the Moon is lit by the SUN so exposure for pictures taken are similar to a sunlit day on Earth , stars are faint to register on film/digital sensor takes a few seconds, a picture of the Moon a fraction of a second.

It's been answered a 1000 times on here already!

Exposure Times for the Moon

Plenty of info to get you started!

reply to post by Dustytoad

Why would the Russians expose it?

Because they lost the space race, which was of major importance in that time period in our history. Two super-powers were facing each-other directly, and the URSS lost because of social and economical factors.

Knowing - and exposing - a possible cheat made by the american side, would not only expose a government (and policy) that was gaining influence against the URSS, but it would also prove that the Russians were as able as the Americans.

They had every reason to expose a hoax, if there was such a thing.

If they play along like they believe it too, then they can keep building up their technology while pretending they already lost the game.

The Russians stopped developing space technology because they ran out of money and because of the social changes that were occurring in the country. Russians were starting to dislike the treatment they had from their governments, and the oppressive regime was starting to show some cracks. It lacked the strength of unity they had during and just prior to WW2.

People started wondering how could the government was funding these expensive programs while people were still starving and recovering from a war with Nazi Germany. If you add other situations that portray the downfall of the URSS, it's clearly visible why they lost the space race and why they simply didn't bother continuing exploring.

What was left to explore?

The US agencies dedicated to space exploration noticed that there was little to gain from more trips to the Moon, and they were the pioneers. It was one of the few smart decisions the Russians did, to give up the space program, or at least, trying to wash away money to pursue a goal that had already been achieved by the enemy.

Besides, the attention was then turned into stuff like the Star Wars program, which was much more relevant to their safety and dominance than to try and land on the Moon.

They didn't stop completely, because they continued with a more subtle space program. But they did surrender the space race.

The only thing they could aim for was to reach Mars, and that was simply a no-no, both in technological and economical terms. It still is...

I mean it's not like Chinese spies in the American gov. Leak secret info in public to citizens of their country..

All governments spy on each-other. Even between allies, or within a organization like NATO. It's normal.

However, there is very little interest into disclosing information about other nations to the general public, unless it serves a generic purpose (like, for instance, showing that the americans lied about the Moon landing).

Originally posted by Fr3bzY

there you go ?
i wonder what you will ask next



just one more

edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: added one

How do multi-lights then make only one shadow? Was the lens a wide angle lens? One thing I never see from you guys is to try and explain why something looks funny by first trying and figure out how it could be that way if it was real.

Photo after photo is debated and shown to actually not be what hoaxers claim, but that doesn't stop posting the same pictures with the same hoax hypnosis over and over.

What would be really cool would be for you guys to post a picture and when it gets shot down to move on and then we would either end up with no pictures or a hand full that everyone could focus on.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY

 

Hang on, you started by stating that multiple light sources were used, now you are saying the angle of the shadow(of the flagpole) is wrong? Which is it?

You can't see the sun in the picture, how are you evaluating the angle?

cmon man...you can base the general direction of the light source from the shadows...
if the sun was the source, the shadows would be uniform in one direction and ofcourse SOME distortion due to terrain/lenses used etc...
yet the 'flagpole shadow' is almost horizontal and the shadows of the astronaut and rover are angled...which indicates the SUN is not the source

and you can show me earth pictures all you want and shadows of little poles which give the illusion of a perfectly normal effect.
but the shadows indicate a light source much closer to the moon then a sun

and no...i am not gonna calculate it here for you.

and now i really quit...i have had this discussion to many times...
consider yourself the winner if you must...i dont care

Originally posted by Gregorian

Originally posted by JulianAlien
reply to post by trig_grl

 

NASA has Satanic roots. Just Google Satan,NASA

And Google NASA and the Nazi's.

And Jack Parsons.

reply to post by WWu777


Van allen Radiation belt. why are we still arguing over pictures and # XD

reply to post by eriktheawful


ok, my apologies on the batteries...but the wheel tracks? even on the wiki page you referenced, to the right is a photo of the rover in motion, and you can plainly see the wheel tracks, it doesn't matter about the wheel thread configuration, the tracks are from the weight of the rover pressing into the soft surface

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Fr3bzY

there you go ?
i wonder what you will ask next



just one more

edit on 28-11-2012 by Fr3bzY because: added one

How do multi-lights then make only one shadow? Was the lens a wide angle lens? One thing I never see from you guys is to try and explain why something looks funny by first trying and figure out how it could be that way if it was real.

Photo after photo is debated and shown to actually not be what hoaxers claim, but that doesn't stop posting the same pictures with the same hoax hypnosis over and over.

What would be really cool would be for you guys to post a picture and when it gets shot down to move on and then we would either end up with no pictures or a hand full that everyone could focus on.

flood lighting and filler lighting...
look it up

you know those things they have in photo studios ? the umbrella things with a white screen in front of it'with a light in it ?
if you take a floodlight and flood the scene (lets say from the left), then use one of those umbrella's (from the right) you will ONLY see the shadow of the floodlight (to your right)yet enhance the detail in the dark shadows but not cast multiple shadows...

you will create a LESS dark shadow (from the floodlight) yet keep the 'dramatic' shading effect
pffff
it aint that hard people

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Seeing as you're all about the bashing, let me bash you.

Yeah "clowns", who need everything explained to them ad-nausuem

Seeing how often ad nauseam is misspelled makes some people want to throw up. English writers also often mistakenly half-translate the phrase as ad nausea. This Latin phrase comes from a term in logic, the argumentum ad nauseam, in which debaters wear out the opposition by just repeating arguments until they get sick of the whole thing and give in.

You didn't even get it half right... I'm not going to call you a clown because of your ignorance, instead I just educated you.

You see how easy that was? Maybe in future you will refrain from petty insults and actually educate people to how they are wrong.

This is supposed to be a forum for people to learn and you're crapping all over it. :shk:
:/

I've always been fascinated by the huge amount of dust and the deep footprints...

I understand (and possibly incorrectly) that dirt can not be suspended without the aid of oxygen...Same with the footprints...Without oxygen, the dirt would lay substantially compressed not allowing for deep footprints since making the footprints on earth seems to be the result of displacing the oxygen from between the dirt particles...

That make any sense to anyone???

Originally posted by Fr3bzY

LOL who are you trying to bull# mate
if the SUN/any lightsource is lighting the lander FROM BEHIND...you need one hell of a strong light to ALSO light the front of the lander

hahaha you must love your job man...

Here you go friend, enjoy.... It is all about reflection. The big question is why would you think otherwise?

Bad Astronomy

reply to post by Fr3bzY


I understand completely what you are proposing, and if the hoax was real it may account for some anomalies like the lander shot with the sun in view. However this, and other similar pictures, can be simply explained by light reflecting from the surface and even reflecting back from the astronaut's suits themselves(pictures of Aldrin exiting the lander in particular). As for perspective and divergent shadows, well that's just your opinion, and we could go on all night about what does and doesn't look right to you.

As for the clearly defined shadows of the astronauts and the flag it is starkly evident that these created by one light source, regardless of whether diffuse back lighting was employed.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Edit: comment removed due to lack of decorum. But I still don't care what you think.

The real problem with this photo is that it looks like obvious front screen projection:
upload.wikimedia.org...

Stanley Kubrick employed this technique often, using a scotchlite screen in the background, with the front stage in the foreground. You can pretty easily spot the difference between the actual stage and the projected image on the back screen:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Many of the photos from the moon have this apparent separation between the darker soil in the foreground, and the lighter colored, and brighter background.

Please don't attack me.

Originally posted by Fr3bzY

flood lighting and filler lighting...
look it up

Your point was that the shadows are going different directions as proof it was a hoax. Filler lights do not make shadows so there must be multi flood lights to do this since you do not think diverging shadows are caused by the different surface angles and the perspective of the viewer.

reply to post by WWu777


5. Can't see any clear indication of a cloth. No conspiracy.

4. Looks to me like a reflection off his right leg is illuminating the front of the left leg. No conspiracy.

8. Puleezzz.... A light bulb!? Where would they plug in the cord to the sun?

9. Poor resolution makes it hard to see any tracks. Also, in the larger picture, the track (if any, as it could be on rocks) the track could very well be hidden by the shadow of the vehicle. As you know, the wheels, both front and back, turned independently and could have been straightened out thereby making it appear that there is no track directly behind the rear tire.