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

Well you certainly convinced me. The thing I don't understand is why they faked it, what did they have to gain from this?

reply to post by jessasaurusreeex


They had nothing to gain and absolutely everything to lose by faking it. That's why they said screw it and just went to the moon. All faking it would have done is give the Soviets the Cold War's biggest propaganda victory on a silver platter and made the USA a laughing stock.

reply to post by exponent

Usually I do not participate in 'holy wars' about Apollo moon landings because I am deeply convinced this old 60s story is not important anymore. I was born when this already was history. What is most important to me is whether or not humanity will step on other planets during my lifetime. Up until now there was no real movement except for inflated boasting 'we went there' and 'we will go there sometime'. I believe that humanity still does the only thing it is really capable of doing, i.e. sending automated probes to other planets. And these probes crawl about at a ridiculous speed and have hundreds of people on Earth supporting every move. ISS soars not higher than 260 miles above the Earth surface, which is a laughable distance by Earth terms. These are the facts, not the photos. As for the Moon surface and the 'old cr@ppy camera' argument, I believe that whatever camera you use, you can tell purple from gray, and whatever color filter you use, you just pick the right formula and get approximately correct hue. In fact photograpy using separate color filters is one of the first and the most precise ones. Just look at these photos:



All you need is proper calibration and you get highly realistic colors, much better than a CCD matrix can produce. So, yes, I believe that the Moon surface is the same color as the samples brought to Earth.

And yes, in another thread I mentioned a book by Brian Harvey "Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration". In the Soviet Lunar program there had to be a reserve lunar module, a reserve rover with a supply of oxygen and even with all that the probability of mission success was 50/50. Even if it was 70/30 for the U.S., the risk was still very high, and without the reserve take-off module it was even higher. Also the Russian cosmonaut was required to use a lead umbrella on the surface of the Moon to protect himself against cosmic radiation. Even if humans can survive several hours in bright sunshine (without lead suits), any film would be damaged, so even if anyone was there back in 60s, there is no point in discussing the photos, for all of them would be severely damaged by radiation.

reply to post by mrkeen


Can you prove any of these statements? You provide an entire post of anecdotal "evidence" and just expect us to take your word for it? You'll certainly have to do better than that, for starters why do you think the film would be damaged?

Originally posted by captainpudding
Can you prove any of these statements? You provide an entire post of anecdotal "evidence" and just expect us to take your word for it? You'll certainly have to do better than that, for starters why do you think the film would be damaged?

Do I really need to? This is common sense. But I googled it and here is an excerpt from a NASA report on the effects of space radiation on film:

The effects of radiation for STS-48 are apparent in the final images produced by the high
speed (above 400 ASA) flight original films. The color films, 7296 and 5030, exhibited an
increase in minimum density and a decrease in contrast. When seen in the final image,
shadows would appear grainy and ambiguous in the darker detail. Flatness in the tonal range
is the effect of the lowered contrast. The black and white films, 5454 and 5453, and color
negative film, 6028, displayed identical effects only to a lesser degree. Reversal film 5020 was
not significantly affected by the radiation. All color films exhibited a shift in color balance. The
color shifts, increases in base exposure and decreases in contrast, are functions of the film's
representative speed. While 6028 was the least affected of the negative films, it should be
noted that reversal film 5020 showed the least apparent damage (because the effected part of
reversal film is beyond the useful density). link

This is 1995 report, and back in 60s picking the correct film was a gamble. The report also says the effects are significantly dependent on exposure. You don't know what is the correct exposure on Moon surface. You have to guess. I know what happens to your film when you guess exposure, because I made quite a few shots using an SLR camera in my life.

www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5465HR.jpg

This photo linked above looks very brown. It kinda resembles wet soil next to very dry soil and desert soil. Obviously the NASA photos are manipulated to appear grey.

This photo has very brightly colored areas. After saturating the color it appears like the photo linked above. So it has been desaturated to appear the moon is grey. Or the set.




Resaturated again and that looks closer to the lunar module camera. Aren't they cheeky? I placed it next to the NASA version for comparison.

Originally posted by mrkeen
reply to post by exponent

 

Usually I do not participate in 'holy wars' about Apollo moon landings because I am deeply convinced this old 60s story is not important anymore. I was born when this already was history.

As was I, and I hope that I don't come across as having a religious commitment to anything, I simply enjoy debate and applying logic.

What is most important to me is whether or not humanity will step on other planets during my lifetime. Up until now there was no real movement except for inflated boasting 'we went there' and 'we will go there sometime'. I believe that humanity still does the only thing it is really capable of doing, i.e. sending automated probes to other planets. And these probes crawl about at a ridiculous speed and have hundreds of people on Earth supporting every move. ISS soars not higher than 260 miles above the Earth surface, which is a laughable distance by Earth terms. These are the facts, not the photos.

I don't have any argument against this. I too want to see human exploration of the solar system within my lifetime.

As for the Moon surface and the 'old cr@ppy camera' argument, I believe that whatever camera you use, you can tell purple from gray, and whatever color filter you use, you just pick the right formula and get approximately correct hue. In fact photograpy using separate color filters is one of the first and the most precise ones. Just look at these photos:

You're exactly right, and the vast majority of scientific imaging is done with monochrome sensors and filters.

All you need is proper calibration and you get highly realistic colors, much better than a CCD matrix can produce. So, yes, I believe that the Moon surface is the same color as the samples brought to Earth.

The question is what colour the earth samples are. We can just listen to the people who collected them:

CDR
Jack, you ought to get a scoop of that dirt, though.
LMP
Well, there’s one scoop - - . Look what’s underneath
it. It’s white.
...
LMP
I got quite a bit. And the next 10 cm of the light-
gray material, probably in 485 (79260). A possibility here
is that this upper 6 inches of gray material in here is the
latest mantling in the area and the light-colored debris may
be what’s left over from the impact.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

This paper contains a lot of information and shows that iron oxide levels in lunar soil does vary quite wildly. This will definitely lead to more red/brown samples, but doesn't mean the overall composition is 'brown' vs 'grey'.

Even if humans can survive several hours in bright sunshine (without lead suits), any film would be damaged, so even if anyone was there back in 60s, there is no point in discussing the photos, for all of them would be severely damaged by radiation.

edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit

Why do you think this? Radiation is pretty well understood and the film was appropriately protected. Do you think that NASA somehow fooled the many scientists around the world who were incredibly interested in the lunar environment?

Originally posted by mrkeen


This is 1995 report, and back in 60s picking the correct film was a gamble. The report also says the effects are significantly dependent on exposure. You don't know what is the correct exposure on Moon surface. You have to guess. I know what happens to your film when you guess exposure, because I made quite a few shots using an SLR camera in my life.

edit on 4-12-2012 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)

So has almost every photographer amauter or pro and guess what we KNOW all we need to know to get a good enough exposure.

Light source the Sun same as Earth, film speed , shutter & aperture you will be familiar with the sunny 16 rule when you bought film the leaflet gave you setting for various conditions.

The "rule of sunny-16" is simply a handy trick to remember a fairly simple way to set proper exposure in bright daylight (with strong shadows). The camera aperture is set to f/16 (hence the -16 in sunny-16). The "sunny" part is based on the sun having to be bright and high in the sky, casting dark shadows.

The film you load in the camera has a printed film speed (ISO/ASA rating) that typically is 25 ASA or 25 ISO through 800 ASA or 800 ISO, depending on the film's speed. Simply take the reciprocal of this number as the shutter speed. So for 25 ASA/ISO film, the speed would be 1/25th second (so use the closest standard shutter speed, here 1/30th second on most cameras). For 100 ASA/ISO film, you would use f/16 and 1/100th second (or 1/125th on many cameras). How about 400 ASA/ISO film? 800 ASA/ISO? Did you guess 1/400th second, or 1/500th on most cameras; 1/800th second, or 1/1,000th second on most cameras?

Well they had a VERY good idea before they went what the lighting would be like so this was on the film packs.



Not all the images were correctly exposed many were slightly dark but better that than blown out highlights!!!

Plenty of people on here into photography from amatuer, semi-pro to pro and they post on these threads to help clear the BS!

Originally posted by MortPenguin
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5465HR.jpg

This photo linked above looks very brown. It kinda resembles wet soil next to very dry soil and desert soil. Obviously the NASA photos are manipulated to appear grey.

This photo has very brightly colored areas. After saturating the color it appears like the photo linked above. So it has been desaturated to appear the moon is grey. Or the set.

edit on 4-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

Resaturated again and that looks closer to the lunar module camera. Aren't they cheeky? I placed it next to the NASA version for comparison.

You kind of over do the saturation when the white stripes on the flag look PINKISH!!!!

But the flag wasn't desaturated. More than likely it was touched up as well. You know americans, So perhaps I under did it? How could we really be sure what colour the image should be after being deceived? Maybe it looked more like this:

www.travelblog.org...

reply to post by mrkeen


I'll be the first to admit that my understanding of film and whatnot is pretty basic, but from what I can gather from this study is that they were using unshielded, high speed film (which is more sensitive) in a space shuttle. It's rather difficult to make the comparison between a shuttle in low earth orbit using unshielded, high speed film and a trip to the moon using more robust film that never left it's shielded housing.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Light source the Sun same as Earth, film speed , shutter & aperture

you will be familiar with the sunny 16 rule when you bought film the leaflet gave you setting for various conditions.
...
Plenty of people on here into photography from amatuer, semi-pro to pro and they post on these threads to help clear the BS!

I assume you missed the NASA report I cited above. It states clearly that there is a shift in film characteristics when used under effects of radiation. One of them is the change in contrast. As for the shielding, what was it? Half-inch thick of lead (or equivalent)? Another serious problem is that on Earth you have atmospheric diffusion whereas in vacuum you have only straight beams of light. So you don't expect the ordinary exposure table to work well. You have to make adjustments. But how? You need to take test shots and see what you get, you need a photo lab or a digital camera to do that. Neither was available to the astronauts on the moon.

And one more argument in favor of the brownish tint of regolith.

"This regolith has formed over the last 4.6 billion years from the impact of large and small meteoroids, from the steady bombardment of micrometeoroids and from solar and galactic charged particles breaking down surface rocks." link

Thus, lunar regolith contains a large proportion of meteoritic matter, and the common meteorite color is brown. It does not take much effort to conclude that the surface of the moon should be covered with similar brownish matter regardless of the color of the rock below it.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
But the flag wasn't desaturated. More than likely it was touched up as well. You know americans, So perhaps I under did it? How could we really be sure what colour the image should be after being deceived? Maybe it looked more like this:

www.travelblog.org...

Deceived? What is your point exactly? Over saturated, desaturated? So what?

I think you should write to NASA and express to them that they owe you MortPenguin an explanation and an apology for not making sure every one of the hundreds of thousands of reproductions of their photographs from the moon in the 60's and the 70's are 100% unaltered, not over saturated or desaturated etc.

Also, if the moon is supposedly "brown" why would NASA take pictures of 'fake' brown regolith and then "manipulate" them back to grey again???


I'm beginning to think you're a bottle short of a six pack mate.

reply to post by mrkeen


The missions to the Moon landed as close to terminator as possible ie near the start of the Lunar day

The lunar day lasts 27 days, 7 hours and 43.2 minutes

So the sun is low for the mission reducing the possible effects of heat and radiation.

Film in Hasselblads was LOW speed stored in the film back and within the craft so MINIMUM exposure!!!!

I think we've all lost sight of something here:
how hilarious it is that you're arguing about the color of the moon.

The moon. That big, gigantic, bright, not-at-all-brownish thing that you can see almost every single night without any aid whatsoever.

You know, that thing that, literally, millions if not billions of extremely detailed high resolution pictures and videos have been taken of. That has even had global mineralogical maps made of the entire surface composition.

But I guess even JAXA is in on the conspiracy? NASA called them up and told them to fake the terabytes of data coming from KAGUYA to make it look like the moon is exactly as gray as it appears to be.

another rubbish thread claiming a new specific 'smoking gun' piece of evidence, then disjointed links having nothing to do with the claim

reply to post by Razimus


You've essentially just summed up the entire moon hoax in one single, tiny post. Start to you, good sir!

Originally posted by Moduli
But I guess even JAXA is in on the conspiracy? NASA called them up and told them to fake the terabytes of data coming from KAGUYA to make it look like the moon is exactly as gray as it appears to be.

Here is what Kaguya carried on board (link). There is a picture there which shows the following wavelength bands: 415, 750, 1000, 950, 900 nanometers. Well, 415 nm is indigo blue, but we need also the green and red components at approx. 530 and 560 nm. Kaguya doesn't seem to have such wavelengths in its image sensors.
For example, this is one of Kaguya's images link.
As you can see, Earth color is almost completely indigo blue here. The correct colors should be like this link.
But even with that, this Kaguya image shows lunar surface as tinted. It is not gray here, so if it is gray in other images that must be due to calibration or monochromatic photography.
Here is another interesting link. This blog entry shows a photo presumably made by an Apollo 17 astronaut and a Kaguya 'render' below (probably a reconstructed surface model, colorless). The moon surface appears brown on the upper photo, too. Why would it be bluish grey in the first mission and suddenly become brownish in the following mission?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
I'm beginning to think you're a bottle short of a six pack mate.

Ad hominem.

de·ceive/diˈsēv/
Verb: Cause (someone) to believe something that is not true,

You guys are great. So on a conspiracy site moon hoax thread I shouldn't infer malfeasance from the apollo colour photos that have been purposefully manipulated to alter the colour of the landscape but not the astronots, flag and lunar module?

Have a look at this picture.

This is a result of stacking 39 DSLR images in Registax6. They were taken through an FL102S scope.
The resultant image was saved and one copy sharpened etc in photoshop and desaturated as a luminence layer and another copy was subject to much saturation and then blurred with a gaussian blur and the two images combined in photoshop.

IMPORTANT PART BOLD AND UNDERLINED.

The colour varies with location the bulk of it is a grey colour

True colour is subjective what is true colour, if I look at the Moon during the summer months it looks a yellow white in the winter months a very bright blueish white.

Kenneth Brecher, a professor of astronomy at Boston University said this.

"Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon," he said. "Color is in the eye of the beholder."
As an example, Brecher asks what color the Moon is. The instinctive answer is "white." Some might say yellow. And in certain sky conditions, it can look orange.
Brecher calls this question absurd, too, because it does not include the context necessary to allow an accurate answer. The dusty coating on the Moon's surface resembles finely ground charcoal. "If you bring average lunar material to Earth and view it in normal terrestrial lighting, it would look very dark." The color of the Moon and the light coming from it are two very different things.
"It is time for astronomers and the press alike to carefully distinguish between [color and light] when discussing astronomy.

That sums it up quite nicely I think!!!!!