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

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Have a look at this picture.

This picture better belongs on deviantart.com in "Photomanipulation" section.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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.

The moon as it is viewed from Earth can appear white, yellow, orange, etc. because of the various effects of the atomsphere. What we are talking about is what color it is in vacuum.
Here is a solid proof that the Moon is brown. This is a three-filter photo of the Moon made by the Galileo spacecraft:



Why would the Moon be so different from other planetoids in the Solar system? Look at these celestial bodies, for example:

Phobos
Gaspra
Ida

The current theories of Moon formation do not suggest that it should be very different in composition. But even if it is, then in the course of 4.5 billion years it had to become brown, because it was covered with dust from asteroid and meteoroid impacts, and what a typical asteroid looks like you can see in the photos above. There is absolutely no logic in supposing that the Moon is silver-gray just because you see it in this color from Earth. And, as you yourself stated, even from Earth it does not always appear silver. Sometimes it is yellow-orange, much like on the Galileo photo above.

reply to post by mrkeen


What colour do you say this is

reply to post by wmd_2008

If we restrict the choice to web colors, the closest colors are probably "tan" (D2B48C) or "wheat" (F5DEB3), depending on luminosity, which are in the brown color group. Gray shades are in the bottom right of the table.
Since the link to the Ida image in my previous post is broken, here is another one:

Perhaps we should look at the photo labelled "true color" which looks closer to the moon photo above.

solarsystem.nasa.gov...

Hi MortPenguin & mrkeen

The color is "enhanced" in the sense that the CCD camera is sensitive to near infrared wavelengths of light beyond human vision; a "natural" color picture of this asteroid would appear mostly gray.

Above from the NASA site the same camera that took your Moon picture mrkeen.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Hmm.... This quote is about this image, not the one I posted above.
Here is what they say about this image:

These images were taken through the 4100-angstrom (violet), 7560-angstrom (infrared) and 9680- angstrom (infrared) filters and have been processed to show Ida as it would appear to the eye in approximately natural color.

Link

So this combined picture with nine shots is "approximately natural color". Maybe they consider it "almost gray", but if the Moon is "almost gray" in the same sense, I cannot but agree.

How about this Galileo photo? Is the moon grey or light-brown here?

And this is a picture from the Wikipedia article on regolith.

Regolith on asteroid Eros

To me it perfectly conforms with the above image of the Moon.

And finally,

Photograph of nearly full moon taken from Apollo 8
Apollo 8 "Earthrise"

Originally posted by mrkeen
This picture better belongs on deviantart.com in "Photomanipulation" section.

You promoted exactly the same style of photo. I think you should apologise.

The moon as it is viewed from Earth can appear white, yellow, orange, etc. because of the various effects of the atomsphere. What we are talking about is what color it is in vacuum.
Here is a solid proof that the Moon is brown. This is a three-filter photo of the Moon made by the Galileo spacecraft:

Nonsense, you're still ignoring the people that walked on it and brought the samples back

Why would the Moon be so different from other planetoids in the Solar system? Look at these celestial bodies, for example:

Please don't cherry pick your preferred celestial bodies. There are a large number of colour variations in our solar system and nobody is denying the Moon has a brown component. Iron oxide = red, simple as that.

There is absolutely no logic in supposing that the Moon is silver-gray just because you see it in this color from Earth.

How about silver-gray because people have literally set foot on it and brought back samples they described as 'grey' and 'white'?

How about silver-gray because you've yet to prove the atmosphere magically removes these colours when we look at the moon in a telescope?

How about silver-gray because we have orbiting observatories that report the colour to be grey?

How about silver-gray because we can have orbital, descent and surface photographs from many lunar landers?

You're ignoring the vast majority of the evidence and cherry picking your own conclusion.

Nasa aren't above manipulating "evidence". It's just a short step to fabricating evidence.

Originally posted by exponent

Nonsense, you're still ignoring the people that walked on it and brought the samples back

You didn't understand my point. I am not participating in discussions about whether manned lunar missions took place. I believe there was a possibility to send people to the Moon in the 60s, but it was associated with great risks. So I restricted my research to automated probes only, which were sent to Venus, Moon, Mars, and asteroids. These missions were much more feasible and, hence, the data is more reliable. From this data I concluded that the Moon must be tan-brown or similar in color. The reasons why I believe so are given in my above posts.

Please don't cherry pick your preferred celestial bodies.

I picked only asteroids (not planets) of which quality color pictures are available. I also picked the photos of the Moon which suggest that the Moon may be brown. Or do you mean that all of them are fake or photoshopped? By the way, many of them are from NASA sites. Does this make them more credible or less credible? Here are some photos of other celestial bodies of our Solar system:

Saturn (photo by Voyager)
Jupiter moons
Uranus moons
Deimos
Pluto

As you can see, the color of these bodies is various shades of brown.

You're ignoring the vast majority of the evidence and cherry picking your own conclusion.

I presented some evidence in support of my claim that the Moon surface is brown (or light-brown). Unless you believe it is all fake, you must explain why it is brown on all of those photos. How come it was even possible? Some photos are brown and some are grey, but a great number of other moons and asteroids are brown. This has to have some explanation, hasn't it?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Nasa aren't above manipulating "evidence". It's just a short step to fabricating evidence.

You've already shown yourself up once, why do you continue repeating assertions you have no proof for?

Originally posted by mrkeen
You didn't understand my point. I am not participating in discussions about whether manned lunar missions took place. I believe there was a possibility to send people to the Moon in the 60s, but it was associated with great risks. So I restricted my research to automated probes only, which were sent to Venus, Moon, Mars, and asteroids.

I see, well I can't say I particularly agree with your reasoning but at least I understand what you are doing.

I picked only asteroids (not planets) of which quality color pictures are available. I also picked the photos of the Moon which suggest that the Moon may be brown. Or do you mean that all of them are fake or photoshopped? By the way, many of them are from NASA sites. Does this make them more credible or less credible?

I'm not suggesting any pictures are faked. As you are well aware though, colour casts and tints are almost impossible to completely remove. I doubt any of these photographs were fully white balanced before shooting and I doubt any of them have been subsequently. Many of the photos you're discussing are even in false colour for obvious reasons.

Nobody, especially not me, is denying that there is definitely a red/brown component to the colour of the moon. The colour enhanced versions show that clearly.

However, in order for the predominant colour to be brown then the following has to be true:

• The atmosphere removes just enough brown/red from objects to make the moon appear silver/grey
  
• The astronauts who walked on the moon either didn't or what they saw has been changed in the narrative
  
• NASA must be actively manipulating photos such as this one: www.nasa.gov...
  
• ESA must be actively distorting research from their orbiting moon platforms
  
• JAXA must be actively manipulating videos such as this one: www.youtube.com...
  

The easiest of those to prove is #1, but so far I don't see you making any attempt to do so. Your entire case lies on the accuracy of often uncredited or undetailed sources with no information any colour calibration. On the other hand there is literal first hand information and even if you find that acceptable, shots from heights that reduce atmospheric concentration to a fraction of the ground value.

I just do not understand what has convinced you that the moon is brown. Have you viewed Mars in the night sky with binoculars? Jupiter? Saturn? They all have substantial brown/red components that are clearly visible through a telescope.

It's staring you in the face and you don't see it.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Nasa aren't above manipulating "evidence". It's just a short step to fabricating evidence.

edit on 5-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)

Flag photo from the same side. The colours are identical. Look at that. What is happening with the soil?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Flag photo from the same side. The colours are identical. Look at that. What is happening with the soil?

It's probably down to the scanner. These photos are sequential but show significant colour differences:



edit: Furthermore, I can't find the significantly brown tinted version of your image anywhere on NASA's site. The best I can find is this: spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Here is the link:

www.apolloarchive.com...

How would the scanner change the ground from almost greyscale to dark brown without altering the colour of the flag whatsoever?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Flag photo from the same side. The colours are identical. Look at that. What is happening with the soil?

Why do you say the colours are 'identical'? They look fairly close but we're talking about a minimal difference in saturation. The existence of two different scans with different colours and the clear difference I illustrated before should show that it's an inherent problem with these photographs?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Here is the link:

www.apolloarchive.com...

How would the scanner change the ground from almost greyscale to dark brown without altering the colour of the flag whatsoever?

They certainly seem darker when compared, I apologise for the quality of the gif but it's limited to 256 colours. It reproduces what I see with the full colour image:

The flag is being adjusted and you can see the shadow is different hence darker. The angle is also different and the focus. In your other gif with a slight saturation of color the change in the red hue is obvious. This is a major shift in saturation yet the red has not changed.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
The flag is being adjusted and you can see the shadow is different hence darker. The angle is also different and the focus. In your other gif with a slight saturation of color the change in the red hue is obvious. This is a major shift in saturation yet the red has not changed.

You're skirting around having to make a positive claim here. The difference could be down to one of many different factors. I've already shown that two sequential photos can have a significantly different colour cast, and you're comparing a frame from the DAC with a frame from Magazine 40 on the EVA camera.

It really would not be a surprise for them to have different colour reproductions, they likely had completely different film and that alone would account for significant colour variation.

Once again it seems you're trying to make a claim that something was faked because it looks odd to you, but what sort of idiotic faker would go to all this trouble to build a set (this is a frame from a video remember) and miss out such an important detail as the colour of the soil?

The simplest possible test will resolve this for you. Go outside. Look at moon. Moon is grey. Case closed.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

Yes, you're right. But hey I feel like venting.

Like I said, people want to "ask questions" but sometimes they don't want to hear the answers coz it doesn't fit into their conspiracy tinted paradigm.

They've all been answered before.

I think the term is cognative dissonance. Which the brain shuts down when knowledge is contrary to popular belief. Thus, the op, and his stance is shutting down your brain.