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

Originally posted by exponent
The atmosphere removes just enough brown/red from objects to make the moon appear silver/grey

Probably some atmospheric phenomenon is responsible for this change in color, it needs further research.

NASA must be actively manipulating photos such as this one: www.nasa.gov...

This image seems to be taken well within Earth's atmosphere.

ESA must be actively distorting research from their orbiting moon platforms

I was unable to find any color photos by SMART-1, except for some posters, but those were labeled "artist's impressions". It is very unlikely that SMART-1 was capable of producing even approximate natural color images, because it had a "CCD camera with three filters of 750, 900 and 950 nm" (link).

JAXA must be actively manipulating videos such as this one: www.youtube.com...

This "Earthrise" movie looks like a public presentation, not a scientific source of information. Here is another image by Kaguya, which I like better. In this photo the Moon surface is not very different from that of Deimos or Gaspra.

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.

When watched with the naked eye, Mars is certainly reddish in color, but Jupiter and Venus are not. The same might be the case with the Moon, despite its being much closer to us.

I've never thought the moon was grey. It definitely has tan hues. And that answer is not doing it for me. The moon set is brown and then the colour desaturated. Case closed.

I didn't ask you to recreate the photo you know? I believe I asked you to "recreate it with posts". I figured since you had them already and were fond of doing shadow experiments you wouldn't mind placing a few posts around and attempt to recreate a similar pattern. I was a little suprised when you made an astronaut, lunar module, and rocks in scale to the photo.

it's very easy to make fake moon surface images



files.abovetopsecret.com...

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

So what's your premise here?

That there were different lunar film sets with different colored soils that they alternated between?

Originally posted by mrkeen

Originally posted by exponent
The atmosphere removes just enough brown/red from objects to make the moon appear silver/grey

Probably some atmospheric phenomenon is responsible for this change in color, it needs further research.

This is a nice way of saying "I am not aware of anything that could cause this". The only phenomena that would be related is water vapour absorption (mostly infrared) and rayleigh scattering (more severe the shorter the wavelength).

Unless you can answer how it is the moon appears silver/grey to the world then your case is very limited.

NASA must be actively manipulating photos such as this one: www.nasa.gov...

This image seems to be taken well within Earth's atmosphere.

It was taken from the ISS, well above 99% of the atmosphere. That remaining 1% can't be affecting light the same as 100% would.

I was unable to find any color photos by SMART-1, except for some posters, but those were labeled "artist's impressions". It is very unlikely that SMART-1 was capable of producing even approximate natural color images, because it had a "CCD camera with three filters of 750, 900 and 950 nm" (link).

You are correct, but those filters are useful in identifying the minerology of the moon, something which naturally bears on the colours and must be faked too.

This "Earthrise" movie looks like a public presentation, not a scientific source of information. Here is another image by Kaguya, which I like better. In this photo the Moon surface is not very different from that of Deimos or Gaspra.

This is an impressive sidestep, you just dismiss out of hand the video as a 'public presentation' despite the fact that it is a colour HD video of the moon from outside the atmosphere. Do you think they are lying to you? Do you think some other phenomena is responsible? Here's the original HD frame you posted: science.nasa.gov...

When watched with the naked eye, Mars is certainly reddish in color, but Jupiter and Venus are not. The same might be the case with the Moon, despite its being much closer to us.

edit on 5-12-2012 by mrkeen because: Minor edit

I have observed Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and The Moon through telescopes, binoculars and with the naked eye. Red hues are common, The Moon certainly has them.

The Moon is grey.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I've never thought the moon was grey. It definitely has tan hues. And that answer is not doing it for me. The moon set is brown and then the colour desaturated. Case closed.

If the colour is desaturated, then why does the flag show strong red hues. How did they even desaturate the negatives which were then scanned in showing significant colour variation?

I didn't ask you to recreate the photo you know? I believe I asked you to "recreate it with posts". I figured since you had them already and were fond of doing shadow experiments you wouldn't mind placing a few posts around and attempt to recreate a similar pattern. I was a little suprised when you made an astronaut, lunar module, and rocks in scale to the photo.

I was trying to educate you. I will go above and beyond for education. Sadly futile but it stands as a testament to how easy some of these mysteries are to resolve.

It is a process called selective desaturation. It is done with masks. And it's easy to tell the difference between a grey scene and one that has been striped of colour. One has many hues, the other pure shades of grey. Search google images for grey rocks. You see photos complelety composed of grey rocks. Take notice of the fact they are not really grey but swimming with different hues. Then look at the apollo colour photographs. Look at the "moon rocks" brought back from the moon, they are a multitude of hues. Yet not a touch of colour from foreground to horizon when they were on the moon.

Originally posted by exponentI was trying to educate you. I will go above and beyond for education.

You're all heart.

Originally posted by MortPenguin
It is a process called selective desaturation. It is done with masks. And it's easy to tell the difference between a grey scene and one that has been striped of colour. One has many hues, the other pure shades of grey.

(bolding mine)

On the last page I posted this:


This seems to show just different levels of saturation, not complete desaturation or selective desaturation. How does this line up with your statement above?

Yes it is very vivid. And I can also show a hundred photos without a shred of colour yet a bright red flag. Look at the photograph in the OP which is used to suggest there is a stage cloth in the background. From the peak of the mountain to the foreground is completely tones of grey.

reply to post by MortPenguin


So, for you, the possibility that a reproduction of a picture may have been, at some stage in it's long life, touched up, is indicative of the biggest mass deception in human history, a deception that has fooled some of the greatest and sharpest minds for the past three and four generations? But not you?

I continuously ask this question to hoax believers: what do you know about the origins of your faith? Have you ever asked yourself where all this moon hoax stuff came from? You must have? You may choose to seek discrepancies in a few pictures by your own volition, but the concepts which underly these motives are certainly not your own. So, pray tell, whence came your prophet?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Yes it is very vivid. And I can also show a hundred photos without a shred of colour yet a bright red flag. Look at the photograph in the OP which is used to suggest there is a stage cloth in the background. From the peak of the mountain to the foreground is completely tones of grey.

That is because that is a modified 'clean' version of the original image:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

You can increase the saturation if you like or view a histogram of the image or whatever analysis you'd like.

reply to post by exponent


I have to saturate the image a hell of a lot to make it appear to have any colour. And then I'm sure what colour I'm looking at. It could be soil from my garden bed. A monochromatic jpeg image can't be resurrected.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by MortPenguin

 

So, pray tell, whence came your prophet?

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

I follow no one. It's called forming one's own opinion.

Originally posted by exponent
This is a nice way of saying "I am not aware of anything that could cause this". The only phenomena that would be related is water vapour absorption (mostly infrared) and rayleigh scattering (more severe the shorter the wavelength).

Thanks for the clues. You suggest early dismissal of hypotheses, but I prefer to carefully study each one. This certainly deserves further research.

It was taken from the ISS, well above 99% of the atmosphere. That remaining 1% can't be affecting light the same as 100% would.

I can see the blue atmosphere very clearly here. And the moon has a purplish tint in this photo, this may result from the superimposition of thin blue air over it's natural color.

You are correct, but those filters are useful in identifying the minerology of the moon, something which naturally bears on the colours and must be faked too.

Let's leave these b/w photos to mineralogists then. If you have a link that proves that the moon is grey from its mineralogical composition, please share it.

This is an impressive sidestep, you just dismiss out of hand the video as a 'public presentation' despite the fact that it is a colour HD video of the moon from outside the atmosphere. Do you think they are lying to you? Do you think some other phenomena is responsible? Here's the original HD frame you posted

That's the core problem with all those moon photos. Your linked image is grey, but the similar image in my above post is brown. How can that be? Somebody had to alter the color in one of these images. Since you believe that the grey one is the original, you suggest that it was the blogger who painted the moon brown for some reason. But the problem is NASA itself has photos, in some of which the moon surface is brown, while in the others it is grey. Hence, NASA had to alter some of the photos, too. Why? The Apollo-8 pictures in which the moon is brown were made earlier than Apollo-11 images. By your logic, somebody had to open the archive, paint the moon brown and post it on the NASA site. Also what happened to the Galileo photos, which show the Moon as tan-colored? And what happened to countless asteroid debris on the Moon's surface, did they all also turn grey?

Here is a quote ABOUT your picture above

During its flight, the Galileo spacecraft returned images of the Moon. The Galileo spacecraft surveyed the Moon on December 7, 1992, on its way to explore the Jupiter system in 1995-1997. The left part of this north pole view is visible from Earth. This color picture is a mosaic assembled from 18 images taken by Galileo's imaging system through a green filter

Now I noticed you got your picture from "the livingmoon site" sorry but you are as well asking for info from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus if you got it from there!!!!!

Now a few posts back you commented on SMART-1





YET you will accept pictures from Galileo taken with a limited number of filters

Originally posted by exponent
Explain how this picture is possible:

I don't see the resemblance ? the Apollo shadows are converging and diverging up to 180 degrees

Myth busters already proved that we went to the moon..... chalk one up for the skeptics, case laid to rest.

Originally posted by MortPenguin

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by MortPenguin

 

So, pray tell, whence came your prophet?

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

I follow no one. It's called forming one's own opinion.

Well I didn't expect you to answer my question. People who are convinced of a hoax rarely do care to elaborate regarding the origins of their convictions.

Let me hazard a guess, you watched a youtube video which said Apollo was faked? Whether you did or not, did you ever stop and ask if the makers of these videos were being honest?

What is your opinion concerning the fact that hoax proponents continually lie and manipulate the evidence to suit their own claims? Does this mean anything to you? Go back and look at the hammer and feather video another member posted if you don't believe me, if that is not (an attempt at ) deception I don't know what is.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are the one who is being fooled? An intelligent person will look at both sides of the argument.

Of course I've looked at both sides. And the debunkers do much the same things. I've heard multiple theories on many issues. For example why there is no blast crater. I read how the engines were switched off just before landing. From the video you can see that's not true. I read a long theory on how in a vacuum the pressure from the nozzle disappates so quickly. This is not true because we can see the dust moving when the LM is the equivalent of 4-5 stories in the air. So debunkers do not seem like credible sources of information either and are the opposite side of the same coin.

You say that hoaxers lie. But no they haven't lied they've gotten an impression and right or wrong have stated that. Just as debunkers do. The hammer and feather test showed to me that one can replicate this experiment without a vacuum. Going with your theory perhaps it was a lead feather in the moon video? That didn't seem to occur to you.

Do you think if the debunkers didn't act like dicks all the time you'd have a better chance of getting your point across?

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Of course I've looked at both sides. And the debunkers do much the same things. I've heard multiple theories on many issues. For example why there is no blast crater. I read how the engines were switched off just before landing. From the video you can see that's not true. I read a long theory on how in a vacuum the pressure from the nozzle disappates so quickly. This is not true because we can see the dust moving when the LM is the equivalent of 4-5 stories in the air. So debunkers do not seem like credible sources of information either and are the opposite side of the same coin.

Simple answer, they throttled down before landing. They were at about 10-15% throttle when they touched down. If they had been at a high enough throttle level to leave a blast crater, they would have bounced right back up and never came close to touching the surface of the moon.