Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,142 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,621,301
Pageviews Today: 2,153,672Threads Today: 548Posts Today: 10,717
06:28 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

 
LD
User ID: 12622466
Australia
03/18/2012 10:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You're questioning the moon landings based on the photography when you've already shown and admitted you don't know the first thing about photography. A wise person would realize their ignorance and first study and learn photography before attempting to make claims about Apollo being a hoax based on photography they do not understand.
 Quoting: Astromut


When there are already people who 'claim' to have the knowledge, why do i need to go and learn it when I can ask them, that is what the community of human beings is about.. collective learning.. would you suggest that a woman who wants to become a mother not ask her freinds or sisters or relatives who are mothers when her child is teething? or when her child gets sick should she go and learn to be a doctor just so she can heal her child herself..

Or perhaps if i want to buy art for my house I shouldnt go to the art gallery and ask the so called knowlegable ones for advice, i should go learn about art first and then buy art..

Or what about if I want to vote in an election? should I be precluded from voting until and when I become a pollitician so that I 'know' everything about the subject..

Maybe you are suggesting that anyone who wants to have an opinion on something should first go and study it before they comment?..

If that is your position you should be quiet until you become an astrophysicist and know all there is to know about space travel and if its possible, because if all you are is an arm chair hobbiest like most of us.. your words are no more valid or credible than ours..
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 11757475
Netherlands
03/18/2012 10:28 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Don't they have libraries in Australia?
Where they have these things called books?

Bet they have books about photography.
book
(Why do the English hate the letter f?)
_____________________________________________________________​___________________

SHILL STORM!
dance
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

IOW, you are getting clobbered so let's throw in another innate insult.

Those work so well.

As always, the hoaxies have nothing but insults and threats, and can never answer questions on the real science, the facts, the evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12555508

Would you like us to copy/paste "science and facts" from wikipedia or nasa.gov ? Not hard to do.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

No.
We would like you to understand the "science and facts".
Until you indicate you actually have a clue about the subject matter why should your opinion be considered of any relevance.

I tend to favor the smell test in pointing out obvious suspicious bullshit, instead of parroting the Church of NASA Bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

Ah. That famous 'intuition' of yours.
Completely dispels the need for solid verifiable facts and cold hard logic.

Why think, if you can just 'feel'.
Brains are useless if you have a stomach.
book

Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com]
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com]

schlock2

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/19/2012 06:59 AM
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/18/2012 10:30 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Not to get into the weeds too far, but that was a critique of credentialism and training-as-virtue in our society writ large, not an indictment of your schooling (or self-teaching, which can be just as productive).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5040935

If you say so.
As for the moon landing hoax, I came to the thread to form an opinion, not to argue for one.
 Quoting: AC

I've heard that song before. But again, if you say so.
Any casual reader will notice fairly quickly, however, that your responses tend to focus on other posters' intelligence, lack of credentials, zealous and unfounded beliefs, etc., and not their arguments.
 Quoting: AC

Now you jumped the shark. I've debunked their arguments time and time again, exhaustively. I may comment on their ignorance as with LD here and her rather amusing ignorance of the effect of over-exposure on the size of an object, but there again, I addressed the argument in my posts. In fact, I addressed it in detail and with an example to go with it. Ignore that all you like, but it's the truth.
I find that revealing, and I think a lot of other people who are neutral on the issue will too.
 Quoting: AC

Why are you ignoring the fact that I do actually address their arguments? I find that revealing myself, and it casts doubt in my mind on your neutrality.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11398639
United States
03/18/2012 10:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
And killed the three that said we wont lie! That is now your crime as well Nasa Apologists....yes you....you are a blight on the face of humanity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12562328


you seriously think they killed people who "said they wouldn't lie" in the most public way possible, in a way that invited a congressional investigation and almost shut down the entire project? Seriously? What, they couldn't hire a mugger? Or cut their brake lines? Or sabotage one of the test aircraft they were flying?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11398639


Oh ......so you think three accidents would be less suspiciouse than one? Oh boy your shill is showing. Hide your face you sad government tool.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12562328


You ignored the part about the most public way possible, in a way that invited a congressional investigation and almost shut down the entire project.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 11757475
Netherlands
03/18/2012 10:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
"Incredible claims require incredible proof."

Tell me about it...NASA shill...ffs man...get real.....^^
 Quoting: ZIPPY

Are you implying it does not?

You being ignorant of the incredible evidence for the historicity of Apollo, because, you know, you couldn't be bothered to look at it, does not take away your burden of proof if you claim that all of it was faked.
In 40 years hoaxies haven't been able to proof a single claim they made.
They can't even produce pedestrian evidence.

It has been proven that your a Lier......go re-read this thread.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12562328

No, I'm not.
 Quoting: Astromut

Yes you are....^^
 Quoting: ZIPPY

And another slanderous claim not supported by any evidence.

Yet more confirmation of the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.

AstoNUT, now fuck off, your NOT clever and NOT funny, and NO ONE believes your horse crap here, you're fighting a battle that is lost.
 Quoting: ZIPPY

It's not he who sounds desperate.

Man on the moon 40 friggin years ago, get real.
 Quoting: ZIPPY

Very real.
Your argument from incredulity falls rather flat on its face to those who are familiar with the technology.

We couldn't do it NOW, let alone all those years ago, you friggin for real or what?
 Quoting: ZIPPY

Who is this 'we' you speak off?
It's rather obvious you couldn't.

So, in YOUR expert opinion as a aerospace engineer 'on the internet' WHY not?

What a certifiable moron, an you expect us to take you seriously?
 Quoting: ZIPPY

Astro can back up all his statements of fact.
You can back up none.

So guess...
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
03/18/2012 10:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
You're questioning the moon landings based on the photography when you've already shown and admitted you don't know the first thing about photography. A wise person would realize their ignorance and first study and learn photography before attempting to make claims about Apollo being a hoax based on photography they do not understand.
 Quoting: Astromut


When there are already people who 'claim' to have the knowledge, why do i need to go and learn it when I can ask them, that is what the community of human beings is about..
 Quoting: LD 12622466

Then go study photography and learn about it.
Maybe you are suggesting that anyone who wants to have an opinion on something should first go and study it before they comment?..
 Quoting: LD

You are making claims of fakery all the while admitting complete ignorance of the subject. That is not the right way to go about learning the underlying subject.
If that is your position you should be quiet until you become an astrophysicist and know all there is to know about space travel and if its possible, because if all you are is an arm chair hobbiest like most of us.. your words are no more valid or credible than ours..
 Quoting: LD

No, actually I am far more informed on the issue of space travel. You may not personally think my words are more valid or credible... but that doesn't change the fact that I actually do have an informed opinion on the matter, I have studied the subject in detail, and I do know more about Apollo than most here. You may find that arrogant and condescending, but since you're trying to argue that by my own opinion I should be quiet, I need to throw it out there...

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 03/18/2012 10:35 PM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11398639
United States
03/18/2012 10:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
...


Oh please what? A photo taken a few minutes apart should show the sun as the same size regardless of angle, the lens was the same the camera was the same.. why would there be a difference?
 Quoting: LD 12622466

I refuse to believe you're so ignorant you don't see how the LM partially eclipses the sun in the second photo whereas it's next to the sun but not blocking it in the first photo. No one should even have to explain this to you. Your "evidence" is such obvious bullcrap that even you find yourself retreating from it time and time again. The thing is, it's so easily dispelled I don't even think you actually believe it to be worthy of merit, you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what would stick as having some kind of plausibility with lay people.
 Quoting: Astromut


Astro, correct me if im wrong, but if i have a ball that is 100cms in diameter and take a photo of it and then use that exact same 100cm diameter ball to take a second photo with part of it eclipsed by a structure, is the ball still not the same size?
 Quoting: LD 12622466

Not in the photo it's not. Now it's smaller since it's eclipsed by a structure. Seriously, I shouldn't even have to say this. I can't tell what your motivation is, but I can't believe you're ignorant enough to believe what you're saying.
Your explanation would work if the left side of the 'sun' as we look at the pictures was the same size as the previous one.. blocking out half the sun by a structure doesnt reduce its over all size last time i checked..
 Quoting: LD

Ok, maybe you are ignorant enough. Amazing, simply amazing. I wasn't aware such ignorance existed. The size of the sun in the image is not showing you, nor is it caused by, the sun's physical size. It's dramatically over-exposed, the size of it in the image is only a function of just how over-exposed it is. As an example, here is the star Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky:
:siriusbright:
Now here is Sirius with the exact same camera, telescope, and focal length, but properly exposed:
:siriusregular:
The only difference between the two is how over-exposed it is or isn't.
And i would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are on how we get halo's around the sun without an atmosphere to photograph it through.. would you suggest they are all lens flare halos?
 Quoting: LD

Yes, of course they are. It's dramatically over-exposed, there WILL be internal reflections in the lens system that cause "halos." The halo you see in the above image of Sirius is not caused by the atmosphere, it's caused by it being over-exposed.
 Quoting: Astromut


Great explanation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12457213
Australia
03/18/2012 10:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Oh and Astro, stop cutting off my freaking quotes and use the whole sentances... god its really starting to piss me off.. if you want to quote me, then quote me, but use the whole damn thing, IN CONTEXT
 Quoting: LD 12622466


Hint: make one point at a time.u2efine
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


it doesnt matter if i do that, Ive tried it.. he still cuts off the whole sentance and quotes me out of context, doesnt address the entire post, picks and chooses what he will answer and ignores the rest, as do they all.. Im learning its one of their tactics..
 Quoting: LD 12622466


Yep, it is. He does that all the time.
LD
User ID: 12622466
Australia
03/18/2012 10:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
No, actually I am far more informed on the issue of space travel. You may not personally think my words are more valid or credible... but that doesn't change the fact that I actually do have an informed opinion on the matter, I have studied the subject in detail, and I do know more about Apollo than most here. You may find that arrogant and condescending, but since you're trying to argue that by my own opinion I should be quiet, I need to throw it out there...
 Quoting: Astromut


Having knowledge doesnt make you arrogant or condescending astro.. its what you do with the knowledge and how you impart it that makes that call...

If you sit on your high horse and demand everyone else go learn as much as you have, that is arrogant & condescending, however if you share what you have learnt graciously and humbly with those who would enquire, that is the mark of a good and decent human being..

knowledge only becomes wisdom when it is shared ..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5040935
United States
03/18/2012 10:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
No, actually I am far more informed on the issue of space travel. You may not personally think my words are more valid or credible... but that doesn't change the fact that I actually do have an informed opinion on the matter, I have studied the subject in detail, and I do know more about Apollo than most here. You may find that arrogant and condescending, but since you're trying to argue that by my own opinion I should be quiet, I need to throw it out there...
 Quoting: Astromut


Having knowledge doesnt make you arrogant or condescending astro.. its what you do with the knowledge and how you impart it that makes that call...

If you sit on your high horse and demand everyone else go learn as much as you have, that is arrogant & condescending, however if you share what you have learnt graciously and humbly with those who would enquire, that is the mark of a good and decent human being..

knowledge only becomes wisdom when it is shared ..
 Quoting: LD 12622466


An age old insight. I might add that if you can't or don't feel inclined to the path of imparting and sharing, you could at least take on board the possibility that others who are self-taught, or maybe even educated in the mainstream channels in the field, might disagree with you in good faith or, much less, question your methodology and analysis on their path to understanding. To challenge you proves nothing about them except their curiosity. Your response to being challenged makes all the difference in the world.
LD
User ID: 12622466
Australia
03/18/2012 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
No, actually I am far more informed on the issue of space travel. You may not personally think my words are more valid or credible... but that doesn't change the fact that I actually do have an informed opinion on the matter, I have studied the subject in detail, and I do know more about Apollo than most here. You may find that arrogant and condescending, but since you're trying to argue that by my own opinion I should be quiet, I need to throw it out there...
 Quoting: Astromut


Having knowledge doesnt make you arrogant or condescending astro.. its what you do with the knowledge and how you impart it that makes that call...

If you sit on your high horse and demand everyone else go learn as much as you have, that is arrogant & condescending, however if you share what you have learnt graciously and humbly with those who would enquire, that is the mark of a good and decent human being..

knowledge only becomes wisdom when it is shared ..
 Quoting: LD 12622466


An age old insight. I might add that if you can't or don't feel inclined to the path of imparting and sharing, you could at least take on board the possibility that others who are self-taught, or maybe even educated in the mainstream channels in the field, might disagree with you in good faith or, much less, question your methodology and analysis on their path to understanding. To challenge you proves nothing about them except their curiosity. Your response to being challenged makes all the difference in the world.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5040935


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1395091
Australia
03/18/2012 10:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the LM partially eclipses the sun in the second photo whereas it's next to the sun but not blocking it in the first photo.
 Quoting: Astromut


Not in the photo it's not. Now it's smaller since it's eclipsed by a structure.
 Quoting: Astromut


The size of the sun in the image is not showing you, nor is it caused by, the sun's physical size. It's dramatically over-exposed, the size of it in the image is only a function of just how over-exposed it is.
 Quoting: Astromut


Yes, of course they are. It's dramatically over-exposed,
 Quoting: Astromut



Ok as Im trying to learn here.. which is it astro?

Is it smaller because the LM is eclipsing the sun ?

Or is it smaller because the photo is over exposed...?

Your confusing me.. you wouldnt make a very good teacher.. or are you trying to answer too quickly and not thoughtfully enough and getting yourself confused?
 Quoting: LD 12622466




You're a dick. If a light source is being partially blocked, it's going to be under exposed. Why? Because less of the light source is reaching your eye / film.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 8597527
United States
03/19/2012 12:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Ah. That famous 'intuition' of yours.
Completely dispels the need for solid verifiable facts and cold hard logic.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


1rof1

god, you are clueless... you are just parroting what you have been told has occurred by what you perceive to be an authority figure.

you can spout as many "solid verifiable facts" as you want. sooner or later you'e moving into the realm of total faith in believing what you see on those Apollo videos are real and not fake.

claiming the scenes depicted on those Apollo videos are absolutely real is an outrageous claim and based on faith, whether you want to admit it or not.

this claim is only taken seriously because it has a Nasa logo attached to it, and there are still enough fools in the world that think agencies like these are noble or trustworthy.

there are many logical problems with this claim, one being that we landed men safely on the moon 236,000 miles out and back, yet it is 2012 and we still do not have a single hi-resolution image of that landing site... Now you can parrot some pathetic reason why this is the case, and try and convince the weak-minded that you have provided a sufficient answer, but we all know it is complete bull.


....nor have we sent a man any further than 400 miles, "coincidentally" before the VA belts that some people like Anonymous Astrophysicist claim is impossible to send humans through safely with Apollo style equipment.

also, it is worth noting that none of you ever debated Anonymous Astrophysicst's arguments. you consistently teamed up to attack his character.

yet as soon as he left, all you tools started ranting about your mystical "science and facts" powers. i bet if he shows up again, you will slither away, or only poke your heads out to hurl some insults like you did before, which anyone can search back into previous pages and confirm.

book
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12562328
United States
03/19/2012 12:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Hey op YOU ROCK! what pg. # are you refering to ?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Oh please what? A photo taken a few minutes apart should show the sun as the same size regardless of angle, the lens was the same the camera was the same.. why would there be a difference? The lens flare would change due to the change in position of the photographer, but how does the sun change size if the equipment being used doesnt change?

 Quoting: LD 12622466


A photo shouldn't show the sun. Full stop. Unless you are shooting through a solar filter or otherwise in a system designed to image the sun, you won't. You can get a nice hot spot, you can get glare, you can get lens flares. But you don't point an average camera at the noontime sun and "take a picture of the sun."

It's a ludicrous expectation.


This is why I say "Oh, please." Because your question is a bit like asking "Which iPad do I need buy to make my car faster?" It isn't an answerable question because the assumptions are false.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
That's one person's opinion
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12555508


cruise

yes, and it is my opinion you are a complete tool that will say anything in defense of your Nasa Priesthood.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527


Whereas, the person who actually has a listed job with NASA -- who you quoted in the context of their work with NASA -- is completely independent?

Seriously? You are accusing an un-named person on the internet of being a NASA "shill" BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THE WORDS OF AN ACTUAL NASA EMPLOYEE?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Yes, LD you're correct, but it's expedient for him to cast aspersions on the image processing and handling. As if that makes any real difference to the general tonal relationships of the original subject.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


How are technical questions "aspersions?"


In any case, it's a well exposed transparency, given the conditions. That is obvious.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. The Apollo surface photography was a work in progress, and settings were adjusted through the landing series. Many pictures were taken using bracket exposures -- if you knew jack about photography you would know that is exactly opposite from being sure you are correctly exposed.

It hasn't been pushed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. In fact, at least one NASA brief (available on pdf) talks about how development adjusted for the actual exposures -- and how a roll of the wrong speed film that flew on Apollo 8 was rescued in the darkroom.

The scan is a fairly good one too. As a compressed JPEG it looks pretty good.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. Kipp Teague (responsible for many of the better scans) has described a certain amount of adjustment he has made.

Besides that, scanners are non-linear. Film is non-linear. You can set up a scientific film in such a way as to get accurate exposure relationships, but the chain of image involved here in no way maintains that information.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
So let me get this right Astro, because Ive never studied photography and Im asking questions that any first week photography student would ask, Im ignorant? I turn up to Astro's school of photography and in the first week get called ignorant because I dont know anything about exposure or over exposure or difuse lighting or reflective lighting? Thats a damn joke Astro.. and actually quite insulting..

I guess if i showed you a photo of a ballerina executing a grand battement en cloche and then asked you what it was, and you didnt know without googling it, I could call you ignorant too. Because really, who doesnt know what a grand battement en cloche is?..

I am trying to learn something here, and your egotistical pissing contest is starting to wear on my normally very patient nerves..


Loose the "im so great i know everything' attitude astro and consider that some of us just want to learn and are not here to piss in your pond..
 Quoting: LD 12622466


He isn't trying to prove the corps de ballet of the Paris Opera is a hoax.

Yes, you are ignorant of the basics of photography. That isn't an insult. We are all ignorant about most things. It isn't an insult in class, either -- one WANTS to be told that there are areas one needs to learn. Would you spend any time with a ballet teacher who didn't even bother to look at your form but just told you that you were dancing wonderfully?

If you want to make an argument that is based in photography, geometry, and optics, expect to need to demonstrate facility with those subjects if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
03/19/2012 01:20 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
If you sit on your high horse and demand everyone else go learn as much as you have, that is arrogant & condescending,
 Quoting: LD 12622466

I didn't say you had to, but if you want to try to make the claims you've been making you need to do that first. No one's forcing you to do anything, and certainly no one is forcing you to make these claims that come out of pure ignorance.
however if you share what you have learnt graciously and humbly with those who would enquire, that is the mark of a good and decent human being..
 Quoting: LD

And once again your whole argument boils down to ad hominem. It doesn't matter what kind of human being you think I am.
astrobanner2
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
No, his position is that he has "subject specific knowledge" that he presumes no one opposing his position can possibly have. I wonder if he allows for the possibility that his analysis is colored by the paradigm which his training comes from and his own personal and professional bias (just like all of our thoughts are). I find science types way more resistant to the idea that their "knowledge" is not actually objective fact but an extrapolation of numerous assumptions and prejudices passed on from teachers to students.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5040935


You want to know why? Because science is usually demonstratable. When you have domain knowledge, it links back to experiments you have done or witnessed. It is much, much harder for an idea to win acceptance in the sciences. Therefor, when one does, it tends to be treated with respect.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12562328
United States
03/19/2012 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
It's worth pointing out that social scientists, lawyers, or other professionals whose work involves critically thinking about new and unexplored situations and ideas may actually do better at finding the important issues and inherent contradictions in play in a complex situation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5040935


Your saying Astro is a well used tool arn't you.
?

and in a bad way! haha, we know!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 01:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
the LM partially eclipses the sun in the second photo whereas it's next to the sun but not blocking it in the first photo.
 Quoting: Astromut


Not in the photo it's not. Now it's smaller since it's eclipsed by a structure.
 Quoting: Astromut


The size of the sun in the image is not showing you, nor is it caused by, the sun's physical size. It's dramatically over-exposed, the size of it in the image is only a function of just how over-exposed it is.
 Quoting: Astromut


Yes, of course they are. It's dramatically over-exposed,
 Quoting: Astromut



Ok as Im trying to learn here.. which is it astro?

Is it smaller because the LM is eclipsing the sun ?

Or is it smaller because the photo is over exposed...?

Your confusing me.. you wouldnt make a very good teacher.. or are you trying to answer too quickly and not thoughtfully enough and getting yourself confused?
 Quoting: LD 12622466




You're a dick. If a light source is being partially blocked, it's going to be under exposed. Why? Because less of the light source is reaching your eye / film.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1395091


I pour a gallon of dirt on a carpet. That carpet is now dirty. I pour three quarts of dirt on another carpet. That is less than a gallon. I guess that carpet is still clean, eh?

I swear, hoax believers can only think in binary.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 11757475
Netherlands
03/19/2012 01:49 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
knowledge only becomes wisdom when it is shared ..
 Quoting: LD 12622466

Frankly, I don't understand why he bothers.

Why did you think you could jump in at the deep end without ever having been in water before?
book
_____________________________________________________________​___________________

Ah. That famous 'intuition' of yours.
Completely dispels the need for solid verifiable facts and cold hard logic.
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD

god, you are clueless... you are just parroting what you have been told has occurred by what you perceive to be an authority figure.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

Says you.
What is your evidence for that claim.

See how you are caught in a circle of denial.
You have to believe that to be true, because without it your whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

Now what is your explanation for that North Korean rocket scientist who will tell you exactly the same thing about how rockets work as would one from Alabamy?
And a lot of that stuff you can experimentally verify for yourself.
Just join a rocket club.

You have no clue of how subversive the scientific method is.
It accepts no authority. Be it Pope or Emperor.
It let's the facts speak.

you can spout as many "solid verifiable facts" as you want.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

And once again you claim that stuff people pull out of their arses has the same evidentiary weight as, you know, stuff you can check.

claiming the scenes depicted on those Apollo videos are absolutely real is an outrageous claim and based on faith, whether you want to admit it or not.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

Since it is philosophically impossible to proof 100% that anything is real I never made such a claim.
I think they are genuine. With a extremely high degree of certainty.
My assertion is that nobody has provided any evidence that they are not.

And your gut feeling is NOT EVIDENCE.

this claim is only taken seriously because it has a Nasa logo attached to it,
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

Sure. Whatever.
Never mind the complete absence of evidence that they aren't genuine.
And the shit load of evidence that they are.

What's your obsession with pictures anyway?
It's something conspiracists seem to have in common.
MTV generation? YouTubeism?

What about the terabytes of data of which existence you seem to be unaware off?

and there are still enough fools in the world that think agencies like these are noble or trustworthy.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

This is you projecting yourself on the world.

And it doesn't matter how 'noble or trustworthy' anyone is if their data can be verified.
(This is the core of the problem with the ad hominem attack, btw.)
Don't trust. Verify.

Can you do that?

there are many logical problems with this claim, one being that we landed men safely on the moon 236,000 miles out and back,
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

WHY is that a logical problem?

yet it is 2012 and we still do not have a single hi-resolution image of that landing site...
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

The landing sites.
Please don't tell me you are the lowest of the low among hoaxies and you were actually aware that there were more then one moon landing.

This is incorrect.
There are hundreds of really close-up pictures taken right on the spot. ;)
LROC has imaged several of the sites with resolutions better then 25 cm/pixel.
That actually beats any non-military satellite.
(They could do that by getting closer. They could get closer because the Moon doesn't have a atmosphere.)

Now you can parrot some pathetic reason why this is the case, and try and convince the weak-minded that you have provided a sufficient answer, but we all know it is complete bull.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

But it isn't the case.
It's one of those non-facts hoaxies tend to pull from a place the sun don't shine.

....nor have we sent a man any further than 400 miles, "coincidentally" before the VA belts
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

Pray tell, is there any reason to go higher if you do not have a destination?
Pray tell, ever heard of the Southern Atlantic Anomaly?
A part of the Inner Belt the ISS travels through on a regular basis.

that some people like Anonymous Astrophysicist claim is impossible to send humans through safely with Apollo style equipment.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

As always IDW did not provide any evidence for his claims.

Frankly I think he's mentally ill but that wouldn't matter if he actually provided good evidence for his claims.
So that's your 'evidence'?
An unevidenced claim made by some anonymous person on the internet?

Meanwhile every entity that owns property orbiting in the belts, we're talking about many billions of dollars worth, much of it private multinational corporations who own no allegiance to anything but the bottomline, will vouch that their radiation data matches NASA's.
There is also no law against you firing sounding rockets into the thing.
But you hoaxies will never put any serious money on proving any of your claims.
Like how the chemtrailer refuse to take actual exhaust samples from jet liners.

also, it is worth noting that none of you ever debated Anonymous Astrophysicst's arguments. you consistently teamed up to attack his character.
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

We have a history.
IDW has never been right.

He isn't right about Einstein having been a mumbling retard.
He isn't right about photons actually being electrons.
He isn't right about me being Jewish.
He isn't right about the VABs being impassable with the CSM.

i bet if he shows up again, you will slither away, or only poke your heads out to hurl some insults like you did before, which anyone can search back into previous pages and confirm.
book
 Quoting: Anonymous OP 8597527

lol
The only thing IDW ever gets here is a firm intellectual trashing.

My problem with IDW isn't that he's crazy, or wrong.
My problem with him is that he is a racist (pathologically so) and down right evil.
book

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/19/2012 09:19 AM
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12457213
Australia
03/19/2012 03:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Yes, LD you're correct, but it's expedient for him to cast aspersions on the image processing and handling. As if that makes any real difference to the general tonal relationships of the original subject.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


How are technical questions "aspersions?"


In any case, it's a well exposed transparency, given the conditions. That is obvious.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. The Apollo surface photography was a work in progress, and settings were adjusted through the landing series. Many pictures were taken using bracket exposures -- if you knew jack about photography you would know that is exactly opposite from being sure you are correctly exposed.

It hasn't been pushed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. In fact, at least one NASA brief (available on pdf) talks about how development adjusted for the actual exposures -- and how a roll of the wrong speed film that flew on Apollo 8 was rescued in the darkroom.

The scan is a fairly good one too. As a compressed JPEG it looks pretty good.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. Kipp Teague (responsible for many of the better scans) has described a certain amount of adjustment he has made.

Besides that, scanners are non-linear. Film is non-linear. You can set up a scientific film in such a way as to get accurate exposure relationships, but the chain of image involved here in no way maintains that information.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You weren't asking technical questions, you were suggesting things that might have been done.

Not saying they didn't push or pull in the development of some films, just that this image shows no evidence of it.

As for whether the scan is good or not. I can tell whether it was by examining its properties. A bad scan looks like a bad scan. Of course adjustment must be made for any image.

You don't know half as much about it as you say you do.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
03/19/2012 05:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Yes, LD you're correct, but it's expedient for him to cast aspersions on the image processing and handling. As if that makes any real difference to the general tonal relationships of the original subject.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


How are technical questions "aspersions?"


In any case, it's a well exposed transparency, given the conditions. That is obvious.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. The Apollo surface photography was a work in progress, and settings were adjusted through the landing series. Many pictures were taken using bracket exposures -- if you knew jack about photography you would know that is exactly opposite from being sure you are correctly exposed.

It hasn't been pushed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. In fact, at least one NASA brief (available on pdf) talks about how development adjusted for the actual exposures -- and how a roll of the wrong speed film that flew on Apollo 8 was rescued in the darkroom.

The scan is a fairly good one too. As a compressed JPEG it looks pretty good.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


You don't know that. Kipp Teague (responsible for many of the better scans) has described a certain amount of adjustment he has made.

Besides that, scanners are non-linear. Film is non-linear. You can set up a scientific film in such a way as to get accurate exposure relationships, but the chain of image involved here in no way maintains that information.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You weren't asking technical questions, you were suggesting things that might have been done.

Not saying they didn't push or pull in the development of some films, just that this image shows no evidence of it.

As for whether the scan is good or not. I can tell whether it was by examining its properties. A bad scan looks like a bad scan. Of course adjustment must be made for any image.

You don't know half as much about it as you say you do.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12457213


No, you are conflating.

A scan can be completely appropriate but not resemble the response curve of the original image. They are different mechanisms.

You are trying to cast this as whether you can judge whether it is a "bad" scan or not.

The point is whether you can judge just by looking at an image what the dynamic range OF THE ORIGINAL SCENE is.

And, yes, you can....IF you have good information about all the processes that went into that final image, certainly not limited to but most definitely including the response curve of the original emulsion and of the scan head.

And oh by the way, you still haven't shown if you understand how angle of incidence effects illumination of a surface. Hint -- the northern latitudes versus the equator.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12512532
United Kingdom
03/19/2012 07:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Russia - Lunokhod 1 was the first of two unmanned lunar rovers landed on the Moon by the Soviet Union as part of its Lunokhod program.

China - Chang'e 3 is a Chinese lunar rover scheduled for launch in 2013.

India - The Chandrayaan II mission is the first lunar rover mission by India

Japan - Moon lander SELENE-2 is planed as a follow-on mission of Kaguya (SELENE). The spacecraft is to be launched before the middle of 2010's.


U.S.A - sat around twiddling their thumbs looking confused.


Everyone is sending lunar rovers so the u.s.a knows all about the moon is B.S.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12512532
United Kingdom
03/19/2012 08:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
u.s.a built the space shuttle a purpose built space plane that made the apollo hardware look like junk , yet this space plane went its whole life and is now retired without actually flying anywhere.

if a cardboard box held together with sticky tape and gold wrapping paper can land on the moon then the shuttle could have easily orbited or at least left earth orbit but not once.
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
03/19/2012 08:48 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Russia - Lunokhod 1 was the first of two unmanned lunar rovers landed on the Moon by the Soviet Union as part of its Lunokhod program.

China - Chang'e 3 is a Chinese lunar rover scheduled for launch in 2013.

India - The Chandrayaan II mission is the first lunar rover mission by India

Japan - Moon lander SELENE-2 is planed as a follow-on mission of Kaguya (SELENE). The spacecraft is to be launched before the middle of 2010's.


U.S.A - sat around twiddling their thumbs looking confused.


Everyone is sending lunar rovers so the u.s.a knows all about the moon is B.S.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12512532


Oh so now it's orbital sats as well as rovers. LRO, LCROSS, GRAIL, etc. Yeah, you're uninformed, the US has a number of unmanned missions to study the moon ahead of future manned missions.
astrobanner2
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
03/19/2012 08:49 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
if a cardboard box held together with sticky tape and gold wrapping paper
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12512532


More complete ignorance. The LM was not a cardboard box held together with sticky tape and gold foil.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 03/19/2012 08:49 AM
astrobanner2
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 11757475
Netherlands
03/19/2012 08:58 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax
Russia - Lunokhod 1 was the first of two unmanned lunar rovers landed on the Moon by the Soviet Union as part of its Lunokhod program.

China - Chang'e 3 is a Chinese lunar rover scheduled for launch in 2013.

India - The Chandrayaan II mission is the first lunar rover mission by India

Japan - Moon lander SELENE-2 is planed as a follow-on mission of Kaguya (SELENE). The spacecraft is to be launched before the middle of 2010's.


U.S.A - sat around twiddling their thumbs looking confused.
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

That's not quite true.
They send a number of probes that can do things you can't do on the ground.
The latest being GRAIL.

On the ground Apollo has done more then a 1,000 Lunokhods could.

Everyone is sending lunar rovers
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Might I remind you that Lunokhod is as old as Apollo, and the Chinese and Indians haven't done anything yet.
So nobody has send rovers to the Moon during the last 40 years.

so the u.s.a knows all about the moon is B.S.
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Just as well nobody said that then.
Mars is sexier though.

A lot.

u.s.a built the space shuttle a purpose built space plane that made the apollo hardware look like junk ,
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Actually the space shuttle was a white elephant.
Couldn't do much for the huge cost.
It was the block on the US's leg that kept manned spacetravel from actually going anywhere.

And aesthetics says nothing about functionality.

yet this space plane went its whole life and is now retired without actually flying anywhere.
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Which is what it was supposed to do.
Remember that big orange cylinder attached to the orbiter during launch?
That was the fuel tank.
All that fuel, and two big solid fuel boosters, was needed to just go into LEO.
It's internal tanks carried only enough for manoeuvring and re-entry.
It's cargo capacity was 30 tonnes.
It COULD NOT go anywhere else.
It was NOT DESIGNED to go anywhere else.
It was designed to be a surface-to-LEO space truck.

The original concept for the Space Transportation System had a shuttle that could lift 50 tonnes into LEO, every other week, a space tug to move cargo to higher orbit or the Moon, a Lunar shuttle, and later a nuclear powered interplanetary shuttle.
None of that was accomplished.

A single flight cost nearly half a billion.
And ~1% of flights ended in catastrophic failure.

It was a disaster.
It killed American manned deep space exploration.

I blame Nixon.
Apollo was JFK/LBJ's baby.
He hated them, he hated it.
So he killed it.

Of course NASA was cheery all the way.
They are like that.

if a cardboard box held together with sticky tape and gold wrapping paper can land on the moon
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Why do you judge a book by it's misidentified high-tech cover?

The LM was a finely crafted space ship.
Engineered to the hilt to do just a few things but do them exemplary.
The space shuttle on the other hand was supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades. (Master of none.)

then the shuttle could have easily orbited or at least left earth orbit but not once.
 Quoting: UK Coward 12512532

Nope.

Even just suggesting it indicates you are talking out of your patute.
book

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/19/2012 09:28 AM
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.

News