Game Over for NASA Moon-Landing Hoax

Just because you don't want to accept that the Earth takes up the right amount of degrees for the field of view for each photo and therefore IS the right size, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Just talking about how it was done on Earth, but one can extrapolate the same method for the moon. The light value of a scene lit by full sunlight on a clear day is fairly constant. Once that constant is known, various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds (depending on speed of emulsion) can be worked out to give proper exposure.

If one reduces the shutter speed, the aperture must be enlarged accordingly, to give proper exposure. All the rolls of consumer film had those little scales of aperture and shutter speed combinations to use in different conditions, in case one had no meter or didn't know what to do to make a manual exposure.

Very thin shadow of the pole only (flag shadow is off frame) just above the astronaut's shadow.

Whoa, I meant to say 'if one increases the shutter speed'. Sorry to confuse.

Thought I would add the original Posts, so everyone is on the same page..

while searching through apollo 12 photos with regard to the antenna issue, ive come across these few photos that beg explanation.. this is a supposedly another sequencial set of photos taken over a ten minute span..












No, this is wrong. In the first photo it's obvious that the light on the main subject is coming from the right and slightly behind the astronaut. The reflection in his visor shows the light on the reflected astronaut is coming from the front and only slightly to the right of him (around 90 degrees difference). The modelling of the light on his suit shows this as well as the shadow. This is impossible. Whether extra lights, or the reflection later cut in - doesn't matter. The evidence of fakery is plain.





Okay, not sure if I've done this quote thing properly. I came back to the thread this morning and find it growing so fast, lol.

Well, I knew the still images from the moon missions were faked sometime back in the early 80s.

I'd hardly taken much notice of all that since I saw the video on TV at school when I was a kid. Since then, I'd taken a career in photography which included printing, copying, duplicating and processing in labs. I was familiar with many processes and emulsions of the time.

In the early 80s I purchased a set of Collier Encyclopedia and one day I decided to look at the moon landing stuff.

(This was still before digital tech had grown competent enough to handle a high res image and most likely before any but the crudest of image handling software was invented)

I noted that there were several full page colour plates of well known moon mission photos and this sparked my interest to check those out before reading anything. I mean, after all, these as well as the video, were their primary evidence to prove they had sent men to the moon. You can imagine my surprise, as I viewed the images carefully for the first time and realised they were all wrong for lots of reasons.

One of the glaring things I noticed - and subsequently in many of the photos - the serious lack of depth of field in them. Supposedly, it is a bright full sun lighting the scene - and there is no atmosphere to interfere, so it would likely be higher brightness than full sun on Earth. Even without any more intensity compared to Earth, the apertures would have to be small.

Considering this - and I see one of the apologists said it was a wide angle lens - the depth of field should have had the main subjects crisp and the landscape should have been tack sharp all the way to the horizon. As you would know, wide angle lenses have greater depth of field at all apertures than say, a normal lens for the same format.

The 6cmx6cm format of the little Blad with wide angle lens, would give adequate depth of field - subject to horizon - with even a 25ASA/ISO emulsion on a sunny day. I'm pretty sure they used faster emulsions than that, so the depth should have been even greater.

But we see limited depth of field in so many of the images... proof that it wasn't full sunlight.

That's just one little thing, but a pretty important one I think.



I hope I got all those quotes right, if not my appologies, i had to seperate them so as to include them all..

blah... it messed up.. oh well you get the idea.. :)

Ok, i can see something like what you are saying, a very thin line though i cant seem to follow it back to the flag, though that is not that important i guess.. thankyou for pointing it out..

You can't follow it back to the pole because the ground is not level.

Called it!


Graz


My self-importance?

I'm not the one accusing thousands of being criminals as if my opinion matters one hoot.
I wouldn't even dare to make such vile accusations based on NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER!

For shame!


Trying to educate hoaxies is a waste of effort.
Been doing it for years, and I'm tired off it.
The dumber ones are truly ineducable.
The slightly less dumb ones just stick their fingers in their ears.
They DON'T WANT to get educated, it would ruin their fantasy of being on the in of something important.
Hoaxism is a believe not arrived at through rational and unbiased assessment of the evidence.
Providing evidence is thus pretty useless.

When at comes to educating the peanut gallery, i.e. people who actually might be interested in learning something, Astromut and nomuse do a far better job anyway.


I don't believe your "just asking questions" routine.
If you were, why don't you listen to the answers.
You handwave them away without a further thought, and pull out yet another "I don't understand this, it must be faked."
You very clearly started this with an "Apollo was hoaxed, proof me wrong" attitude.

That's not how it works.
Nobody cares what you believe, but accusing people is not just a believe.
If not supported by solid evidence it is a condemnable action.

For shame!


The conversation IS about you not seeing stuff other people can see.
There either is something wrong with your sight, or you suffer from a cognitive disorder called wilful blindness.
In the latter case nobody here can help you.


I'm not the one accusing thousands of being criminals.
YOU are pushing an agenda. An agenda that makes it okay to revile people just because you have a "hunch".
It's a bloody witch hunt.

Notions of common decency, fair play, and justice DEMAND that you proof your claims or retract them.

For shame!

Hi AC 848, you seem to know alot about photography but i wasnt sure how much you knew about the actual cameras used etc so i thought this page that nomuse originally linked might be interesting to you.. perhaps you could give some idea on the actual mechanics of the astronauts having to take these shots and how they would need to operate the cameras based on the varying exposure differences etc..

[link to sterileeye.com]

wow, totally dyslexic today.. that above post was meant for AC 34 who commented above on the photograpy issue

You indeed have a point!!!

Hi Zipux, I was wondering, though you mentioned not discussing it here, if you could change your mind on that and tell me what your thoughts on these two photos are.

Ive referenced them both in previous posts yet none of our resident pro moon experts have touched either one, the footpad of the LM with the photographs sitting on it just blows my mind and i dont even know how to process that as i look at it.

I even linked a detailed copy of the one with the footprints showing exactly what i thought could be seen as a work boot print (yes orginally i said sneaker/boot but on further research into teads and toe arcs of these two options, ive settled on work boot) Only one poster chimed in and suggested it might be a rock.. im fairly confident its not a rock

here is the link to the pic with the questionable print pointed out if you care to view it or reference it

[link to i496.photobucket.com]

You've been throwing out a lot of terminology, but very little content.

Allow me to repeat, my expertise is in DIGITAL IMAGE MANIPULATION. I worked in a Kodak photo lab digitally restoring customer's old photos that had been badly damaged. I've had extensive experience in every kind of digital image manipulation/enhancement technique under the sun.

Nowhere in my job description was I required to calculate distances, etc. However, along the course of my career I've learned quite a bit about lighting and how it affects different surfaces. Add to this my experience in video game design with 3D modeling software such as Blender, which is excellent for creating simulated environments with various types of surfaces and lighting.

All of this background is what led me to first notice the anomalies in the photos.

You've attempted to confuse and intimidate with a barrage of technical garbage, but I can boil ALL of your jargon down to one sentence:

"There are no anomalies in the image, it looks completely normal."

This is just a lie, there ARE anomalies in the image and it does NOT look completely normal. And until you actually explain the anomalies instead of DISREGARDING them, these questions will keep coming up AGAIN and AGAIN.

Alas -- I scanned through the '72 thread, and could find no such calculations. Perhaps you would link to it directly.

Your failure to do so would invalidate your own argument.

Yup, I think you mean me. I don't claim to know about how they managed it all with their suits and 'flying blind' - while on the moon. Or at least I don't claim to know a lot about what they were said to have done there.

One thing I can say is that they wouldn't have to change the basic exposure settings much, to make proper exposures in a sunlit landscape (as we're told).

All the images which purport to show them doing stuff around the landing module and so on - are all in a never varying level of sunshine. The only thing that changes is the direction of that 'sunlight' with respect to whichever way the camera is pointing at any time. Since the sunlit portions of their suits and other paraphernalia are showing correct exposure in most images I've seen (detail is still visible and not blown out to white), it wouldn't have been necessary to change anything at all for one of their gamboling sessions.

The only reason one might change anything in the shutter speed/aperture mix would be to say, freeze a faster motion for some reason - or maybe to alter depth of field. For most of the images, assuming they are in the sun, only one combination would be needed. This would have been best for the astronauts anyway - if it was real.

If they ever tried to expose for the shadows, they would have blown out the sunlit portions to white. That hasn't happened with any I see. I believe they used transparency film as well, so any overexposure would have been poorly tolerated by the emulsion, unlike - say a negative emulsion, which can take several stops of overexposure and still be usable.

I'm a little busy at the moment, so I'll check out the link you mentioned and get back a bit later - not sure when. Looks like the thread has life in it yet.

Multiple ad hominems snipped...

Interesting. Some would argue the evicence for Apollo is equally overwhelming. So, based on your supporting evidnec for World War I, you would believe the thousands of relatives of people who worked on the Apollo program, and accept that as positive evidence for the Moonshot. You can see items used on and brought back from the Moon, much like items in museums for Word War I. Yet, the evidence you seem to accept for World War I you reject for Apollo. Why? What is the qualitative difference?

I'd post the clapping guy here, but it seems trite.

Just before I go: I notice none of the believer crowd here has yet addressed any of the points I've made. Wonder why?

That same poster also said it could be a partial twisted print which would negate any attempt to measure the arc or match it up to a full print. It was also possible it was an impression from a tool or something else they were carrying. They suggest you check other photos in the sequence and the video taken at the same time. How convenient that you ignored that.

I have been looking at some of the old hoax sites and noticed that some of the photos shown and used for discussion are now missing and not listed, at least not on the Project Apollo website.. i thought that was indeed strange.. why pull them?

Second to this is a similar issue with some information i came across which says the actual number of exposures taken were much higher than the 718 listed on the project apollo site... A total of 1407 exposures was made during the Apollo 11 mission, on 9 magazines of film. 857 black & white photos and 550 color photos.

Now of course this could be because of unexpected shutter releases, over exposure, blurry shots etc so why use those.. however, if this is the case, and it was a pro nasa site, so ive no reason to doubt the accuracy, this would have to give some credible weight to the argument for the time vs photo taking issue.. a subject I have been scratching my head over for a few days..

Im currently trying to find out how many actual exposures were taken while they were on their EVA vs actually released photos, for if it was indeed more than the 121 listed for the A11 EVA then the formula of 121 photos in 031 minutes = 3.90 photos per minutes or 1 photo every 15 secs during their EVA, will get pushed out beyond the realm of possibility..

Are you willing to put your money where your rather large mouth is?

Go hire a certified expert, the kind that testifies in court, and have a professional analysis done.

Than you will, in fact, have EVIDENCE, not just the opinion of some anonymous self-proclaimed expert on the internet.
And it pays for itself, considering that the award for proving fakery is 50,000 EURO.
And there will be book deals, Larry King interviews, and what-nots.
You can be rich and famous, if you are not only right, but can PROOF you are right.

Just shouting: "I'm right" of course does not in fact proof anything.



'Cause were tired of your Gish Gallop?

You haven't been able to proof a single claim you made.
Aren't you tired?

How do we find out about this 'win 50000 euros' Hal, ive just searched for some information about it and can not find an actual link to any site associated with it.. actually one thing did come up in google,.. one of your own posts in another moon hoax thread saying you could win 50000 euros for proving it.. lmmfao..

so link or it didnt happen

In the interests of research, i was wondering if you could please find me a photo of the moon taken with a 60mm wide angle lens please Astro.. ive tried to find one myself, however i seem to come up blank.. i understand this is kind of in your field so when in rome...

Sorry -- got you confused with one of the AC's from Canada. I had to go back forty pages to make sure. There are at least three people in this thread claiming professional experience in photography.

So I withdraw any questions to you on lighting for film or still photography, or calculation of lenses, depth of field, field of view.





Garbage? That sounds suspiciously like you are accusing me of techno-gibberish in order to befuddle.

Do you think I brought up Lambert surfaces because it was a cool-sounding technical term? Or are you willing to accept that I've not only used a variety of 3d rendering packages, I have also browsed books on programming for 3d rendering -- which go into the math extensively. I used to have a nice book by John Carmack drifting around (I gave it away to someone who needed it more.)





Then show them. Be specific. I don't accept "I'm an expert, trust me" any more than anyone else does.

"Any?"

I think you meant "Some." At the rate new claims have been popping up on this thread (well, new posts about old retreads!) some are bound to get lost.

According to the guide on the magazine, the camera was never moved off of 1/250. Then they switched between 5.6 and 8.0 depending on upsun or downsun. There's a very nice picture of the exposure chart, which itself contains a cute little compass with the f stops on it.

Lol, what a copout. I doubt you'd know how to reply constructively anyway. So I can just ignore you then?

Yep.

Well if you look at my photobucket shot, you can see the arc can be measured and it is indeed complete and the width of the print is measurably smaller than the moon boot..

here is the before and after shots since you made such a fuss about it..

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Sidestepping the issue. I see. You can't address them, that's quite obvious. Lol