Which do you enjoy more, NASA forgetting to rake out the LEM landing blast crater, or the exploding, no thrust no dust take off?

Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)

This [link to archive.nationalgeographic.com (secure)] is the image that Australian Coward seems to feel has a shallow field of focus.

Shallow field of focus, indeed.

ingnorance ?

[..]

But what I know and think doesn't affect you, in fact you don't even know me, so from where does your hostility originate?

Perhaps when you are in a better mood you'll be able to provide some evidence of the Apollo mission?

NASA claims they landed on 6 different sites yet no one can prove it - could you be the one to do that?

Okay, let's say that Pravda ran a newspaper campaign in 1970 saying that the photographs of the landings are wrong because of the shadows, etc, and this proves they were fake. Would you have believed them?

Or say they said they had additional secret information proving the landings were faked. Would you believe the Russians if they said they had secret information?

No, the Cold War was not about "winning the hearts and minds of the neutrals" . Study about international banking and the link between gov't and big corporations.

are too many inconsistencies, and I don't think you can get around them.

Anyone who thinks they landed on the moon as laid out by nasa is a mind controlled moron. You are sad little things with no ability to reason. It's deeply pathetic how the indoctrination works on so many of you.

....

Meanwhile in grown-up-land Men On The Moon is considered historical by all domain experts who studied the documentation.
Scientists, aerospace engineers, space historians, space journalists, etc., IOW people who actually know what they are talking about, consider it proven way beyond any reasonable doubt.
....

You accuse people of crimes based on nothing but disinformation, ignorance, and assorted lies.
That's despicable, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You DO NOT get to take the moral high ground.

Are you talking about THE photo? As in this one: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

There's plenty of depth of field in the image, from the bottom of the photo to a little behind Aldrin. If it doesn't seem that way in the National Geographic version, it's because they cropped most of the foreground at the astronauts' feet.

And for everyone who says how could the photographs all be so perfectly framed, note that Neil Armstrong just barely avoids the duffer mistake of cutting off the top of his target's head. (Most published versions of this photograph add a whole lot of black at the top that isn't there in the original.)

(And if you're not talking about this photo, please describe the one you are referring to so I can try to track down the original and see what it looked like before National Geographic's photo editors got hold of it.)

....
I think that must be the one. The rocks are fuzzy in the background, but there are many issues with that photo:

1) No dust on the rocks, the damp grey sand they are standing on at MGM has been prepared but as usual they forgot a few millions years of dust.

2. There's a lens flare from the top left: why? (use photoshop to see this)

3. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field behind the man. The horizon is shorter than a baseball field in the image of the visor reflection too. Where did the rest of the moon go? How come they managed to find it again in Apollo 16?

4. The 'sun' spotlight is illuminating the scene behind the man and the scene in the reflection like a big spotlight. In Apollo 16 they found a real sun so all the photos show an evenly lit desert, rather than the cramped MGM Borehamwood soundstage we see here. This is a big problem for all the MGM studio photos.

5. I'm not convinced the shadow in the visor matches the shadow on the ground although the point is debatable. It certainly looks wrong. It goes to the left on the ground.

6. There's thick dust right next to the landing pad, which also has no sign of dragging or digging in. It looks like the lander was placed there by the studio gantry crane rather than the result of Neil's first ever landing (and the LEM's first even landing). We're told 'the dust got everywhere' yet here it appears to behave exactly like damp sand.

7. Buzz (or whoever the actor is) also appears to be suspiciously well front lit - too much for the light reflection from the photographer.

8. The perfect (and I mean PERFECT) exposure first time and perfect focus of the subject, together with the perfect framing. At this stage of the mission Neil and Buzz would still be practicing walking, not taking unbracketed shots of cameras with no viewfinder or exposure meter. Given the vacuum the contrasts of light will be huge, the sun landing on the side of 'Buzz' will be stronger than the African midday sun: very bright.

Etc.

In other words, people who would lose their job if they disputed the official story.

I didn't take the moral high ground, you gave it to me. What crimes and what people?

You mean Iraq and the WMDs?

Why don't you try addressing some of the discussion points instead of pointless faux outrage? I think we'd all find that rather more useful.

Perhaps you'd like to start by explaining why none of the moon rocks, even the gnarly big ones like 'Shadow Rock' in Apollo 16 have any dust on them?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov (secure)]

I'm interested in your opinion on this puzzle.

Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?

Do your own homework.
If YOU think something is relevant than YOU will have to make a case.

Any evidence of any case of somebody being fired for expressing doubt about Apollo?
Or is this just your kneejerk paranoia talking?

You're grasping at any straw you can think of to handwave away the evidence.
Meanwhile what we need from you is positive evidence.
Actual verifiable facts hat prove that something was faked.
Unless you present something like that you're just another flat-earther, denying unassailable truth.

Shouldn't they have gradually lifted the model to simulate rocket thrust rather than blowing it up with explosives, and throw some dust under it?

Really? In the very same two sentences which you claim there is no bias against an employee who doubts the Apollo Landings as seen on TV, you show your bias against such employees, calling them paranoid.

How about the empty racks in the cabinets, showing that the scene thus photographed was staged with props?

I am not a Flat Earther

Lunar gravity is 1/5 that of Earths. That means falling objects accelerate 5 times slower than Earth's (take 5 times as long to reach the same speed). Watch the moon buggy vids and look at the dust plumes. Notice how quickly the dust falls to the moon's surface once it reaches its apogee.

But there is no way they landed on the Moon with an untested lander, stayed a few days and then launched and magically aligned themselves perfectly with the orbiter's trajectory so they could dock. Even if the stuff was designed to function, the odds of pulling it off would be less than 10% and the USA would not be crazy enough to even try such a stunt.

Remember technology progresses incrementally through cycles of design, test, failure, and redesign... Landing in a untestable environment, relaunching, and redocking is a EXPONENTIAL leap!

What employees?
Produce your witnesses.

I get the feeling that even if all the people who say the moon landings were faked were actually taken to the moon on a rocket, and taken to Apollo 11's landing site, and walked around and saw for themselves that it actually happened, they would still say that it was faked.

They would claim that NASA went there secretly in the 80's or 90's and planted all the evidence. Or they would say that they were drugged and taken to an elaborate sound stage that simulated the gravity of the moon, or something even more retarded that I can't even dream of.

One thing has been proven to me time and time again. The "mountains of evidence" showing it was all faked is nothing more than cherry picked anomolies (many with perfectly reasonable explanations), which when piled together SEEM to be a lot of evidence, but isn't a hill of beans as compared to the actual evidence proving they did land on the moon.

Lunar gravity is 1/5 that of Earths. That means falling objects accelerate 5 times slower than Earth's (take 5 times as long to reach the same speed). Watch the moon buggy vids and look at the dust plumes. Notice how quickly the dust falls to the moon's surface once it reaches its apogee.

Either NASA is lying or Isaac Newton...

But there is no way they landed on the Moon with an untested lander, stayed a few days and then launched and magically aligned themselves perfectly with the orbiter's trajectory so they could dock. Even if the stuff was designed to function, the odds of pulling it off would be less than 10% and the USA would not be crazy enough to even try such a stunt.

I meant the cover photo of that issue. I should have mentioned that.

Yes the image is cropped in reasonably tight. That has no effect on the depth of field. If one googles images of that issue there are plenty of large scans to look at.

Depth of field is progressive. The wider the lens aperture, the more that becomes apparent.

There is only one plane of critical focus visible in that photo. That is just in front of the subject's boots. Anyone who studies it will see that. From there - the image starts to soften, so that even the astronaut is just out of critical focus - and it softens progressively as one looks deeper into the field.

When we talk about depth of field, it doesn't mean from the bottom to a little behind the subject. You're actually describing a shallow depth of field there.

An appropriate aperture for sunlit exposure would have rendered the scene sharply - well beyond the astronaut (without hotspots). That would be good depth of field.

The lens was wide open and would have blown the film out if that was a sunlit scene. No way around it I'm afraid.

You know we're all reading this thread? We can all read what you wrote and how you refer to anyone who fails to believe paranoid.

Would you employ someone who rejected the fake moon landings?

You insult people because you don't know enough to argue the points.

When asked about the missing moon dust on the rocks you avoid the subject,

throw in some insults and call me a liar, I wonder if that type of behaviour has a name?

Why are you so afraid of the subject?

Blah insult blah

The only thing you need to do is prove your claims.
You can't and you won't.

No, just you.

Most are just and ignorant and gullible.
Good wittle conspirasheep.


Certainly not for a technical job.
Don't what ignorant idjits for that.


Points. There were points?
But you're not getting to any points, you just spout falsehoods and insinuations.
There's nothing of substance.


YOU need to make YOUR point.
YOU need to prove YOUR claim.

The only thing we need to do is sit back and point and laugh. After all we've got history and the facts on our side.

Lazy bast'rd.


You ARE despicable and you ARE a liar.
But that's besides my point.

My point is that hoaxies don't know any real facts about Apollo, don't know how to think logically, and believe any ol' nonsense the hoax-peddlers want them to.
They're conspirasheep.
The proof of that? Every single hoax thread on the internet.


Why are you playing rhetorical games.

The only thing you need to do is prove your claims.
You can't and you won't.

:Nelsonhaha49823:

15 seconds later:

[link to sservi.nasa.gov (secure)]

[link to astrobob.areavoices.com]



Your unrealistic expectations and failure to grasp basic physics is not NASA's fault.

These pics show nothing and would be extremely easy to photoshop

Even I could put those rover tracks in GIMP in probably under 1 hour with pretty good quality.

In fact the second link proves the hoax, ironic really.

See the dark rectangle they call the flag?
The shadow is formed by the nylon material.

It's a cheap nylon flag that for 50 years has been sitting in a hard vacuum with unfiltered light, infrared, UV, Xrays and solar wind particles + micrometeorites and cosmic rays, with some secondary radiation thrown in. Then each month it's alternately baked and frozen. For half a century.

The flag would have disintegrated decades ago. Therefore the LRO is simply CGI mapped onto the LRO dataset as it entered the NASA complex. With that glaring mistake LOL.