Moon landing hoax

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

Has it really?? By whom??

You tried to compare the moon to a conventional oven?? I would love to know how you came to the conclusion the Moon = an Oven.

I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't faked.

uprising2 wrote: »

, the astronaut from behind, your having trouble getting what I'm saying.

More importantly the previous video has already shown us the video footage of the apollo lander's steps and compared it to the still image of the same aastronaught on the same steps. There is no other explanation, the images are faked.

Mahatma coat

Ponteporn Investigates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNWtqPEmt_4

Thanks to Mysterious for bringin this guy to my attention in the Afghanistan thread.

Can someone explainaway the 'Wires'

thecommander

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ponteporn Investigates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNWtqPEmt_4

Thanks to Mysterious for bringin this guy to my attention in the Afghanistan thread.

Can someone explainaway the 'Wires'

Is presenting like a retard a prerequisite to outing conspiracies?

Mahatma coat

is Ad Hominen the only recourse of the Sceptics????

Mahatma coat

Also I like The Presentation style meself, you should check out his Centralbank one

thecommander

thecommander wrote: »

Is presenting like a retard a prerequisite to outing conspiracies?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

is Ad Hominen the only recourse of the Sceptics????

Is posting uncivil and somewhat insulting comments worthy of an infraction?

TheGreenGiant

Why are there STILL these stupid conspiracies about the moon landings??? The LRO satellite has captured for the first time, all of the Apollo landing sites on the moon. Check them out at Nasa's website, or any good astronomy site.

squod

TheGreenGiant wrote: »

Why are there STILL these stupid conspiracies about the moon landings??? The LRO satellite has captured for the first time, all of the Apollo landing sites on the moon. Check them out at Nasa's website, or any good astronomy site.

FFS how many more times? Nasa's website are contributing to the faked apollo landing WYB. LRO photos have already been shown to be fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYiiwyH4IA

uprising2

'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. :pac::pac::pac:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

uprising2

robtri wrote: »

what???? are you serious......

if i take a picture of a person where the sun is coming in from one side, the other side of ther person isnt in complete darkeness.....

without going to the moon... go try that outside ????

namloc1980 wrote: »

Seriously, you haven't a notion of what you are on about.

Listen don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, this is what I use on an almost daily basis, I've travelled a lot of THIS planet using it, before digital I used film.
Here's the lens and body shown in the pic.

LENS.....http://www.connscameras.ie/canon-ef-2470mm-f2-8l-usm/4960999114385pd.html

BODY.....http://www.connscameras.ie/canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii-body/8714574508863pd.html

mysterious

NASA whistleblower, and the moon race and fake moon landing is discussed here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1yRhKYuj2U

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

The light is coming from the side of the player, almost 90 degree's, notice the shadow streak running along the right side of the players mouth, where his cheek blocks the light, thats what I'm saying should be on the front of the space suit, if you look back at the faked pic why is the shadow of the rock black and the front of the space suit that should be in shadow not?.
Where the light source is makes a big difference, theres a big difference in where the light is coming from in the footballer pic and the faked one, 2 totally different positions, the footballer is lit from the side, the astronaut from behind, your having trouble getting what I'm saying.

I suppose this image below is a fake as well:



The sun is directly behind it but we can see the shadow side...how come? You are seriously making yourself look foolish by continuing to insist that the shadow side of an object should always be pitch black. The next sunny day please go out and have a look at your surroundings and I guarantee you the shadow side of anything will not be in pitch black!

squod wrote: »

I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't faked.

Get a hammer and a feather, go outside, drop them and see what happens!! Anyway YOU compared the Moon to an oven :pac: but you won't stand over your point so you try to deflect it! :pac:

As for the youtube videos of 'Pontepon' and 'Moonfaker', those fellas are nothing more than internet wannabe's coming out with the same old tired ,pseudoscience, mis-conceptions and lies that have been debunked a million times before. You guys keep resorting to the same youtube videos but you never do your own research or question what these videos show....you just listen to what some wannabe tells you and you buy it hook, line and sinker!

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

I suppose this image below is a fake as well:



The sun is directly behind it but we can see the shadow side...how come? You are seriously making yourself look foolish by continuing to insist that the shadow side of an object should always be pitch black. The next sunny day please go out and have a look at your surroundings and I guarantee you the shadow side of anything will not be in pitch black!

Listen that side you can see is either heavily lit by either lights, fill in flash or reflectors, it's impossible without an additional light source to get each element of that pic which have many, many stops of light difference all exposed correctly, look at the basics of photography before you post another pic.

EDIT:
Most modern point and shoots have auto fill, maybe thats why you cant understand what I'm talking about, and all your 1000's of pics auto fill was used without you having a clue what was happening.

uprising2

Here have a look at fill in flash, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_flash

Fill flash is a photographic technique used to brighten deep shadow areas, typically outdoors on sunny days, though the technique is useful any time the background is significantly brighter than the subject of the photograph. To use fill flash, the aperture and shutter speed are adjusted to correctly expose the background, and the flash is fired to lighten the foreground.




When photographing people or other subjects with the light to the side,shadow areas can be so dark in the image that they show little or no detail. When the subject is backlit or against a bright background, it can be underexposed. To fix these problems you use fill flash—often called Flash On or Forced Flash. When using this setting, the flash fires even if there is enough available light to take the picture without flash. Fill flash is also a good way to get accurate color balance under unusual lighting.
http://www.shortcourses.com/use/using6-4.html

EDIT:Additional learning





Fill-Flash use with EOS cameras and speedlites
Balanced fill-flash is a wonderful technique that can add life to otherwise ordinary pictures, or even rescue images that previously might have not been useable. What’s really nice is that fill-flash can be done with fully automatic exposure control! No special manual settings are needed (unless you want to put your own personal touch on your pictures). You can even use the built-in flash unit on some EOS cameras. Photographers use different terms to describe this technique. Fill-flash, fill-in flash, balanced-fill flash, and so on all refer to the same thing.


http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=106

EDIT:EDIT:
Hey namloc here's a little tutorial for you, to help you understand, you need flash (Adobe), but click on the fill flash to see the effect it gives and what I've been trying to tell you all along.
http://www.photocourse.com/itext/fillflash/

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen that side you can see is either heavily lit by either lights, fill in flash or reflectors, it's impossible without an additional light source to get each element of that pic which have many, many stops of light difference all exposed correctly, look at the basics of photography before you post another pic.

I think you should look at the basics. You continue to peddle the blatant falsity that the shadow side of an object should be pitch black :pac: Please go outside on a sunny day......it might open your eyes!

uprising2 wrote: »

Here have a look at fill in flash, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_flash

Fill flash is a photographic technique used to brighten deep shadow areas, typically outdoors on sunny days, though the technique is useful any time the background is significantly brighter than the subject of the photograph. To use fill flash, the aperture and shutter speed are adjusted to correctly expose the background, and the flash is fired to lighten the foreground.




When photographing people or other subjects with the light to the side,shadow areas can be so dark in the image that they show little or no detail. When the subject is backlit or against a bright background, it can be underexposed. To fix these problems you use fill flash—often called Flash On or Forced Flash. When using this setting, the flash fires even if there is enough available light to take the picture without flash. Fill flash is also a good way to get accurate color balance under unusual lighting.
http://www.shortcourses.com/use/using6-4.html

LOL :pac: are you trying to compare that picture to the Moon??? So let's assume for a second that you are right and there is a secondary light source in the image of Aldrin etc. Why doesn't the second light produce any shadow.....none.....zip....nada.....not even a hint of a shadow????? (look at your image above, there is a clear shadow from the second light source).

blinding

If the Americans had landed on the moon they would have blown something up........well just because....... they always have to have a big explosion at the end of some outing or other.

And there is just no way they could have resisted having a big explosion up there in the sky that everyone would be able to see.:)

Mahatma coat

there must be SOME method by which we can replicate the Galileo experimint here on earth to a Television audience:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtvESpQipcw

excerpt - from the earth to the moon

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

I think you should look at the basics. You continue to peddle the blatant falsity that the shadow side of an object should be pitch black :pac: Please go outside on a sunny day......it might open your eyes!



LOL :pac: are you trying to compare that picture to the Moon??? So let's assume for a second that you are right and there is a secondary light source in the image of Aldrin etc. Why doesn't the second light produce any shadow.....none.....zip....nada.....not even a hint of a shadow????? (look at your image above, there is a clear shadow from the second light source).

You just don't get it do you, I've never taken a pic on the moon but I know a lot more than you about lighting techniques, set-up's and so on.
And don't assume I'm right, accept it, the longer this drags out the more foolish I'll make you look, I'll show you different lighting set up's that would easily replicate the faked pic.

EDIT:
And because you didn't notice, the above pic that you pointed out, the girl is standing against a background, if she were a bit further from it the slight shadow shown, would'nt be shown.
Then there is flash compensation, it can be finely adjusted up or down whatever is best for the effect you want to achieve.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

Get a hammer and a feather, go outside, drop them and see what happens!! Anyway YOU compared the Moon to an oven :pac: but you won't stand over your point so you try to deflect it! :pac:

As for the youtube videos of 'Pontepon' and 'Moonfaker', those fellas are nothing more than internet wannabe's coming out with the same old tired ,pseudoscience, mis-conceptions and lies that have been debunked a million times before. You guys keep resorting to the same youtube videos but you never do your own research or question what these videos show....you just listen to what some wannabe tells you and you buy it hook, line and sinker!

squod wrote: »

Grasping at straws? What was the feather made from & what was the temperature of the moon at that time? Stick an eagle feather in the oven for an hour and see how it looks.

The feather object is likely as heavy as the hammer object.

squod wrote: »

More importantly the previous video has already shown us the video footage of the apollo lander's steps and compared it to the still image of the same aastronaught on the same steps. There is no other explanation, the images are faked.

You haven't managed an explanation to any of these points. I though you might, since you've done so much research n' all. It seem you're the only person who is so easily fooled. You've fallen for NASA's story about aastronaughts, well done.

Mahatma coat

ah but the eagle feather would have been in that oven, in his exterior pocket, and apparently its only about 123C on the moon durin the day, its the night that the trouble

uprising2

Incase you missed it in the post that I added it to after I posted, or in the pm I sent you, here it is again, but you need Flash, not the lightburst type, the Adobe version will do fine, now click this Namloc
http://www.photocourse.com/itext/fillflash/

Namloc were just trying to help you not be fooled so easily next time, you should show a little appreciation for our concern that you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/

EDIT:
Actually this little flash tutorial will show you how one shadow can be seen and the other not, or You could aim the backlight down and the fill up, a shadow needs a surface to become a shadow.

SkepticOne

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen that side you can see is either heavily lit by either lights, fill in flash or reflectors, it's impossible without an additional light source to get each element of that pic which have many, many stops of light difference all exposed correctly, look at the basics of photography before you post another pic.

EDIT:
Most modern point and shoots have auto fill, maybe thats why you cant understand what I'm talking about, and all your 1000's of pics auto fill was used without you having a clue what was happening.

How it works is that the areas in shadow are illuminated by reflected light from the ground. In the case of the earth picture there is also scattered light from the sun in the atmosphere illuminating the shadowed side.

Mahatma coat

Albedo is a useful word in this discussion, a lot of the shadow anomalies can be explained away, but not all of them, and thats where the issue lies.

rccaulfield

@Uprising. staggering stuff!look at the pic again. Imagine the astronaut pacing back 30 steps in the BRIGHT WHITE surface of the moon, now the photographer does the same. Remember the surface is bright white in front and behind them for thousands and thousands of miles all around them. THAT is the source of reflective light you need. You have an excellent knowledge of photographry,thats not up for debate. But your knowledge of how light reflects of the lunar surface is where your getting stuck. The astronaut may cast a small shodow of himself but its silly to think that that wud negate all the reflective light bouncing around the 2 men.


Secondly- have a look at this vid= http://www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2#p/u/7/nRvNPyYCvBo it shows you photos from the apollo11 mission from the nasa archives that are over exposed, under exposed, blurred, damaged film because of the conditions, have glare etc etc.

uprising2

SkepticOne wrote: »

How it works is that the areas in shadow are illuminated by reflected light from the ground. In the case of the earth picture there is also scattered light from the sun in the atmosphere illuminating the shadowed side.

Listen maybe go back and look over things again, the angle of the light hitting the back of the asstronaut would NOT reflect back off the surface onto the front of the suit.
A large reflector or another light source WOULD be needed.

EDIT:
With all due respect rccaulfield I can assure you snow or beach sand would be more reflective than the lunar surface, a concrete street would have maybe similar reflective properties.

Mahatma coat

the moon itself is the second lightsource, I can see the thing now from here, its bright

That dosent explain everything tho, and Uprisin is right too on some of the points.

rccaulfield

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen maybe go back and look over things again, the angle of the light hitting the back of the asstronaut would NOT reflect back off the surface onto the front of the suit.
A large reflector or another light source WOULD be needed.

EDIT:
With all due respect rccaulfield I can assure you snow or beach sand would be more reflective than the lunar surface, a concrete street would have maybe similar reflective properties.

Your beyond help if thats what you think- never ceases to amaze -the closedmindedness of this conspiracy. You can't reason someone out a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Its plain for all reading this you're now clutching at straws. DO YOU KNOW HOW reflective the lunar surface is? I'll give you a clue-it casts shadows on earth hundreds of thousands of miles away. I know you can't back down and this stage -you'd look foolish but this argument has been put to bed a long time ago and only impressionable teenagers or old men with rocking chairs and binoculars are fighting the cause now!

uprising2

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the moon itself is the second lightsource, I can see the thing now from here, its bright

That dosent explain everything tho, and Uprisin is right too on some of the points.

Light travels in a straight line, the bright moon you see now Mahatma is the reflection from the sun I now see:p, although at 4c:mad:.

But what I'm saying is the angle the light hits a reflective surface at is the same angle it will leave it at, straight down will reflect straight back up, 20degree's on 20degree's off, sometimes I bounce flash for different reasons and effects, sometimes I use off camera flash, but I've learned from mistakes, our eye's automatically do complex iris adjustments to keep changing lighting conditions constant for our brain to recieve, camera's and film don't.

Example:
http://www.jgstudio.net/DigitalFilm/light.html

SkepticOne

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen maybe go back and look over things again, the angle of the light hitting the back of the asstronaut would NOT reflect back off the surface onto the front of the suit.
A large reflector or another light source WOULD be needed.

Why would it not reflect back?

uprising2

rccaulfield wrote: »

Your beyond help if thats what you think- never ceases to amaze -the closedmindedness of this conspiracy. You can't reason someone out a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Its plain for all reading this you're now clutching at straws. DO YOU KNOW HOW reflective the lunar surface is? I'll give you a clue-it casts shadows on earth hundreds of thousands of miles away. I know you can't back down and this stage -you'd look foolish but this argument has been put to bed a long time ago and only impressionable teenagers or old men with rocking chairs and binoculars are fighting the cause now!

Listen the lunar surface reflects about 10%, that's 1/10th of light hitting it. Try to understand that.
Moonlight is 1/10th that of sunlight, how many times have you stared at the sun on a sunny day, how many times have you stared at the moon on a clear night, now take into account your iris opens and closes to adjust for light, your iris is widest when looking at the lovely moon, and smallest looking at the sun, which still isn't sufficient to stop it blinding you.