Moon landing hoax

RustyBeanTin · 09-02-2010 12:35am #1

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Truthrevolution · 09-02-2010 12:39am

RustyBeanTin wrote: »

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Ha ha i was wondering when somebody was going to bring up the moon landing conspiracy

mcmoustache · 09-02-2010 3:55am

I've never heard of this moon landing conspiracy. Was OJ Simpson involved somehow?

Mahatma coat · 09-02-2010 5:24am

whats this particular conspiracy, I still dont have sound, and now I'm on the Lunchroom LinuxBox, which dosent do Youtube either

:(

Is it one we've had before or is it something new?

uprising2 · 09-02-2010 5:56am

Mahatma coat wrote: »

whats this particular conspiracy, I still dont have sound, and now I'm on the Lunchroom LinuxBox, which dosent do Youtube either :(

Is it one we've had before or is it something new?

Its where the lights fall down as neil armstrong is stepping onto the moon for the first take, it's as false as the real footage of them on the moon.

Here's a better documentary on the moon hoax:

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

or

Did We Really Land Men On The Moon

Personally I don't believe man has ever left earth orbit, nevermind walked on the moon 40 years ago,

Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
(And why haven't we been back to the moon in 41 years?)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Sorry about the video's mahatma, but maybe you'll learn not to drink and surf, its as bad as drink driving, sometimes even worse when you wake up next morning and see what you've wrote the night before, you can scrape a person off your car, but it's more difficult to erase what you wrote when some fukker has you quoted, almost happened me once or twice, till somebody advised me to "delete that post";)

Mahatma coat · 09-02-2010 7:39am

See I'm firmly in the -we Did GO to The moon, but what they tell us happened is utter bollox- Camp.

I believe that Humans have been to the moon, I believe that NASA are lyin their asses off about things that happened, I beleive that the Astronauts did encounter other Craft on the journey.

as for why didnt we go back, It always shocks ansd saddens me that people got bored of LIVE COLOUR Images being Transmitted from the Moon, but ultimatley

'Ya seen one earthrise ya Seen em All'

namloc1980 · 09-02-2010 10:28am

Funny video....but if you really want a laugh watch 'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon'. Bart Sibrel makes up some funny stuff in that. I'm amazed anyone actually still listens to Sibrel.

squod · 09-02-2010 5:00pm

Looks like this debate could start all over, feels like weeks since this was discussed. This vid still cracks me up, hillarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdqBL5pdRT8

fontanalis · 09-02-2010 5:09pm

Youtube, opening minds from virgins moms basements for thelast few years.

09-02-2010 5:16pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Youtube, opening minds from virgins moms basements for thelast few years.

You're just back from a two week ban, which was immediately preceded by a one week ban. One more trolling comment from you and you'll be banned for 6 months.

bytey · 11-02-2010 2:59pm

I also believe we have been on the moon, and possibly still are -
but we didnt do it using apollo

those astronauts boys are lying through their teeth , and the inconsistenecys in the photographic records speak for themselves.

people say " how could thousands of people keep this secret "

well, 130, 000 people kept the atomic bomb project secret til Hiroshima
with no problem.

people will do anything if

1/ they are paid off
2/ are told they will die if they say a word.

apollo was a hoax , and I pity the people who fall for it - thinking that the hoax believers are stupid - Im afraid you may need to look closer to home on that one .

blinding · 11-02-2010 3:26pm

So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?

Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D

robtri · 11-02-2010 3:51pm

RustyBeanTin wrote: »

Now i am certainly not one for believeing all these conspiricy theroies but this caught my eye, watch it and decide for yourself, open your minds!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

it did open my mind.... only to tht fact that some people actually believe that that video is supposed to be proof ...... very funny

humanji · 11-02-2010 4:51pm

blinding wrote: »

So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?

Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D

It's a hell of a lot easier to go to the moon now that it used to be. It's just more expensive and not a priority for any nations.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 5:49pm

humanji wrote: »

It's a hell of a lot easier to go to the moon now that it used to be. It's just more expensive and not a priority for any nations.

If it's so easy why don't they have a platform there for further space exploration instead of the ISS which is closer to earth than Derry is to Cork, the ISS floats about 200 miles above us while the moon is roughly 250,000 miles away, then there's the van allen belt, solar radiation etc, these little obstacles have never been explained properly.

I can guarantee you that if you took your Hassleblad and a roll of kodak film to the moon, you won't get any images.

humanji · 11-02-2010 6:09pm

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much. Solar radiation and the van allen belt have been explained many times. And they got photos of the moon before, so I can't see them having a problem with doing it again.

Captain Chaos · 11-02-2010 6:16pm

humanji wrote: »

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much.

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 6:23pm

humanji wrote: »

They don't use the moon for launching missions as it'd cost too much. Solar radiation and the van allen belt have been explained many times. And they got photos of the moon before, so I can't see them having a problem with doing it again.

Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.html

Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film

Updated April 8, 2003
Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film

Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

RoboClam · 11-02-2010 6:37pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

The actual cost of transporting materials and water to the moon currently outweighs the gains which would come from the reduced gravity. The recent discovery of water on the moon may help to solve what is currently one of the biggest obstacles for a moon base.

humanji · 11-02-2010 7:07pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It would actually cost alot less and you could go alot further. Moon has 1/3 of Earths gravity = 2/3s less energy and fuel required to get into space, plus the Moon has no significant atmosphere, again less energy required.

The Moon is the ideal launch pad to travel farther into the solar system.

The cost of sending craft form the moon would be less. But the cost of research and developing the whole project, the building of the project and upkeep of the project would bankrupt most nations. So who in their right mind would commit to such a project during a global recession when there's f*ck all to be benefited by it in the short term?

uprising2 wrote: »

Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.html

Baggage X-ray Scanning Effects on Film

Updated April 8, 2003
Airport Baggage Scanning Equipment Can Jeopardize Your Unprocessed Film

Because your pictures are important to you, this information is presented as an alert to travelers carrying unprocessed film. New FAA-certified (Federal Aviation Administration) explosive detection systems are being used in U.S. airports to scan (x-ray) checked baggage. This stronger scanning equipment is also being used in many non-US airports. The new equipment will fog any unprocessed film that passes through the scanner.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml

And it's the exact same x-ray waves that are found on the moon, is it? Or are you saying astronauts put their camera through an airport scanner before they went to the moon?

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:18pm

humanji wrote: »

And it's the exact same x-ray waves that are found on the moon, is it? Or are you saying astronauts put their camera through an airport scanner before they went to the moon?

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

thecommander · 11-02-2010 7:23pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

So all photography from the moon is false?

namloc1980 · 11-02-2010 7:24pm

What I want to know is why the Russians/Soviets didn't say anything and expose the 'hoax'???? They could have made a laughing stock of the Americans but they didn't!! Why??

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:35pm

thecommander wrote: »

So all photography from the moon is false?

All photoraphs taken with negative film is impossible, I think the moving images were taken with cine 8 which also would fog, as for the "live" feed I don't know what format was used.

humanji · 11-02-2010 7:39pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Radiation on the moon is much stronger than an x-ray, I've done photography for almost 20 years and I can assure you film would not produce an image after being exposed to radiation on the moon, you may say they already took them and the proof is there, I can assure you and if need be prove that levels of radiation present now, 40 years ago or 40 years time on the moon would fog negative film, if not actually fry it altogether.

It's a different radiation. It reacts differently. If you can sort out an experiment that proves that the radiation spoken of in the article is the same or even more detrimental to the act of photography then please do. But right now, you're comparing apples and oranges.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 7:45pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

What I want to know is why the Russians/Soviets didn't say anything and expose the 'hoax'???? They could have made a laughing stock of the Americans but they didn't!! Why??

Ok watch the first 3 minutes of
THIS

Check This to see just who this crazy story man is
Anthony C Sutton

Now I hope that answer's your question.

Antony Cyril Sutton (February 14, 1925 - June 17, 2002) was a British-born economist, historian, and writer. He studied at the universities of London, Goettingen and California and received his D.Sc. degree from University of Southampton, England. He was an economics professor at California State University Los Angeles and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution from 1968 to 1973. During his time at the Hoover Institute he wrote the major study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), detailing how the West played a major role in developing Soviet Union from its very beginnings up until the present time (1970). In 1973 he published a popularized, condensed version of the three volumes called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, and was thereby forced out of the Hoover Institution.

uprising2 · 11-02-2010 8:53pm

humanji wrote: »

It's a different radiation. It reacts differently. If you can sort out an experiment that proves that the radiation spoken of in the article is the same or even more detrimental to the act of photography then please do. But right now, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:

But seriously are NASA so incompetent as to lose the Apollo 11 original tapes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

humanji · 11-02-2010 9:54pm

I saw a documentary a while back that addresses that photo specifically, but so far can't find it. But here's a clip from Mythbusters about multiple lightsources on the moon:

Now this isn't proof that the landings weren't faked, but shows that it's possible for it to seem like there's a second lightsource.

I'll keep looking for the other documetary when I can (and I'll try and put all of these for and against the conspiracy up on the links thread too, but that's more of a note to myself.

).

Here's an article explaining the radiation and critiques David Groves explanation and tests: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

I've to run off, so hopefully I'll get a change to post some more on this tomorrow.

squod · 11-02-2010 10:29pm

humanji wrote: »

I saw a documentary a while back that addresses that photo specifically, but so far can't find it. But here's a clip from Mythbusters about multiple lightsources on the moon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0

Now this isn't proof that the landings weren't faked, but shows that it's possible for it to seem like there's a second lightsource.

I'll keep looking for the other documetary when I can (and I'll try and put all of these for and against the conspiracy up on the links thread too, but that's more of a note to myself. ).

Here's an article explaining the radiation and critiques David Groves explanation and tests: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

I've to run off, so hopefully I'll get a change to post some more on this tomorrow.

Article writen in 2006, there has been two probes sent to the moon since then and another to be sent. What we have here is speculation. We'll find out which camera works on the moon when people do land there in another nine years.
EDIT: the video above (and part 2) address nothing posted in the previous videos.

bonkey · 11-02-2010 11:08pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:

Makes one wonder how you can guarantee effects, or state the nature or strength of radiation on the moon as fact...

Abelloid · 11-02-2010 11:13pm

No oil up there, no reason to go back.

namloc1980 · 11-02-2010 11:33pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea I'll just hop into my rocket when I finish my tea and go do an experiment:rolleyes:

But seriously are NASA so incompetent as to lose the Apollo 11 original tapes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!

The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.

My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 3:09am

humanji wrote: »

Here's an article explaining the radiation and critiques David Groves explanation and tests: http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

humanji, that link has been cancelled out by this:
Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon...amma-rays.html

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 3:30am

namloc1980 wrote: »

That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!

The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.

My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):

Have you ever handled a Hassleblad?, do you understand exposure?, F/stops, shutter speed?, depth of field and dynamic range of negative film?, the picture you just posted, if you ask on the photography forum anybody that knows anything about the things I just mentioned will tell you the astronaut should be silhouetted, unless a large reflector was used, which it wasn't.
The kodak man is actually saying they "were" taken on the moon, and the camera's left behind.
Another thing the Hassleblad is a fully manual camera, a light meter is required to find the exposure, then the camera must be manually set, it would be possible for a predetermined exposure value to be found and set, using a handheld meter.

Light is measured in f/stops, the range from highlight to shadow is way out of the range of film, one must be sacrificed for the other.

Mahatma coat · 12-02-2010 4:21am

JustinOval wrote: »

No oil up there, no reason to go back.

well if Jack schmidt is th be believed (and he Says he went to the moon) theres somethingt far more Valuable than oil up there, its called Helium3 and can be used to 'stabaise' Fusion reactions.

could solve the energy crisis overnigfht and make whoever gets it first the dominant Superpower of the 21st century

namloc1980 · 12-02-2010 9:02am

uprising2 wrote: »

Have you ever handled a Hassleblad?, do you understand exposure?, F/stops, shutter speed?, depth of field and dynamic range of negative film?, the picture you just posted, if you ask on the photography forum anybody that knows anything about the things I just mentioned will tell you the astronaut should be silhouetted, unless a large reflector was used, which it wasn't.
The kodak man is actually saying they "were" taken on the moon, and the camera's left behind.
Another thing the Hassleblad is a fully manual camera, a light meter is required to find the exposure, then the camera must be manually set, it would be possible for a predetermined exposure value to be found and set, using a handheld meter.

Light is measured in f/stops, the range from highlight to shadow is way out of the range of film, one must be sacrificed for the other.

Yes I have done photography quite a bit and I notice you have no comment to make about the use of an intenionally manipulated image in the video you posted, which calls into question the real agenda behind the video.

You seem to be suggesting that the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness.....that is beyond ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about light and photography knows that.

silverharp · 12-02-2010 9:15am

blinding wrote: »

So they went to the moon 40 years ago ? ? ?

Tell me something else that we could do 40 years ago but that we have great difficulty doing now (Particularly in the Technological field):D:D:D

not quite 40 years but how about supersonic passanger travel. Damn I wish they'd release all that maglev technology from Area 51

blinding · 12-02-2010 9:42am

Silverharp2 wrote: »

not quite 40 years but how about supersonic passanger travel. Damn I wish they'd release all that maglev technology from Area 51

One good example there fair enough.:)

Still I do not believe that the country that voted George Bush president and possibly will vote Sarah Palin president could send man to the moon:D:D:D

And if they did sure George would have spent his time going back and forth too the moon until he got bored of it and ye know he never would have got bored with that would he.:D:D

humanji · 12-02-2010 10:04am

squod wrote: »

EDIT: the video above (and part 2) address nothing posted in the previous videos.

As I said, I posted it to show that it is possible for it to seem like there was another lightsource when there wasn't/

uprising2 wrote: »

humanji, that link has been cancelled out by this:
Moon Poses Radiation Risk to Future Travelers
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon...amma-rays.html

But that means nothing. They're not x-rays coming from the moon. It's a different form of radiation. I don't see any evidence that this would stop photographs from being taken successfully.

blinding wrote: »

Still I do not believe that the country that voted George Bush president and possibly will vote Sarah Palin president could send man to the moon:D:D:D

Now, that's the best argument for the conspiracy.

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 1:13pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

Yes I have done photography quite a bit and I notice you have no comment to make about the use of an intenionally manipulated image in the video you posted, which calls into question the real agenda behind the video.

You seem to be suggesting that the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness.....that is beyond ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about light and photography knows that.

Yes I am suggesting/stating the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness, to light the front of Aldrin a reflector or fill in flash WOULD be required, even to process that pic with lots of dodging and burning couldn't possibly give them results.

thecommander · 12-02-2010 1:18pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes I am suggesting/stating the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness, to light the front of Aldrin a reflector or fill in flash WOULD be required, even to process that pic with lots of dodging and burning couldn't possibly give them results.

What did your photos from the moon turn out like?

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 2:03pm

thecommander wrote: »

What did your photos from the moon turn out like?

I don't need to go to the moon to prove what I'm saying, it's a problem photographer's have here sometime's (on sunny days), the light range is way out of the dynamic range of film.

Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, [19] or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers.

Graduated neutral density filters are used to increase the dynamic range of scene luminance that can be captured on photographic film (or on the image sensor of a digital camera): The filter is positioned in front of the lens at the time the exposure is made; the top half is dark and the bottom half is clear. The dark area is placed over a scene's high-intensity region, such as the sky. The result is more even exposure in the focal plane, with increased detail in the shadows and low-light areas. Though this doesn't increase the fixed dynamic range available at the film or sensor, it stretches usable dynamic range in practice.[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

namloc1980 · 12-02-2010 4:45pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes I am suggesting/stating the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness, to light the front of Aldrin a reflector or fill in flash WOULD be required, even to process that pic with lots of dodging and burning couldn't possibly give them results.

There was a reflector on the moon.......the lunar surface!! I have taken thousands of images with every type of camera and I never have seen the shadow side of a subject in complete darkness as you suggest (unless subject itself is black/dark). The shadow side of a subject will pick up light reflected from the surroundings and in the case of Apollo the astronauts wore very reflective white suits which pick up alot of stray light. I can't understand how you think that someone with their back to the sun, wearing white will have their shadow side in complete darkness?

squod · 12-02-2010 9:27pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

That video is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is almost laughable. The people in the video seem to have made up their minds that it is faked without actually investigating anything in depth! Also at one point one of them says that the only source of natural light on the shadow side of the LM on the moon is earth-shine!! Someone forgot to tell him the SUN also shines on the Moon! And it tends to reflect quite well. If you go outside on a night with a full moon it will cast a shadow and we are a long long way from the moon. So why it wouldn't reflect on the shadow side of the LM that is actually ON THE MOON seems to be lost on these people!

The Kodak guy at 5:00 in the video trys to claim that all the images taken in Apollo 11 were so well composed that they couldn't have been taken by the astronauts. First of all I don't understand why he is so surprised that they took some decent pictures. The astronauts spent months training with the Hasselblad and composing a decent picture isn't exactly difficult. Also anyone who has actually looked through the Apollo catalogue of photos will know that there were a large number of crap photos taken by the astronauts. There are many that are out of focus/blurred/off-line/sunstruck. Of course the well taken ones are reproduced again and again but there was an awful lot of them that were not well taken.

My biggest problem with the video though is their analysis of the Buzz Aldrin image. This image is actually an example of a not so well taken photo. Armstrong cut the top off of Aldrin's suit and got an awful lot of the ground in the foreground. The guys in the video use an intentionally darkened version of the image as 'proof' of their BS about artificial lighting. Here is the actual image (sorry about the size but I think it's important to show it fully so people can see that the video is intentionally manipulating images to peddle it's hoax agenda):

Look at the video again. As was explained, the sill cameras are showing reflection from the surface of the moon but the video cameras are not, in the same shot! You may not want to believe the photos are faked, that's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to be wrong.

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 9:42pm

namloc1980 wrote: »

There was a reflector on the moon.......the lunar surface!! I have taken thousands of images with every type of camera and I never have seen the shadow side of a subject in complete darkness as you suggest (unless subject itself is black/dark). The shadow side of a subject will pick up light reflected from the surroundings and in the case of Apollo the astronauts wore very reflective white suits which pick up alot of stray light. I can't understand how you think that someone with their back to the sun, wearing white will have their shadow side in complete darkness?

You havent a clue what your talking about, honestly I don't want to waste anymore time on this with you, post that image on the photography forum and ask somebody with a little more photographic experience and knowledge than you, ask them to explain how the front of the suit isn't silhouetted.

robtri · 12-02-2010 9:58pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes I am suggesting/stating the shadow side of Aldrin should be in complete darkness, to light the front of Aldrin a reflector or fill in flash WOULD be required, even to process that pic with lots of dodging and burning couldn't possibly give them results.

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 ????

PirateShampoo · 12-02-2010 10:07pm

If the moon landings are fake, then explaine to me how they did this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55jImEhNZ0

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 10:08pm

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 ????

the light is coming from behind, the shadow coming forward should have hinted that to you, you go and try it.

uprising2 · 12-02-2010 10:15pm

PirateShampoo wrote: »

If the moon landings are fake, then explaine to me how they did this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L55jImEhNZ0

The feather wasn't a feather, the hammer wasn't a hammer, 2 objects with weight of different weight's will fall at the same speed, wires or faster frame rate will slow it down.

PirateShampoo · 12-02-2010 10:20pm

uprising2 wrote: »

The feather wasn't a feather, the hammer wasn't a hammer, 2 objects with weight of different weight's will fall at the same speed, wires or faster frame rate will slow it down.

Your not making sense.

And the only thing ur 2 pictures above have in common with the other picture is that there are people in them. 1 of them isnt even in colour.