# Apollo Moon "Hoax" - Photographic "Evidence" Questions



## astrostu (Nov 29, 2006)

This might seem like an odd title, but let me explain:  I'm giving a seminar presentation next week with the aim of proving that we did not not go to the Moon (not proving we did, but showing how hoax claims are incorrect, hence the "not not").

The bulk of the "evidence" for a hoax that most conspiracists point to is photographic in nature, so I thought that I would ask this question of all you photo folks:

What is/are the *main* photography-based reasons that you've heard/seen that "prove" we did not go to the moon?  Or if you're a hoax believer, then what photographic evidence do you have to support your claim?

I'm not looking for the actual explanations, I can figure those out on my own.  I already have a hefty presentation lined up, but I wanted to get some feedback from you guys to make sure that I address the most common claims.

P.S.  Please don't have this thread digress into a shouting match among believers and non-believers.  Just list the claims and that's all.


----------



## Tiberius (Nov 29, 2006)

I would merely plagiarize off this site - it debunks in detail every Apollo Conspiracy Theory ever.


----------



## astrostu (Nov 29, 2006)

Yes, I know of that site (I have his book), but that's not what I asked.  I want to know what *YOU* have heard, not what other sites say.


----------



## Mr Avid (Nov 29, 2006)

No Im not a hoax beleiver.....the evidence I have always seen is the pictures of the flag and the conspiracy theorist pointing to the shadow being cast in the wrong direction. 

My question about the photo is how do I know THAT photo hasn't be altered to support the conspiracy. 

As with all conspiracy's....your told not to believe what "you;ve been told" and don't question "what your being told" at the same time.  

Not related to photo's but on this particular conspiracy.....you have to remember we were in a Space Race with the then USSR.....had we not really gone to the moon....do you think they'd let the US enjoy the PR they received by being the first to the moon??? 
Heck NO! They would have been the first to call BS. And you can be sure they weren't taking our word on the progress of the mission(S). They were tracking them themselves.


----------



## aparis99 (Nov 29, 2006)

Mr Avid said:
			
		

> My question about the photo is how do I know THAT photo hasn't be altered to support the conspiracy.


I'm not disagreeing but the same photos are the ones on the NASA database, all the photos are available from there, i've done a few papers on it myself... just a thought


----------



## DSG (Dec 4, 2006)

Im glad you posted this...I have known for years that noone went to the Moon...It was impossible then and its impossible now...at least using current rocket technology.
As for most of the evidence against Apollo being genuine being photographic, thats partly true but you should also know that there can be NO photographic evidence from the Moon! 
The main reason they could'nt go, or get photographic evidence to prove it, was Solar radiation.
Facts:
The magnetic fields in the Van-Allen belts trap much of the harmfull Earthbound Solar radiation and just like a giant microwave oven the flux levels build up enormously...The average level is about 2000 Rem. 
...Radiation fluxes in the Van-Allen belts always reach hundreds of times lethal doses.
The lowest Van allen Belt is about 350 miles above the Earth but the Van-Allen belts extend so far out into space that at "Earth escape velocity", about 27000mph, it would still have taken the Apollo Astronauts about 2 hours to travel through the Van-Allen belts...Long enough to kill any Astronauts foolish enough to attempt it in an unsheilded Apollo space capsule!  
Below the Van-Allen belts and above the Earths atmosphere is the comparative safety zone of LEO (Low Earth Orbit).
The Earths atmospere shields us from the constant rain of lethal and highly penetrating Gamma rays and X-Rays from the Sun.
The shielding effect of the Earths atmospere is equivalent to about 23 feet of compacted earth or about the same as a 6 foot thick sheet of solid Aluminium....You would need the combined power of dozens of Saturn 5's to lift that sort of weight into space! 
Even with this effective gaseus shield above us we all manage to receive an average dose of about 140 Rem over the period of a year, but sudden exposure to a dose of 140 Rem would cause almost immediate nausia, vomiting and diarrhea...Not nice inside the confines of an unsheilded Apollo space capsule! 
Radiation "fogs" film...The cameras chosen for use on the Apollo missions were basically box standard Hasselblads with no special radiation sheilding. On the Moons surface the film inside would have been exposed to a constant stream of Gamma rays and X-Rays from the Solar wind completely ruining the film...Hence why it would be impossible to get photographic evidence back from the Moon.
Like their space capsule, the space suits used by the Astronauts would have been transparent to Gamma rays and X-rays...Strange how none have died of radiation sickness,  even after all these years!
The rest is vidographic and photographic (thats a much longer story) but it all ends up leading to one conclusion...Man has still not yet been to the Moon. 

DSG


----------



## astrostu (Dec 4, 2006)

Thanks, DSG, but that doesn't answer my question.  I'm looking for *photographic* reasons, not environmental.

And by the way, "rem" is a unit of absorbed radiation in human tissue.  Saying that the average level of radiation in the Van Allen Belts is "2000 rem" is meaningless; it's like saying that the density of water is 20 kilograms.


----------



## Remi M. (Dec 4, 2006)

astrostu:  What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is  that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon.  (in reality the flag has a horizontal support sewn into the fabric to hold it up and flutters only when moved by the astronaut).

It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax.  Despite irrefutable evidence.  The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 4, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> astrostu:  What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is  that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon.



My favorite part about this is that they see a flag fluttering *in a still picture*.  Amazing that.    It's also something that we will be addressing in our presentation.


----------



## toastydeath (Dec 5, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> astrostu:  What I remember as one of the points of the conspiracy theorists is  that the flag appears to be fluttering in the wind. even though there is no wind on the moon.  (in reality the flag has a horizontal support sewn into the fabric to hold it up and flutters only when moved by the astronaut).
> 
> It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax.  Despite irrefutable evidence.  The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.



What do you do when you can't get a real degree in science or engineering?

Read wikipedia, and make stuff up on the internet.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 5, 2006)

toastydeath said:
			
		

> What do you do when you can't get a real degree in science or engineering?
> 
> Read wikipedia, and make stuff up on the internet.



Well, when debunking hoax claims, I try to avoid personal attacks on the people who make them ... unless they claim something personal that is not correct, like if someone claims he's a physicist, that carries the assumption of a doctorate, but often in these cases "physicist" means self-taught (and not very well).


----------



## Znarled (Dec 5, 2006)

The one I've heard of is the crosshairs thing, where it appears that the astronauts are blocking part of the crosshair that is supposed to be inside the camera, therefore NASA manipulated/faked the shots but botched the job.


-debunked by exposure effects


----------



## DSG (Dec 5, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people actually believe that the moon landing is a hoax. Despite irrefutable evidence. The hundreds of pounds of moon rock brought back.


 
But you dont need to go to the Moon to get Moon rock!...There is plenty Lunar material lying around right down here on Earth, if you know where to look....The Arctic and Antartic for instance. 
Nor do you need to send a man there to pick up rocks and bring them back, unmanned probes could do that job and without risking human lives.
There has even been a sizeable amount of Martian rocks found right here on Earth, in the Polar regions, and noone had to go there to get it! (remember the Martian meteorite that they found fossilised signs of life inside?)
...So I'm afraid the "Rock argument" simply does'nt hold water.

DSG


----------



## Puscas (Dec 5, 2006)

what I remember of the landing/not landing discussion is that there are no stars in the sky on all the pictures. Or something like that. (because of your question, I'm not looking this one up). 







pascal


----------



## astrostu (Dec 5, 2006)

Znarled said:
			
		

> The one I've heard of is the crosshairs thing, where it appears that the astronauts are blocking part of the crosshair that is supposed to be inside the camera, therefore NASA manipulated/faked the shots but botched the job.
> 
> 
> -debunked by exposure effects



Yep.  Thanks.  It's also refuted by the fact that it's much easier just to take the shots the way NASA says they were than to add cross-hairs in after the shots were taken.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 5, 2006)

Puscas said:
			
		

> what I remember of the landing/not landing discussion is that there are no stars in the sky on all the pictures. Or something like that. (because of your question, I'm not looking this one up).
> 
> pascal



Yep, that's one of the main main main ones.  Thanks.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 5, 2006)

DSG said:
			
		

> But you dont need to go to the Moon to get Moon rock!...There is plenty Lunar material lying around right down here on Earth, if you know where to look....The Arctic and Antartic for instance.
> Nor do you need to send a man there to pick up rocks and bring them back, unmanned probes could do that job and without risking human lives.
> There has even been a sizeable amount of Martian rocks found right here on Earth, in the Polar regions, and noone had to go there to get it! (remember the Martian meteorite that they found fossilised signs of life inside?)
> ...So I'm afraid the "Rock argument" simply does'nt hold water.
> ...



True, but the sum total of lunar meteorites is about 5 kg, vs. the 385 kg returned by Apollo.  Unmanned missions have returned a total of about 270 gms, less than 0.1% of the amount brought back by Apollo; we didn't have the technology then and we don't now to bring back nearly half an Imperial ton of lunar material.  Plus, any rock found in Antarctica has evidence of water damage, which the rocks brought back from the Moon don't.

As for the Martian meteorites, there are about 3 dozen known samples, but again totalling a very small mass.  The "signs of life" found in ALH84001 was later refuted.

But, you mentioned photographic evidence, which is what I was asking about but you haven't provided examples.


----------



## toastydeath (Dec 5, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> Well, when debunking hoax claims, I try to avoid personal attacks on the people who make them ... unless they claim something personal that is not correct, like if someone claims he's a physicist, that carries the assumption of a doctorate, but often in these cases "physicist" means self-taught (and not very well).



I concur.  Except I don't engage in hoax debatery, as it's a bit like arguing against fundamentalism.  I'd rather fire off a witty one-liner, get a personal chuckle, and leave.  Despite insurmountable evidence, people will still believe whatever they want and ignore legitimate scientific consensus.  Scientific consensus can change, and so can my opinion.  It's happened many times before, and I'm going to put money down it'll happen again.  But not over this nonsense.  The effect of a couple arcane nutjobs on the overall society is minimal at best, and thus I think it's best to leave it be.  The time cubists and the flat-earth society can rant and rave all they want.

I just add a mental note to never associate with the person who believes the ridiculous thing, and leave.


----------



## DSG (Dec 5, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> But, you mentioned photographic evidence, which is what I was asking about but you haven't provided examples.


 
As I said not all the evidence is photographic or videographic...First I talked about real and ever present Solar Radiation threat, and then talked about how ALL the "Moon rock" ever collected could have been found right here on Earth, now I will talk about some of the irrefutable videographic evidence. 
Look at this famous NASA stock footage...And see if you can guess what is wrong (there are several things):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWcPMdO7BwM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWcPMdO7BwM[/ame]

Ok now i'll give you the answers:
1) the Rocket engine on the Lunar lander was powered by two hypergolic propellants (That is two propellants that spontaniously combust when mixed togther), in this case: DiNitrogen Tetroxide and AeroZine 50 (50% Hydrazine, 50% Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Hydrazine)....When these two are combined and combust they produce huge opaque billowing clouds of orangey coloured smoke....Therefore they would'nt have been able to film the lander taking off for all the smoke!!!
2) The "exploding bolts" that held the landers ascent capsule to the base of the lander can clearly be seen blowing, and the ascent capsule starts to rise, (far too slow to reach Lunar escape velocity BTW)....Yet there is NO visible rocket plume...Or Smoke!!!
You should also bear in mind that the ascent capsule would have to reach or exceed a velocity of at least 4500mph to escape the Moons gravity...It would be totally impossible for the tiny blast from the explosive bolts going off alone to produce the necessary thrust...Yet thats what that official NASA stock footage seems to show!!! 
3) There are no stars in the background...One blatently obvious flaw in all the official NASA photos and videos.
4) Who exactly is "pulling out wide" and panning the camera up to follow the acsending ascent capsule?...They would have had to leave one Astronaut behind to work the camera!!!

It clearly smacks of an outdoor studio set on Earth (almost certainly AREA 51) with a tall crane out of shot to lift the ascent capsule and simulate an ascent to Lunar orbit.

Here is some footage of Neil Armstrong making that historic "giant leap" onto the "Moon":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Lcx2hcmJs&mode=related&search"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Lcx2hcmJs&mode=related&search[/ame]=

...Showing just how easy it is to fake! 

The original NASA footage was'nt as clear as that spoof and its easy to understand why...It was actually filmed by aiming a TV camera at the footage being shown on a small video monitor!

There are many more very good videos on Youtube showing how Apollo was faked...Far too many to post here.

DSG


----------



## astrostu (Dec 5, 2006)

Thanks, DSG


----------



## Remi M. (Dec 5, 2006)

toastydeath said:
			
		

> What do you do when you can't get a real degree in science or engineering?
> 
> Read wikipedia, and make stuff up on the internet.



I really don't know what makes you think I don't or can't get a "real" science or engineering degree? But you could be right.  In spite of that you would have a really hard time finding a substantial number of "real" scientists or engineers believing the moon landing was a hoax.  Thats the great thing about science, peer review.  If the evidence was refutable it would be refuted.


----------



## Remi M. (Dec 5, 2006)

DSG said:
			
		

> But you dont need to go to the Moon to get Moon rock!...There is plenty Lunar material lying around right down here on Earth, if you know where to look....The Arctic and Antartic for instance.
> Nor do you need to send a man there to pick up rocks and bring them back, unmanned probes could do that job and without risking human lives.
> There has even been a sizeable amount of Martian rocks found right here on Earth, in the Polar regions, and noone had to go there to get it! (remember the Martian meteorite that they found fossilised signs of life inside?)
> ...So I'm afraid the "Rock argument" simply does'nt hold water.
> ...


astrostu replied to this better than I could have.  But what I find interesting to your argument is what lengths you are willing to go to in order to maintain your belief.

By your own words you believe that hundreds of pounds of moon rock could have been brought back by unmanned missions.  So you are willing to believe that there existed the technology 30+ years ago. To launch a robot from the earths surface, have it travel to the moon, achieve orbit and land, collect moon rocks, launch from the surface of the moon, travel back to the earth, achieve orbit and land and finally be retrieved.  But your not willing to believe that human beings in a pressurized vessel could have done the same thing?

The idea of a hoax is much harder for me to accept than the real thing.  A hoax of that magnitude would require that the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the space program in the US and USSR were also hoaxed AND everyone involved in the hoax kept their secret all these years.  Including all the scientists around the world that independently tested the moon rock of it's validity.  Moon rock that I have seen in person at the Berlin Deutsches Technikmuseum.  That the billions of dollars spent on the technology, launch pads, rockets, space suits, landers... were all spent to facilitate a  hoax by both nations.

The whole plan to hoax a moon landing would be many times harder to accomplish the the real thing.


----------



## toastydeath (Dec 5, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> I really don't know what makes you think I don't or can't get a "real" science or engineering degree? But you could be right.  In spite of that you would have a really hard time finding a substantial number of "real" scientists or engineers believing the moon landing was a hoax.  Thats the great thing about science, peer review.  If the evidence was refutable it would be refuted.



I must extend sincere apologies to you - I was not saying that you could not get a degree, and didn't mean it as such.  My intent was as joke offered to you, not an actual reply to your statements.  

I was extending that comment to those who would fervently jump on the traditional "hoax" bandwagon.


----------



## Remi M. (Dec 5, 2006)

toastydeath said:
			
		

> I must extend sincere apologies to you - I was not saying that you could not get a degree, and didn't mean it as such.  My intent was as joke offered to you, not an actual reply to your statements.
> 
> I was extending that comment to those who would fervently jump on the traditional "hoax" bandwagon.



Actually I'm sorry.  I did not fully understand what you typed.  Apparently reading comprehension is not my friend.


----------



## toastydeath (Dec 5, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> Actually I'm sorry.  I did not fully understand what you typed.  Apparently reading comprehension is not my friend.



Ha, as long as we're even!


----------



## DSG (Dec 6, 2006)

Remi M. said:
			
		

> astrostu replied to this better than I could have. But what I find interesting to your argument is what lengths you are willing to go to in order to maintain your belief.


 
I am merely giving some of the irrefutable evidence showing that nonone went to the Moon, and why they still cant get to the Moon.
Made me laugh when I heard yesterday that NASA is planning to "go back to the Moon"...But this time build permanent bases there! 



> By your own words you believe that hundreds of pounds of moon rock could have been brought back by unmanned missions. So you are willing to believe that there existed the technology 30+ years ago. To launch a robot from the earths surface, have it travel to the moon, achieve orbit and land, collect moon rocks, launch from the surface of the moon, travel back to the earth, achieve orbit and land and finally be retrieved. But your not willing to believe that human beings in a pressurized vessel could have done the same thing?


 
Yes, and for several very good reasons, as I outlined before.



> The idea of a hoax is much harder for me to accept than the real thing. A hoax of that magnitude would require that the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the space program in the US and USSR were also hoaxed AND everyone involved in the hoax kept their secret all these years.


 
1) NASA was originally the NACA, a military authority, with military protocalls...There is no reason to believe that those same protocalls were simply forgotton when the name was changed to NASA.
2) Most if not all of the Apollo Astronauts were military test pilots:
ie: If someone is ordered to keep a secret they keep it or risk swift retribution...This could range from a public court martial and life imprisonment on a treason charge to sinister intimidation (including threatening the life of loved ones)...Never understimate how ruthless the military can be to protect their secrets.
3) Remember that the existance of the fastest jet plane in the world, the Lockheed SR71 (Nicknamed "The Blackbird") spy plane was kept totally secret for many years.
The way this was managed was by contracting out the many parts of the aircraft to hundreds of different companies....The only people who got to see the final product were the few individuals who assembled it in the "Skunkworks", a few military top brass and the pilots...Many thousands of people had no idea whatseover what they were building parts for but less than a hundred got to see the real deal.     
The same was true for those involved in Apollo...They were only told what they needed to know.



> Including all the scientists around the world that independently tested the moon rock of it's validity. Moon rock that I have seen in person at the Berlin Deutsches Technikmuseum. That the billions of dollars spent on the technology, launch pads, rockets, space suits, landers... were all spent to facilitate a hoax by both nations.


 
Nonone is denying they have Moon rock, all I am saying is that Man did not have to go there to get it.



> The whole plan to hoax a moon landing would be many times harder to accomplish the the real thing.


 
You would be supprised!


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 13, 2006)

Here is an interesting video on youtube. As the astronauts move around, their shadows change length and width quite dramatically.

Any ideas ?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulfZUOqDSgU&mode=related&search"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulfZUOqDSgU&mode=related&search[/ame]=


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 13, 2006)

lol

that is all I will say in this thread


----------



## John_05 (Dec 13, 2006)

im not sure why i decided to read this thread, but it was pretty interesting. personally, it doesnt matter to me whether it was a hoax or not.

i did find an interesting video though. its pretty long, and i havent watched the entire video, but you can see some pretty interesting things within the first 13 minutes. as for the rest, i dont know. i havent watched past the 13:15 mark.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6361932501715750734&q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon&hl=en

i know it isnt photographic,  but the portion of the video i watched shows and discusses the pictures taken from the moon,  or from wherever else anyone wants to believe they were taken.


----------



## fmw (Dec 13, 2006)

DSG said:
			
		

> 1) NASA was originally the NACA, a military authority, with military protocalls...There is no reason to believe that those same protocalls were simply forgotton when the name was changed to NASA.
> 2) Most if not all of the Apollo Astronauts were military test pilots:
> ie: If someone is ordered to keep a secret they keep it or risk swift retribution...This could range from a public court martial and life imprisonment on a treason charge to sinister intimidation (including threatening the life of loved ones)...Never understimate how ruthless the military can be to protect their secrets.


 
Yes, that would certainly explain why there are never any press leaks from the Pentagon.


----------



## darich (Dec 14, 2006)

I'm at work and won't reply at length but shadows can be at different angles from 2 objects lit by one source. All it takes is a slight slope on the ground where ONE shadow falls.
Also surely if an image was exposed for a man in a white suit and reflective visor the background would be dark and therefore not show the stars?

That said, I don't believe we were there - crosshairs on photos obscured by rocks, astronaughts seem to be lit from more than one source, and dust from the boots not rising 4 times higher than it would on earth since gravity is a quarter.

I'll have a look at the you tube videos at home and might have further input.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 14, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> and dust from the boots not rising 4 times higher than it would on earth since gravity is a quarter.



normally I do not comment in such threads.

just regarding the dust, the dust on earth is mainly moving around by air convection, not by it's own momentum. This driving force is much less on the moon. In vacuum in earth gravity dust does not travel high or far... 

*leaves this thread again*


----------



## darich (Dec 14, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> normally I do not comment in such threads.
> 
> In vacuum in earth gravity dust does not travel high or far...



Precisely - more gravity means dust does not travel high or far. But on the moon with less gravity it would travel higher and further.....but it doesn't - only slower.

also with the thrust from the module there would be no dust in the immediate area with the engine having blown it away. but there is dust on the landing feet and foot prints at the base of the ladder.

Weird.


----------



## Nurd (Dec 14, 2006)

I believe its true just because I would like to believe it that way. Even if it isn't or is I just find my life easier without so much complication. Besides that, you can't believe everything someone tells you. Which works both ways.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 14, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> Precisely - more gravity means dust does not travel high or far. But on the moon with less gravity it would travel higher and further.....but it doesn't - only slower.
> 
> also with the thrust from the module there would be no dust in the immediate area with the engine having blown it away. but there is dust on the landing feet and foot prints at the base of the ladder.
> 
> Weird.



I am just saying that dust in vaccuum on earth would maybe just move up about a few cm or even less if you hit the ground directly with your feet. on the moon it might then be a few cm more, but we are not talking of 20cm or half a meter.

also with the module landing, it will not shovel away much dust, as there is no convection! it is mostly just conservation of momentum. one has to stop thinking in our "living in air atmosphere"-experience. dust simply does not really travel in vacuum or under very tiny gas pressures.

that is just me being a physicist talking ... of course I never was on the moon myself yet, so I cannot show you any video to prove it


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 14, 2006)

darn, i did not want to get involved in this sort of dicussion ...


----------



## darich (Dec 14, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> I am just saying that dust in vaccuum on earth would maybe just move up about a few cm or even less if you hit the ground directly with your feet. on the moon it might then be a few cm more, but we are not talking of 20cm or half a meter.
> 
> also with the module landing, it will not shovel away much dust, as there is no convection! it is mostly just conservation of momentum. one has to stop thinking in our "living in air atmosphere"-experience. dust simply does not really travel in vacuum or under very tiny gas pressures.
> 
> that is just me being a physicist talking ... of course I never was on the moon myself yet, so I cannot show you any video to prove it



conservation of momentum - surely if there is no air particles on the moon then any dust would travel further than on Earth since on Earth the air particles cause the dust to lose momentum?

this arguement could go on forever, or until one of us tries it on the moon for real!! 
but it's also moving away from the main topic.


----------



## fmw (Dec 14, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> but it's also moving away from the main topic.


 
Well, at least something positive came from it.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 14, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> conservation of momentum - surely if there is no air particles on the moon then any dust would travel further than on Earth since on Earth the air particles cause the dust to lose momentum?



no, that is the point, on earth in air, dust travels because of air convection. if you stamp with your feet in the dust, the dust is simply blown with the air which has to escape from the shrinking volume between your feet and the ground  without air, the dust would hardly travel. this is what i am trying to explain.

it is different with large grain sand due to the higher particle mass the sand particles do not travel with the airflow. all which is then left is momentum transfer... and did you ever try to stamp down into the sand and make it fly? it just does not fly very high 



> this arguement could go on forever, or until one of us tries it on the moon for real!!



ok, lets settle this at the 2009 TPF meeting on the moon 



> but it's also moving away from the main topic.



so what?


----------



## darich (Dec 14, 2006)

I'm actually more embarrassed that i said "is no air particles" instead of "are no air particles" :blushing: 

for every pro argument i make there would be a con argument..or vice versa.

We can discuss in depth at the 2009 meet like you suggest!!!:thumbup:


----------



## astrostu (Dec 14, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> darn, i did not want to get involved in this sort of dicussion ...



Yeah, that's why I stopped replying to this thread, even though I started it.  But it is very interesting to see people using the same old arguments without an understanding of the physics of what goes on in an airless environment -- the same old arguments that have been explained over and over again.

To comment specifically on the Google Video link that was posted last night, I don't want to discuss any of the particulars of Bart's argument, but I did want to respond to the implication he makes that no one will swear on the Bible that they went to the Moon.

Let's say, for arument's sake, that you went to the moon.  You were in a tiny capsule for a week with two other people, the world was watching you, and you know that if you press the wrong button, you're probably going to die.  You get back successfully, and from all the stress, you're exhausted.  It's a feel-good exhaustion, and you know that you've done something no other human has done.  First, you're not going to want to talk at a press conference a day later, and you're not going to remember every little detail.  Second, you're not going to want to listen to a bunch of politicians telling you what you've accomplished - you know what you accomplished.

But, there are people who don't believe you.  So what? you think, you know what you did, and the people who count know what you did.  But you live the next 30 years listening to these guys doing everything they can to "prove" that you never went to the moon, you never did what you're famous for, but instead you're guilty of one of the biggest lies in human history.  Now, you're 75, and a tall, well-built guy who's made his career trying to bring down yours accosts you to try to get you to swear that you did what you know you did.  How do you think you'd react to him?  Bart seems to think that the only explanation for getting kicked and punched - and they actually cut the clip where Armstrong punched him (talked about in the next paragraph) - is that the astronauts are covering it up.  Um, couldn't it be that they despise him for what he stands for and wouldn't give him the time of day?

As for the specific clip of Armstrong punching him, Bart accosted Armstrong (the beginning of the clip was cut out) to get him to swear on the Bible, blah blah blah, Armstrong punched him.  What happened next - which they cut - was Bart turning to the cameras excitedly asking/yelling, "Did you get that?"  He later actually tried to sue Armstrong for assult, but the judge threw it out since it was obvious from Bart's own recordings that he was more interested in the sensationalism than in getting to any "truth."


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 14, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> As for the specific clip of Armstrong punching him, Bart accosted Armstrong (the beginning of the clip was cut out) to get him to swear on the Bible, blah blah blah, Armstrong punched him.  What happened next - which they cut - was Bart turning to the cameras excitedly asking/yelling, "Did you get that?"  He later actually tried to sue Armstrong for assult, but the judge threw it out since it was obvious from Bart's own recordings that he was more interested in the sensationalism than in getting to any "truth."



Actually I met Armstrong in person (think it was him, or maybe mixing something up?), and it was easy to tell that something really had an impact to his live and the way he saw things ... I guess that was his trip up there. No sure if it changed him in a good way only. but at least he was very convincing to me, a bit of a weirdo though... but then again all flying personell are a bit weirdo-ish


----------



## BoblyBill (Dec 14, 2006)

How did the seminar go by the way, astrostu?


----------



## astrostu (Dec 14, 2006)

BoblyBill said:
			
		

> How did the seminar go by the way, astrostu?



It went exceedingly well, actually.  I worked with one other person, and we did it as a conversation with one of us presenting the hoax claim and the other debunking it.  We had video clips and pictures and audience interaction, and afterwards the professor sent us an e-mail saying that he was going to not give the customary feedback forms, that it was a great presentation and we each got 100%.

I've also had people come up to me and suggest that I work on turning it into a planetarium presentation to give at the campus planetarium.  I actually might pursue that, but not until Summer when I have "free time."


----------



## RMThompson (Dec 14, 2006)

I want to know how you debunk the fact a camera was on the ground as the lander took back off?

trust me, I dont think it was a hoax, Im just curious as how to answer this!


----------



## astrostu (Dec 14, 2006)

RMThompson said:
			
		

> I want to know how you debunk the fact a camera was on the ground as the lander took back off?
> 
> trust me, I dont think it was a hoax, Im just curious as how to answer this!




I don't know the specifics of this*, but I do know that all Apollo missions left equipment on the lunar surface.  One of these was a video camera.  I've actually been told that the controllers for the first ascent didn't remember that there was a lag between Earth-Moon communication, and they didn't pan with the craft as a result.  So this was adjusted for future missions.

*This is one reason why most scientists will not debate hoax conspiracists.  There are so many nit-picky arguments that can be rattled off that it's nearly impossible to be familiar enough with all of them to convincingly debunk them.  And what I find most telling is that in practically every case, if you debunk a claim then there is no rebuttal from the conspiracist, they move right on to the next one in order to trip you up.  I don't mean to insult DSG at all by this, but his posts are a prime example above, where I provided counter explanations for what he said, and he just went right on to the next one, without providing rebuttal.  This is one reason why I'm semi-warry about doing a public planetarium show about this. :er:


----------



## toastydeath (Dec 14, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> I don't know the specifics of this*, but I do know that all Apollo missions left equipment on the lunar surface.  One of these was a video camera.  I've actually been told that the controllers for the first ascent didn't remember that there was a lag between Earth-Moon communication, and they didn't pan with the craft as a result.  So this was adjusted for future missions.



There are reflectors on the moon to do distance measurement using lasers.


----------



## Remi M. (Dec 14, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> I don't know the specifics of this*, but I do know that all Apollo missions left equipment on the lunar surface.  One of these was a video camera.  I've actually been told that the controllers for the first ascent didn't remember that there was a lag between Earth-Moon communication, and they didn't pan with the craft as a result.  So this was adjusted for future missions.
> 
> *This is one reason why most scientists will not debate hoax conspiracists.  There are so many nit-picky arguments that can be rattled off that it's nearly impossible to be familiar enough with all of them to convincingly debunk them.  And what I find most telling is that in practically every case, if you debunk a claim then there is no rebuttal from the conspiracist, they move right on to the next one in order to trip you up.  I don't mean to insult DSG at all by this, but his posts are a prime example above, where I provided counter explanations for what he said, and he just went right on to the next one, without providing rebuttal.  This is one reason why I'm semi-warry about doing a public planetarium show about this. :er:



Same reason I stopped replying.  It's like a atheist arguing with a evangelical christian.   Nobody is going to get anywhere.


----------



## PetersCreek (Dec 15, 2006)

Aw what the heck...



			
				DSG said:
			
		

> There are no stars in the background...One blatently obvious flaw in all the official NASA photos and videos.


Could you please demonstrate the use of color slide film with the dynamic range necessary to record a properly exposed sunlit 18% gray card using an exposure of 1/125 sec @ _f_/16 (±1 stop, assuming ISO-100) that would also capture a visible starfield in the same frame? It doesn't even have to be the entire starfield. How about just those stars (and other celestial objects) with an apparent magnitude down to, let's say, 2? That'll leave out a whole bunch of stars visible to the naked eye...down to about magnitude 6...but should cover the essential, recognizable consellations and asterisms, including the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor). Please post your unretouched results here.

Here, many of use are endevour to preserve shadow detail without blowing highlights in demanding photographic situations. If you can offer an easy, fool-proof, in-camera solution, you stand to make a bundle.



> Never understimate how ruthless the military can be to protect their secrets.


Then why haven't you (or anyone else) and your "irrefutable" evidence been "eliminated"? Your view of the military is rather cartoonish.



> the Rocket engine on the Lunar lander was powered by two hypergolic propellants...<snip>...When these two are combined and combust they produce huge opaque billowing clouds of orangey coloured smoke....Therefore they would'nt have been able to film the lander taking off for all the smoke!!!


Nitrogen tetroxide produces an opaque orange vapor cloud _on contact with air_, and Aerozine 50 produces a white vapor cloud. They burn quite cleanly in a vacuum...and the plume is practically invisible once the engine acheives steady-state operation.



> You should also bear in mind that the ascent capsule would have to reach or exceed a velocity of at least 4500mph to escape the Moons gravity...


Incorrect. The Space Shuttle doesn't even acheive the Earth's escape velocity. It achieves _orbital_ velocity. Similarly, the LM only had to reach the velocity necessary to achieve Lunar orbit and redezvous with the CM. The CM didn't have to reach Lunar escape velocity, either. It only had to reach a transfer orbit that would bring it back to Earth.



> Who exactly is "pulling out wide" and panning the camera up to follow the acsending ascent capsule?...They would have had to leave one Astronaut behind to work the camera!!!


Um...it's called a remote control and I'm almost embarassed for you that I have to explain that. Remotely controlled cameras, operated by Ed Fendell in Mission Control, were used on Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17.


----------



## RMThompson (Dec 15, 2006)

AGAIN I think we went, I just want to play devils advocate.

First, whats up with this picture? Where did the second light come from?







SECOND... read this:

*It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes). Very simply, it amounts to a study known to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY. The elementary question is: was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in the amount of time available (from NASA records)? But before you read my study, to understand it you need to know some basic information about the Apollo missions: 

1. Of seven Apollo missions to put "men on the Moon", six were claimed to be "successful". (Apollo 13 was "aborted".)

2. Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.

3. Two astronauts rode each LEM to the Moon surface while one remained in the orbiting Command and Service Module (CSM) awaiting their return. 

4. During their Extra-Vehicular Activity (lunar surface exploration) each of the two wore a bulky inflated spacesuit with clumsy gloves, greatly limiting mobility. On their backs they wore a huge and heavy Life Support System (PLSS) backpack containing an oxygen tank and circulating water air conditioning system which pumped refrigerated water throughout the suit to counteract the 200+/- degree heat (and cold) of lunar conditions. Pumps circulated both refrigerated air and water to the liquid cooling undergarment, as well as dehumidifying, removing carbon dioxide, and providing all other functions needed to survive harsh conditions in the confining suits. 

5. The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts. Most of the projects, which numbered about a half dozen each mission, were remarkably similar on all six missions. All of these science experiments involved unpacking equipment from stowage bays, assembling it, transporting it to its location, setting it up, and then doing the experiments. As you might imagine, each of these research projects would require a major portion of the TIME of the two men for each experiment.

6. Another major project besides operation of the packaged experiments was the Geological Study, which involved searching for different specimens of rocks and soils in various locations, documenting and collecting samples to return to earth. This obviously occupied much of their TIME.

7. Considerable TIME was needed for "housekeeping chores". After landing, the LEM had to be inspected to make sure it had not been damaged. Communications equipment to put them in contact with Earth had to be set up and operated, including radio and television antennas and TV cameras. The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated. Oh, and don't forget the "ceremonial" chat with President Nixon during Apollo 11.

8. The first three missions required the astronauts to walk to each experiment location. The last three missions were supplied with a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) to travel to distant locations miles away from the LEM. The partially pre-assembled LRV was attached to the outside of the LEM. The rover floor served as a pallet which was hinged to the outside of the LRV. The wheels were folded under. The "pallet" was lowered by hand to the lunar surface, and the wheels rotated into position. After the wheels were down, the vehicle had to be outfitted with all of its considerable equipment from various storage bins of the LEM. Oddly, not a single photo exists in the public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts assembling and equipping the LRVs. The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography. Also, the time taken in assembling the rover was not used for any photography. Though I could find no time given by NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to unload, assemble and equip and test a rover? 

9. Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability. 

10. It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME TIME. Usually one of them was photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise. Now that you understand the missions, here is my discovery of NASA overzealousness, which has been successfully hidden till now. 

A TIME AND MOTION STUDY 

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands! 

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions: 

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374 
Apollo 15..........1021 
Apollo 16..........1765 
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures. 

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available: 

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes) 
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes) 
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes) 
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes) 
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes) 

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for the OTHER tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240 minutes), leaving 230 minutes for taking photos 
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180 minutes), leaving 385 minutes for taking photos 
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 750 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 854 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480 minutes), leaving 844 minutes for taking photos 

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time? 

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon &#8211;- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS! 

*


----------



## PetersCreek (Dec 15, 2006)

Seek and ye shall find...


----------



## BoblyBill (Dec 15, 2006)

RMThompson said:
			
		

> *The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon - that's one picture every 50 SECONDS! *


 
I know from  my limited experience that I can take 5 or 6 pictures a minute changing exposures between each one. Granted... I have a little bit more modern camera than what they had on the moon so that really doesn't mean much... I just thought that I'd put that in... thanks


----------



## astrostu (Dec 15, 2006)

First, where's your evidence for a second light source in that image?

Second, have you ever taken a panorama?  You aim the camera at a spot, take a shot, rotate slightly, take another shot, etc.  You can easily rack up 20 shots in 10 seconds doing this, easily accounting for this "one picture every 50 seconds."  There's a different between average and actual.  Same with stereo pairs:  They aimed at an object, moved a step or so over, and took another shot ... takes 2 seconds and that's 2 pictures.  It is not hard to easily rack up hundreds of photos very quickly by doing this.  When I go on trips, I'm not constantly with my camera, but I can come back from a 30-minute excursion with 200 pictures easily.


----------



## PetersCreek (Dec 15, 2006)

RMThompson said:
			
		

> SECOND... read this:
> 
> *It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery...*


 
For the sake of good form, I'd like to point out that the bold, quoted text in post #50 is from an article entitled, _The Skeleton in NASA's Spacesuit_, written by Jack White.

Attribution is nice.  Linking to lengthy articles is even nicer.  Ya know...copyright stuff and all that.

Jack White makes a lot of claims and accusations.  The problem is, the man just flat doesn't know what he's talking about.  His claptrap has been authoritatively rebuked time and time again.


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 16, 2006)

PetersCreek said:
			
		

> Aw what the heck...
> 
> 
> Could you please demonstrate the use of color slide film with the dynamic range necessary to record a properly exposed sunlit 18% gray card using an exposure of 1/125 sec @ _f_/16 (±1 stop, assuming ISO-100) that would also capture a visible starfield in the same frame? It doesn't even have to be the entire starfield. How about just those stars (and other celestial objects) with an apparent magnitude down to, let's say, 2? That'll leave out a whole bunch of stars visible to the naked eye...down to about magnitude 6...but should cover the essential, recognizable consellations and asterisms, including the Little Dipper (Ursa Minor). Please post your unretouched results here.
> ...


 
It would have been very easy to take photographs of the most magnificent sight human beings had ever seen by pointing a correctly set up camera at the sky away from the sun but they didn't. Not only that, stars were never mentioned on any of the missions. On return, Armstrong said it wasn't possible to see stars from the lunar surface. Collins said he didn't see any. Neither statements are plausible. It would not have been possible to create a photograph of the fixed stars with any of the planets because it would have given the game away that it was taken from earth.

Two outspoken critics of Apollo met untimely deaths, Grissome in a fire 
Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges 

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539 (scummy website)

and 

Thomas Ronald Baron was a quality control inspector for NASA and committed suicidewith his family after a congressional hearing. This is America we're talking about, let's not forget JFK, the CIA and the Warren commission .


Do you actually know anything about the burning of Aerozine 50 in a vacuum are are you assuming tha NASA is telling the truth ?


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 16, 2006)

darich said:
			
		

> I'm at work and won't reply at length but shadows can be at different angles from 2 objects lit by one source. All it takes is a slight slope on the ground where ONE shadow falls.
> Also surely if an image was exposed for a man in a white suit and reflective visor the background would be dark and therefore not show the stars?
> 
> That said, I don't believe we were there - crosshairs on photos obscured by rocks, astronaughts seem to be lit from more than one source, and dust from the boots not rising 4 times higher than it would on earth since gravity is a quarter.
> ...


 
You may be right about a slope but the video displays dramatic shadow size differences at all points in the vicinity. There are numerous photographs of the ground tthat demonstrate it was very flat also.






Here is a page that shows NASA manipulates photographs in its own archives over time.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/spotlightchange.htm


----------



## Tiberius (Dec 17, 2006)

> n return, Armstrong said it wasn't possible to see stars from the lunar surface. Collins said he didn't see any. Neither statements are plausible.


Can YOU see the starts when the sun's out?  The moon's surface is inherently very reflective.  The dynamic contrast would make it near-impossible to see any stars.

Also, your insinuation that the Apollo 1 Tragedy was an act of murder is an utter outrage and an offense to White, Chaffee, and Grissom.

In your second post, it looks like the old image was a scan of an early print and the later images are the exact same shot in more clarity (likely when they decided to revisit the source material and convert it directly to digital).


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 17, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Can YOU see the starts when the sun's out? The moon's surface is inherently very reflective. The dynamic contrast would make it near-impossible to see any stars.
> 
> Also, your insinuation that the Apollo 1 Tragedy was an act of murder is an utter outrage and an offense to White, Chaffee, and Grissom.
> 
> In your second post, it looks like the old image was a scan of an early print and the later images are the exact same shot in more clarity (likely when they decided to revisit the source material and convert it directly to digital).


 
It would be easily possible to see stars on the moon's surface if one turned one's back to the sun. There is no atmosphere to cause scattering of light. The sky would be black.

Grissom's family (particularly his son) very strongly believe he was murdered and he has researched the matter in great detail.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

It is clear from the pictures that the image has been manipilated to remove the very obvious spotlight effect (mentioned by  the man in charge of supplying the apollo cameras for Hasselblad on a video)  even from the second picture in 2003 .The spotlight effect is noticable on a large number of apollo photographs and videos including this one.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8-_7uFL0iw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8-_7uFL0iw[/ame]

The background is dark at the beginning but as we follow the rover the scene becomes brighter and brighter. Basically the difference between twilight and broad daylight.


----------



## astrostu (Dec 17, 2006)

Greig Dempsey said:
			
		

> It would be easily possible to see stars on the moon's surface if one turned one's back to the sun. There is no atmosphere to cause scattering of light. The sky would be black.



Do you really honestly believe this?  Have you actually thought this through?  Or are you just trying to antagonize people?

Your only posts on ThePhotoForum have been pro-hoax in this particular thread ... are you here to discuss photography or are you here to perpetuate these incorrect, inflammatory views that have been debunked countless times?


----------



## fmw (Dec 17, 2006)

Folks, what you have here is a troll.  Let's let it go and get back to discussing photography.


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 17, 2006)

astrostu said:
			
		

> Do you really honestly believe this? Have you actually thought this through? Or are you just trying to antagonize people?
> 
> Your only posts on ThePhotoForum have been pro-hoax in this particular thread ... are you here to discuss photography or are you here to perpetuate these incorrect, inflammatory views that have been debunked countless times?


 
Like you, I was curious to see if photographers would have some insight into this. Well, obviously not these ones.

It takes very little knowledge or intelligence to know the sky is bright and blue in daytime because light is scattered by the atmosphere.

Here is an explanation for young children. If it's too difficult I can try and make it even simpler. I have a physics degree and used to be a lecturer although I taught computing to adults.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

That's how NASA got away with this, the *absolutely astonishing *ignorance, arrogance and stupidity of the average American . Very scary.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 17, 2006)

come on, lets not discuss this all in terms of intelligence and degrees in physics, this is disgusting.

I myself have several degrees in phyisics, and I do earn my money with research and university teaching for some years... and that is why I gave up discussing these things on forums (just like all those discussions about general relativity or quantum physics). And the attitude and mood in this particular thread really puts me off now.. I will ignore it from now on.


----------



## Greig Dempsey (Dec 17, 2006)

Alex_B said:
			
		

> come on, lets not discuss this all in terms of intelligence and degrees in physics, this is disgusting.
> 
> I myself have several degrees in phyisics, and I do earn my money with research and university teaching for some years... and that is why I gave up discussing these things on forums (just like all those discussions about general relativity or quantum physics). And the attitude and mood in this particular thread really puts me off now.. I will ignore it from now on.


 
I think this is where it went wrong. 

_



Do you really honestly believe this? Have you actually thought this through? Or are you just trying to antagonize people?

Your only posts on ThePhotoForum have been pro-hoax in this particular thread ... are you here to discuss photography or are you here to perpetuate these incorrect, inflammatory views that have been debunked countless times?

Folks, what you have here is a troll. Let's let it go and get back to discussing photography

Click to expand...

_ 
Going back to discussing photography is really easy. Just let this thread die. Have a great afternoon.


----------



## fmw (Dec 17, 2006)

Greig Dempsey said:
			
		

> That's how NASA got away with this, the *absolutely astonishing *ignorance, arrogance and stupidity of the average American . Very scary.


 
Thanks, you've done a great job insulting me and everyone else.  Now begone troll.

Folks you have to stop feeding him.  He won't go away until you do.


----------



## Corry (Dec 17, 2006)

The original post had a specific question.  

Please stick to answering that question, and refrain from any further off topic bickering.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Dec 17, 2006)

It's all a conspiracy I tell you.  It's those damn liberals or is it the conservatives.  It don't matter it's the floride thing all over again.


----------



## PetersCreek (Dec 18, 2006)

Back to the OP...

Obviously, I don't subscribe to the hoax theory but some of the discussion here brings to mind some photographic evidence seldom discussed.  While wfov visible light photos of stars from the Lunar surface would have been of little scientific value, one of the experiments conducted during Apollo 16 was ultraviolet astrophotography using a Schmidt telescopic camera.  Images aren't the easiest to come by online but a few are included in Chapter 13 of the Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report.  (dial-up warning: file size &#8776; 55 mb)

A couple of additional images:

Link
Link

While I can't immediately put my hands on it, I seem to recall seeing one UV photo of stars with a portion of the lunar landscape included in frame.


----------



## RMThompson (Dec 19, 2006)

PetersCreek said:
			
		

> For the sake of good form, I'd like to point out that the bold, quoted text in post #50 is from an article entitled, _The Skeleton in NASA's Spacesuit_, written by Jack White.
> 
> Attribution is nice. Linking to lengthy articles is even nicer. Ya know...copyright stuff and all that.
> 
> Jack White makes a lot of claims and accusations. The problem is, the man just flat doesn't know what he's talking about. His claptrap has been authoritatively rebuked time and time again.


 
Oh I thought I mentioned that I didn't write that.

In fact I am quite certain that we landed on the moon.

FURTHERMORE I even understand how we took that many pictures, one every 50 seconds... later missions were almost completely PICTURE TAKING missions! 

I was just trying to keep the photography discussion online.


----------



## Cuervo79 (Dec 21, 2006)

lol that's all I can say about this thread


----------



## DSG (May 17, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> Actually I met Armstrong in person (think it was him, or maybe mixing something up?), and it was easy to tell that something really had an impact to his live and the way he saw things


 
Yeah living a lie for nearly forty years would have that effect on someone!


----------



## DSG (May 17, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> come on, lets not discuss this all in terms of intelligence and degrees in physics, this is disgusting.
> 
> I myself have several degrees in phyisics, and I do earn my money with research and university teaching for some years... and that is why I gave up discussing these things on forums (just like all those discussions about general relativity or quantum physics). And the attitude and mood in this particular thread really puts me off now.. I will ignore it from now on.


 
So as you seem to be the man with all the answers Alex perhaps you could explain exactly what effect the supersonic, 3000 degrees C, lunar lander Rocket exaust would have on the Lunar dust that was right under the Rocket nozzle?
Would it melt the dust/rock?...And if so, would this molten dust/rock be blasted outwards by the thrust of the gases, leaving a crater under the lander and melted rock residue all over the legs of the lander?
Or would it just sit there because of the vacuum on the Moon?
BTW, please explain why the fuel load carried by the lander was insufficient to both retard the lander during its landing and allow it to attain lunar orbit again?
Please explain why the reflection in Buzz Aldrins visor shows that Neil  Armstrong had no camera on his chest bracket to take the picture in the first place?
Please explain how the constant rain of x-rays from the Sun that the moon is exposed to failed to expose the film in the camera despite a total lack of sheilding on the camera to sheild against x-rays?  
Please explain why there seems to be a fill light used to fill in the shadows on and around the Astronauts in many Apollo pics despite there being only one light source, the Sun?
:scratch:


----------



## RedDevilUK (May 17, 2007)

first i would like to say i think we DID go to the moon!

and at some point we will know all this for sure.... because as technology gets better we will go to the moon again with better cameras etc... and proof of other visits will be shown/proven

so if you really want to know if we did or didnt.... just wait


----------



## panocho (May 17, 2007)

just read a little of this for fun -until it was too much reading and not fun anymore.

I think that the original question was about photographic reasons to claim it an hoax. Just two comments from what I read:

1. Astrotu, I can't find anything strange or amazing in a flag fluttering in a still picture. Is the same as considering amazing claiming from a still picture that a man was jumping or running. Most reasonable, I think!

2. You asked for photographic reasons, astrotu, and there was one in the first long repñy of DSG: that film should have been ruined. Sounds like a strong point, if that is so.

And that's all for me... by the way, although leaving the discussion without having a position in the debate, which I don't know enough to take one, I do not find any problem at all in considering the whole thing a pure fake. Worse things have happened...


----------



## The_Traveler (May 17, 2007)

I happen to have a large supply of aluminum foil hat liners that I would be willing to sell.

For every order made today, I will include a terry cloth bib with the logo,"NASA lied"  in red on a blue field.


----------



## Don Simon (May 17, 2007)

Dawn of the Dead Thread: _When there's no more room in the archive, dead posts will walk the earth..._


----------



## danalec99 (May 17, 2007)

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo[/ame]


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 17, 2007)

most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. 

If it were fake shots of the studio/setup would have surfaced by now, heck we cant even keep a presidents sex scandals secret for more then a few months. 

Also, there is no motivation for us to lie. We had / have the technology 
to do it. weve risked lives for less, and the pilots wanted to go.. motivation, and money point that we went. 

also there was tons of facts from einsteinien theories that were proven 
by going, you cant adjust history like that with nobody knowing or talking 

everyone that has a video or speech about it being fake is selling something, follow the money, follow the motivation, if your a sucker buy their dvd for 29.99 suckers... hahahaha


----------



## ksmattfish (May 18, 2007)

Greig Dempsey said:


> It would have been very easy to take photographs of the most magnificent sight human beings had ever seen by pointing a correctly set up camera at the sky away from the sun...



The lunar surface is lit by the sun, making the correct exposure for lunar landscape photos f/16 @ 1/400 sec using ISO 400 film, or EV 16.  Stars, other than the sun, are about EV -4, making the correct exposure for a starfield approximately f/2.8 @ 1 min using ISO 400 film (not taking into account reciprocity failure).  There is a 19 stop difference between the brightness of the lunar surface in the sun, and the stars (other than the sun).  That means the difference in brightness is 2 to the 19th power, which if I did my math correctly means the lunar surface is 524,288 times brighter than the star field.  

Do a little research into the dynamic range abilities of film, or any photographic process ever invented, and the human eye, and it becomes readily apparent why you can't see or take photos of the stars from the lunar surface.

I haven't done much research on the supposed moon landing hoax, but I have seen a few documentaries, and I have to say that I felt that all of the photographic "evidence" presented in the shows could be easily explained by anyone with slightly more than a passing interest in photography.  None of it perplexed me.


----------



## DSG (May 21, 2007)

Tiberius said:


> Can YOU see the starts when the sun's out? ).


 
Of course not because the Earth has an Atmosphere and when one looks at the sky, rather than seeing the black of space, one sees light from Rayleigh scattering off the air, but the moon does'nt have an Atmosphere so no Rayleigh scattering can take place and therefore there is nothing to obscure the light from the stars.
Something Tiberius could never have known two thousand years ago!!!
Rayleigh scattering is proportional to the inverse fourth power of wavelength, which means that the shorter wavelength of blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths of green and red light. This gives the sky a blue appearance. Conversely, when one looks towards the sun at sunset, one sees the colors that were not scattered away...the longer wavelength, red light.


----------



## Alex_B (May 21, 2007)

It is all a big hoax ... _MAN HAS NEVER WALKED ON MARS_!!!


----------



## Alex_B (May 21, 2007)

oopps, sorry guys, wrong thread ...


----------



## Don Simon (May 21, 2007)

I walked on Mars. It took ages to get the chocolate out the carpet.


----------



## Alex_B (May 21, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> I walked on Mars. It took ages to get the chocolate out the carpet.



:lmao:


----------



## highwoodhiker (May 26, 2007)

PetersCreek said:


> Jack White makes a lot of claims and accusations. The problem is, the man just flat doesn't know what he's talking about. His claptrap has been authoritatively rebuked time and time again.


His math is poor also. His claim of one photo every 50 seconds would be accurate for 1 astronaut but there was 12 in total which equals 1 photo every 10 minutes per astronaut which is highly conceivable. 6 photos per hour means an astronaut could take 12 picutes in a few minutes at a certain location and not take a photo for another 2 hours and still average 6 photos per hour.
Not that I am trying to prove or disprove any evidence of manned flight to the moon. It's like discussions of politics or religion where people have chosen a side, usually based on what their parents told them they should believe, and will use all manner of logical fallacies and even attack the character of others just to try to prove they are correct. Watching from the sidelines is interesting. But I have little interest in the actual subject matter or who is right. My opinion of many things is that I don't need to have an opinion.
So no comment on the validity of the evidence of lunar landings. Just pointing out the math error. That's the nice thing about math. The answer is either right or wrong and you can't just make things up to make it appear otherwise.


----------

