• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Further nitpick, quite obvious antenna shadow:

2nivalx.jpg
 
Foster Zygote said:
If you draw a line from the top of the tool standing up in the soil to the corresponding part of its shadow, you can establish the direction of sunlight. If you draw a parallel line from the top of th UHF antenna, it passes right through the middle of the outer helmet. Keeping in mind that the antenna is on the left side of the PLSS, this leads me to conclude that the shadow is most likely falling on the far side of Young's helmet.
Click to expand...

Looks like the shadow is on the floor as shown-

Sun_angle.png
 
Erock said:
Small nit-pick. That is a hi res scan from the transparency before colour and contrast balance:)
Click to expand...

Why so it is.

But that begs the further question. Why could he not zoom in like everyone else?

Even in mspaint the antenna shadow is clearly visible. Personally, I use photoshop as a rule, but gimp is free.

At a guess, only web page versions were observed by our protagonist. The image is 2048x2048, but reduced to 600x600 on this webpage.
 
abaddon said:
Why so it is.

But that begs the further question. Why could he not zoom in like everyone else?

Even in mspaint the antenna shadow is clearly visible. Personally, I use photoshop as a rule, but gimp is free.

At a guess, only web page versions were observed by our protagonist. The image is 2048x2048, but reduced to 600x600 on this webpage.
Click to expand...

That's really the best resolution for viewing a fine grained medium format transparency. Any more detail than 600x600 just gets confusing.
 
Belz... said:
It's the first thing I noticed when looking into moan moon (nice typo there, Belz...) hoax nonsense. They always mention the lack of stars right off the bat, as if NASA forgot to put them in the fake studio sky, and forgot to add them in post, hoping that those meddling kids wouldn't notice. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Standard reason is that they wouldn't be able to put all the stars in the right place and people would notice
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Your 'Sun rays' should be parallel.
Click to expand...

No they shouldn't. It is a 2 dimensional picture with a vanishing point where the Sun would be.

To find where the Sun is on any picture, draw a line from the shadow to the object and extend it. The lines will always converge where the Sun is in the sky.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That is such a lame reason, though. As if they can't put stars in the proper place.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the full argument goes that NASA purposely left the stars out because they wouldn't be able get them exactly in the right place. Then even amateur astronomers would be able to tell the pictures were fake. But what no one has been able to answer for me is that if it's so easy to tell that a star is out of place in a photo, why is it so hard to adjust it to be in the right place? It's almost as if they're making this up as they go.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, the full argument goes that NASA purposely left the stars out because they wouldn't be able get them exactly in the right place. Then even amateur astronomers would be able to tell the pictures were fake. But what no one has been able to answer for me is that if it's so easy to tell that a star is out of place in a photo, why is it so hard to adjust it to be in the right place? It's almost as if they're making this up as they go.
Click to expand...

Indeed. They could use actual photos of the real stars taken from Earth on clear nights, using the same Hassie cameras and the same type of film,and taken at the proper orientation to match the orientation of the cameras at the "landing site". Compositing those images into the black areas of the Apollo images would be a breeze. You'd even get the same grain appearance from the emulsion. Far from being too difficult, it would have been one of the easiest special effects to achieve for professional photographers.

The irony is, however, that those star fields would have to be photographed with the camera on a tripod, the aperture wide open, and exposure times of at least 15 to 20 seconds. Shoot them at f-5.6 and 1/250, and you'll get what amounts to unexposed film.
 
thedopefishlives said:
History FAIL. If he knew anything about Apollo, he'd realize that those images were rebroadcast by pointing a TV camera at a monitor that was displaying the original slow-scan camera footage. It's not truly "original" footage. If only the SSTV tapes hadn't been overwritten, I bet they'd look different.
Click to expand...

Well this is a guy who didn't know the difference between TV and film. The really sad thing is that he isn't some kid who is younger than the PlayStation. This is a guy who looks to be in his mid to late forties.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, ask them to find out what Photoshop was first introduced.
Click to expand...
I've come to recognize a large degree of historical ignorance among the younger hoax believers (who seem to make up a large percentage of the whole). They simply have no idea what it was like in the late '60s/early '70s. They grew up in a world of ubiquitous networked computers that fit in their pockets, and they don't seem to understand the state of technology back then. In '76, you could get a portable video camera, but it was a large and heavy shoulder mounted unit, required a large and heavy tape unit slung over your other shoulder, and literally cost more than a new '76 Ferrari 308.



Yes, ask him to take a picture of a starry sky, where there is also a streetlight or a well-lit building in the picture.
Click to expand...
Even on a pitch-black winter night, he couldn't take pictures of the stars with his smart-phone. He could probably get Venus, maybe Sirius, but that's about it. What gets me is the way these people just pull some "fact" out of their posterior and assume it's true without ever verifying it.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, ask them to find out what Photoshop was first introduced.



Yes, ask him to take a picture of a starry sky, where there is also a streetlight or a well-lit building in the picture.



Tell him to .... go soak his head.

Hans
Click to expand...

Actually photoshop has been around for at least 2000 years.

How else did the Shroud of Turin get printed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom