Merged Discussion of the moon landing "hoax"

[Gypseagirl]

LGR is a Holocaust denier too,so don't set much store by what he says.

Wow

 

[Sledge]

I don't wish to be critical (well, I do, but in the hope of you thinking and learning, not just for the sake of putting you down), but don't you think that

Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

and

Grainy, Unclear images although technology at the time could have produced much clearer images - Did NASA intentionally make the images hard to see?

cancel each other out?

 

[caniswalensis]

Can someone explain these for me.

Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

Images show that Stars were missing from the black lunar sky

Grainy, Unclear images although technology at the time could have produced much clearer images - Did NASA intentionally make the images hard to see?

Shadows - The only source of light on the moon was the Sun but shadows were cast in multiple directions

Hiya,

These things have all been thoroughly accounted for.

There are tons of good sites out there that can answer your questions, but my favorite is: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Regards, Canis

 

[caniswalensis]

I don't wish to be critical (well, I do, but in the hope of you thinking and learning, not just for the sake of putting you down), but don't you think that
and

cancel each other out?

Actually, I think one is about still photography, and the "unclear" issue is with the videos taken.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Can someone explain these for me.

Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that for every flawless photo there were many flawed photos that weren't released.

Images show that Stars were missing from the black lunar sky

Stars appear in the background only in science fiction movies. In real life, the stark lighting source (the sun) overwhelms the starlight. You wouldn't expect to see stars in the middle of the day, when the sun was out, would you?

ETA: Simpler, more accurate answer: If they had set the exposure on their cameras long enough to pick up stars, the things they were trying to photograph would have been overexposed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually, I think one is about still photography, and the "unclear" issue is with the videos taken.

The video might have been much clearer when it was new. Videotape tends to degrade over time.

 

[Gypseagirl]

Hiya,

These things have all been thoroughly accounted for.

There are tons of good sites out there that can answer your questions, but my favorite is: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Regards, Canis

That is a pretty good site.

I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that for every flawless photo there were many flawed photos that weren't released.



Stars appear in the background only in science fiction movies. In real life, the stark lighting source (the sun) overwhelms the starlight. You wouldn't expect to see stars in the middle of the day, when the sun was out, would you?

Thanks...it makes sense.

 

[Paulhoff]

You can always tell those who don't understand the limits of film used a camera. Film has way less dynamic range than the eye. From the brightest thing in the picture to the very faintest thing that can be taken by film is not as big as the eye. Many people forget that their eyes are always changing depending on the light conditions whereas the camera is set at the time when taking any picture, and anything that is faint will not show if one sets the camera to take a picture for a bright subject, whereas you eyes will adjust when looking at a faint area.

Paul

 

[A Laughing Baby]

LGR is a Holocaust denier too,so don't set much store by what he says.

Not trying to defend LGR here, but this is like...textbook ad hom.

 

[AdMan]

Not trying to defend LGR here, but this is like...textbook ad hom.

True, but I think if you're building a case for LGR's (lack of) trustworthiness in general and not specifically addressing his moon hoax statements, it's worth mentioning.

 

[Gypseagirl]

You can always tell those who don't understand the limits of film used a camera. Film has way less dynamic range than the eye. From the brightest thing in the picture to the very faintest thing that can be taken by film is not as big as the eye. Many people forget that their eyes are always changing depending on the light conditions whereas the camera is set at the time when taking any picture, and anything that is faint will not show if one sets the camera to take a picture for a bright subject, whereas you eyes will adjust when looking at a faint area.

Paul

Let me see if I really understand...by looking up in the sky and I see stars...I can see the "fainter" ones if I strain my eyes. If I take a picture of the night sky the camera it will take a photo of the stars but not the "fainter" ones?...I'm hoping I got that right because it makes sense to me.

 

[matt.tansy]

Can someone explain these for me.

Still Photographs - Cameras were fitted to the Astronauts chest - there was no view finder and photographs could only be taken by movement of the body but 1000's of flawless photographs were taken.

Images show that Stars were missing from the black lunar sky

Grainy, Unclear images although technology at the time could have produced much clearer images - Did NASA intentionally make the images hard to see?

Shadows - The only source of light on the moon was the Sun but shadows were cast in multiple directions

Cameras:
hundreds of crappy photographs were also taken. This link will take you to a post with links to thumbnails of entire film magazines taken during the missions. You'll see plenty of bad photos. They are BIG files.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=apollo&thread=2322&post=68542

Stars:
The [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hasselblad [/FONT]cameras were set to a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second. The astronauts would adjust the f/stop depending on the location of the Sun (5.6 for down-Sun and cross-Sun photos, 8 for up-Sun photos, iirc). One member on apollohoax.net calculated the type of film used by the Hasselblads would need to have 30,000 times the exposure value to register a star.

Grainy video:
the video isn't that bad considering it was transmitted from 384,000 km away.

Shadows:
shadows are always parallel when cast from an infinitely distant light source onto a flat surface when viewed from above from an infinite distance. None of the Apollo photographs came anywhere close to meeting a single one of those criteria, let alone all of them.
All of the claims of multiple light sources always ignore the fact that multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows.
A Google image search for "non-parallel shadows" shows lots of examples of non-parallel shadows from Apollo and lots of examples on the Earth that disprove the claim that all shadows must always be parallel.

I hope this all helps.

 

[Gypseagirl]

Cameras:
hundreds of crappy photographs were also taken. This link will take you to a post with links to thumbnails of entire film magazines taken during the missions. You'll see plenty of bad photos. They are BIG files.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=apollo&thread=2322&post=68542

Stars:
The [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hasselblad [/FONT]cameras were set to a shutter speed of 1/250th of a second. The astronauts would adjust the f/stop depending on the location of the Sun (5.6 for down-Sun and cross-Sun photos, 8 for up-Sun photos, iirc). One member on apollohoax.net calculated the type of film used by the Hasselblads would need to have 30,000 times the exposure value to register a star.

Grainy video:
the video isn't that bad considering it was transmitted from 384,000 km away.

Shadows:
shadows are always parallel when cast from an infinitely distant light source onto a flat surface when viewed from above from an infinite distance. None of the Apollo photographs came anywhere close to meeting a single one of those criteria, let alone all of them.
All of the claims of multiple light sources always ignore the fact that multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows.
A Google image search for "non-parallel shadows" shows lots of examples of non-parallel shadows from Apollo and lots of examples on the Earth that disprove the claim that all shadows must always be parallel.

I hope this all helps.

Thanks for the link on the pictures. That is very helpful. Also thanks for explaining those for me.

I have to say...............I am getting to be "believer"............ooops did I say that.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let me see if I really understand...by looking up in the sky and I see stars...I can see the "fainter" ones if I strain my eyes. If I take a picture of the night sky the camera it will take a photo of the stars but not the "fainter" ones?...I'm hoping I got that right because it makes sense to me.

You will have to take a long exposures for the stars and use a tripod and not too long of an exposure or the stars will become lines. But if you take the moon's picture the stars most likely will not show.

Paul

 

[matt.tansy]

Not trying to defend LGR here, but this is like...textbook ad hom.

An ad hominem would take the form "lgr is a holocaust denier, therefore he is wrong about the Moon landing hoax." Not all ad hominems are fallacious. In his case it justifies suspicion of everything he may or has claimed.

 

[Paulhoff]

Shadows:
shadows are always parallel when cast from an infinitely distant light source onto a flat surface when viewed from above from an infinite distance. None of the Apollo photographs came anywhere close to meeting a single one of those criteria, let alone all of them.

That is only if the ground in flat, which it isn't.

Paul

 

[TSR]

Yea, I was going to tell Gypseagirl that an ironosphere was a sphere that had a black fly in its chardonnay, but at the last minute decided to forgo the obscure culture reference and go for the cheap joke.

.
Coffee alert, d*mmit! That's *twice*: I think you owe me a keyboard and a monitor.

"Yeah, I really do think."
.

 

[matt.tansy]

Thanks for the link on the pictures. That is very helpful. Also thanks for explaining those for me.

I have to say...............I am getting to be "believer"............ooops did I say that.

"A skeptic apportions their belief to the quality and quantity of the evidence". I don't remember who said that. It might have been me.

Don't relinquish all doubt yet, we've barely scratched the surface. Actually, there comes a point in time, when all you've looked at turns out to be crap and everything some group has told you turned out to be lies, it's usually not worth the effort to continue any further. But I'll keep answering any more questions you have.

 

[matt.tansy]

That is only if the ground in flat, which it isn't.

Paul

Hence my use of the words "flat surface".

I eagerly await your "D'oh!".

 

[A Laughing Baby]

An ad hominem would take the form "lgr is a holocaust denier, therefore he is wrong about the Moon landing hoax." Not all ad hominems are fallacious. In his case it justifies suspicion of everything he may or has claimed.

It's probably more apt to say "not all ad homs are wrong, nor are they all ill-founded," but they're still ad homs. You could easily build a case against his credibility without saying "he's a holocaust denier, disregard."

Hint: You could even include his holocaust denial as a premise without it being an ad hom.

Anyway, you're right, dude's crazy and she shouldn't pay attention to him, I'm just saying.