• 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

JayUtah said:
So you've already decided to dismiss any data that don't fit your conclusion as cherry-picked.
Click to expand...

High quality images would be clearer evidence for my claim. Or it may even prove me wrong! (Unless the images have been doctored.)
 
Anders Lindman said:
High quality images would be clearer evidence for my claim. Or it may even prove me wrong! (Unless the images have been doctored.)
Click to expand...

Your claim was based on your ignorant supposition that the initial orange and blue images were true color images. That claim is refuted.

Your subsequent claim was based on cherry-picked data from U.S. space programs, which is also now refuted.

Now you're basically admitting that any further data that disputes your claim will be assumed doctored.

How does that not simply amount to making up crap as you go?
 
Since unlike a certain permanent resident under the bridge, I actually have real-world credentials in Apollo photography, let me add something here.

Almost all the color film shot by the Apollo astronauts on or near the lunar surface was Kodak Ektachrome, specifically the E-3 process. Chemical film formulations are proprietary and calculated to achieve certain results. Competence in photography back then (and to a certain extent, now) included selecting the right film for the task, which in turn meant knowing what the specific properties of that film were.

Ektachrome is a reversal film. It's known for generally neutral color balance. It's also known for having a very narrow dynamic range, typically requiring exposure bracketing for critical work. It has exceptionally high grain, and the process allows for considerable options during development.

Most importantly, it has ultra white "whites." How this is achieved is by ramping down the saturation at the bright end of the exposure window. So as things edge toward white in the exposure profile, they lose saturation. Coupled with the narrow dynamic range, this means that the color of the Moon as depicted in Ektachrome depends very heavily on the exposure settings, both of the camera originals and of the dupe masters. It also depends on the settings of the printer on the eventual distribution dupes.

Apollo 8 photography, in the camera original, shows a brownish Moon during the "Earthrise" sequence. But the dupe masters are often slightly pushed, which washes them out.

Similarly most of the 16mm film was initially underdeveloped and shows a distinctly brown lunar surface. But what we see mostly these days is a slightly pushed dupe.

The astronauts themselves reported a certain iridescence in the lunar surface, and that its color appeared to change as the phase angle changed.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The vast majority of Apollo images show black-and-white lunar landscapes.
Click to expand...

Yes. The difference between your argument and mine is that you're making up a bunch of speculative nonsense to explain it, while I'm using the science of photography to explain it. Which of us is more likely to be correct?

Your claim is that entities are hiding the true color of the Moon as depicted in photography. Admitting that only the "vast majority" of such photos conform to this claim is tantamount to admitting they clearly aren't taking steps to control the evidence. Fallacy of limited scope.
 
Anders: is this a colour photo of the moon?


wc4e.jpg


Is it fake? Does it somehow misrepresent the colour of the moon, you know, the colour you can see every time you look at it?

The way your argument is currently heading, you are going to end up claiming the Chinese photos are faked because they don't look like the genuine Apollo ones.
 
Yes, Lindman, we know the Moon is brown. We've known it for decades. We've had "brown Moon" photographs from NASA et al. for decades. I explained why it doesn't always appear brown in all the photography. Deal with it.
 
Anders Lindman said:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/moon/gal_moon_color.jpg
Click to expand...

You might want to read about how that image was created

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/caption/gal_moon_color.txt

This color image of the Moon was taken by the Galileo
spacecraft at 9:35 a.m. PST Dec. 9, 1990, at a range of about
350,000 miles. The color composite uses monochrome images
taken through violet, red, and near-infrared filters.
Click to expand...

Now, did you have an answer to my question or not?
 
Anders Lindman said:
My point was that the tan color is probably how the moon looks when seen directly. Your photo is likely taken from Earth with our thick atmosphere. Hardly a representative color depiction.
Click to expand...

"Probably"
:rolleyes:

I didn't ask you where it was taken from, I asked you if it was a colour photo or not.
 
Governments sometimes lie. Hopefully the Chinese moon images will set the record straight. They have no incentive to manipulate the images unless they are in cahoots with the U.S. government.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Governments sometimes lie. Hopefully the Chinese moon images will set the record straight. They have no incentive to manipulate the images unless they are in cahoots with the U.S. government.
Click to expand...

You'll never believe or accept the images anyway, even if you were given a live feed from the rover itself, so why bother with this charade?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Governments sometimes lie.
Click to expand...

So do individuals, including you.

Hopefully the Chinese moon images will set the record straight.
Click to expand...

Because they are so very trustworthy.

They have no incentive to manipulate the images unless they are in cahoots with the U.S. government.
Click to expand...

And back to the previous insubstantial speculation. You haven't shown any evidence that anyone anywhere is manipulating, withholding, or fabricating images of the Moon. The only thing in evidence here is your ongoing ignorance of how photography works.
 
JayUtah said:
No.
Click to expand...

Actually yes :D

It's through my telescope, and it is in colour, despite it being largely grey in appearance. Look closely and you can see bits of colour.

Stupidly, Anders' reason for distrusting that image also dismisses anything he says. As he has never directly observed the moon from anywhere outside Earth he has absolutely no direct evidence with which to disprove the veracity of any other photograph of the moon taken from outside our atmosphere, be it Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Soviet or American.

The photograph he used to prove his point spectacularly doesn't, because it is not a true colour, but one constructed from separate images taken through different filters. It is manipulated much more thoroughly and completely than any scan of a film image from Apollo.
 
threadworm said:
Actually yes :D
Click to expand...

Oh, my mistake. I wrongly connected threadworm's description of the Galileo spacecraft photo with your photo.

Look closely and you can see bits of colour.
Click to expand...

Yes I can, and already have. Further, I can extract subtle color from the first-gen scans of the Apollo 70mm camera originals.

The photograph he used to prove his point spectacularly doesn't, because it is not a true colour, but one constructed from separate images taken through different filters.
Click to expand...

All photography works this way. It approximates the actual input spectrum by manipulating the gain on separate bands of distinct wavelengths. This was true in chemical photography and it's still true in digital photography, including the specialized digital photography used in spacecraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom