Author Topic: Moon landing faked? Lets take a look... (Read 3900 times)

Stringer · « **Reply #76 on:** May 01, 2003, 01:41:09 PM »

What exposure is the picture taken at, and more importantly, what speed setting.

As that picture shows, the alledged astronaut is in motion...hmmmm, maybe the reflection is bigger because the reflection is blurred by a combination of motion and speed setting.
As more evidence to support this, look at the rest of the picture, the guys entire suit is somewhat blurred to the motion taking place.

Or just maybe that after planning to the smallest level of detail and carrying out the biggest hoax in history, NASA was tripped up by using the lighting man from Ed Wood productions!

And Hortlund has "shone the light" on the truth

Animal · « **Reply #77 on:** May 01, 2003, 01:42:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

Curv whatever metal or glass you want, cover it with gold, snake oil or your own cheese, I dont care. Take the picture in space, on earht, under water. You will not get a reflection of the sun that size.

Of course you will. Specially taking into consideration that film production equipment used back then was not as sharp as it is now. Have you worked on film reproduction? Bright light sources will affect the final image, there will always be noise. Given you have the proper equipment, if you take a picture of the sun without proper filters, all you will get is a huge white mess. Have you seen old films of a nuclear explosion or a solar eclipse?

This effect will happen on a smaller scale when you take a picture of the sun from a very reflective surface. And because there is no atmosphere where that picture was taken, that reflection will be brighter, thus, more noise in the final image.

In fact, I'm surprised the visor is visible at all. Props to whoever designed the whole image production equipment NASA used.

Look at this, Hortlund:

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I know you don't want to get into it, because you'd get your bellybutton kicked on this one.

MiniD

You should have read what this smarty man wrote.

Anyways, Hortlund, want me to fetch you some documents on the chemistry involved in film processing? I'm nice like that, always trying to help those who need to be educated, instead of just using insults and leaving you ignoroant.

boxboy28 · « **Reply #78 on:** May 01, 2003, 01:51:18 PM »

Lets use RIPSNORT head as an example of light reflecting off a curved surface! (rip polish it up go out in the sun and take sum pixs for us to determine the Glare /reflection factor of the SUN off the curved surface)

Falstaff · « **Reply #79 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:09:03 PM »

Off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons that the reflections of the sun or lander in an image of an Apollo astronaut are larger than they "should" be. Of course, since they are pictures of the actual event, they are exactly *as* they should be, but in any case:

1. Reflections in a curved surface vary in size depending on their apparent position on the surface. Look at the flag in the picture. Does the reflection prove that the flag is not a rectangle? This holds true for all non-point sources. In this context, the sun and its attendant corona are definately not a point source.

2. On video stills (which at least one of the posted pictures are), "bloom" of a bright object (such as a reflection of the sun) will make the object appear larger on the video than reality. This would be especially true of stills from Apollo 14, which used a vidicon camera. If you view the EVA TV from Apollo 14, you will see plenty of reflections that bloom much larger than they would appear to a person there. On Apollo 15 and later missions, the TV camera used a silicon sensor which was much less susceptable to bloom (or saturation, as it should be called for a non vidicon imaging system.)

3. The Apollo visor is made of Lexan. The material is incredibly hard, yet easily scratched. The lunar environment is not kind to equipment, since everything is coated with dust. The area that is reflecting the sun in the Gemini/Apollo comparison picture posted is an area of the visor that is routinely scratched by the use of a sun shade that is slid over the visor. You can see the sun shade partially deployed in one of the other posted pictures. The scratched surface of the lexan will act to diffuse the reflection of a bright object (making it appear larger and out of focus.)

To people who pore over these pictures and look for "evidence", I say send me a large enough set of pictures (100 or so) from any event in their own lives, and I will be able to find "proof" that the event never took place.

Imp · « **Reply #80 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:26:54 PM »

When I heard Fox was presenting a show that showed "proof" that the moon landing hadnt occured I ROFLMAO.

Especially about the flag. How can they not know the flag was hanging from a metal bar?

As for the reflection, its either the sun or a space ship from the original Star Trek series. The one with all the light bulbs

muckmaw · « **Reply #81 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:29:36 PM »

Falstaff-

If I send you my weddding album, can you prove I never got married so I can F*** my secretary?

Thanks in advance...

Oh, I need your address!

Animal · « **Reply #82 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:31:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Imp

As for the reflection, its either the sun or a space ship from the original Star Trek series. The one with all the light bulbs

Actually its a lightning for God about to smite the infidels who dared venture the boundaries he warned "Here be Dragons"

Falstaff · « **Reply #83 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:33:17 PM »

Muckmaw - I thought of that right after I hit submit. I'm working on my own album right now, but you're next in line.

muckmaw · « **Reply #84 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:41:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Falstaff
Muckmaw - I thought of that right after I hit submit. I'm working on my own album right now, but you're next in line.

*Muck runs out of the office to buy condoms and Tequila*

Who's says there's no such thing as life after death!

Falstaff · « **Reply #85 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:14:36 PM »

I already have some progress to report. The "groom" in the photos is much thinner than I am (imposter/clone?) It looks like the event was very costly to fake -- you would have thought that they would have caught a detail like this!

TracerX · « **Reply #86 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:25:17 PM »

Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon. You can tell by the length of his shadow that the sun is definitely very close to the horizon. The reflection should not be the LEM since it is coming from the same general direction as the sun, and it would take a very odd angle to reflect an image off the LEM onto the astronaut. It would more likely shade the astronaut than reflect something onto him.

Hortlund · « **Reply #87 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:36:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal
Of course you will. Specially taking into consideration that film production equipment used back then was not as sharp as it is now. Have you worked on film reproduction? Bright light sources will affect the final image, there will always be noise. Given you have the proper equipment, if you take a picture of the sun without proper filters, all you will get is a huge white mess. Have you seen old films of a nuclear explosion or a solar eclipse?

This effect will happen on a smaller scale when you take a picture of the sun from a very reflective surface. And because there is no atmosphere where that picture was taken, that reflection will be brighter, thus, more noise in the final image.

The sun takes up about 1/6-1/4 of the visor. The reflection is located high-center. The picture is from Apollo 16. The visor is a rounded reflective surface without any irregularities.

True depending on angle objects will become distorted. It is however impossible to have an object roughly the size of a quarter (normal-size sun) grow in size to become a tennisball-sized blob. You go out and play around with lightsources and rounded surfaces animal, and tell me how many pictures you can snap where the lightsource grows in size in all directions. i e, not just a small rounded lightsource being stretched out to become a long line. What you'd want to create is a small rounded lightsource that grows in size in all directions until it is 10-20 times larger than it should. Good luck.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #88 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:49:58 PM »

Quote

Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon.

umm.. that's due to atmosphere acting as a lens.. doesn't work when there's no air

it's simply the curvature of the visor .. that coupled with the lack of atmoshphere that means less diffusion

Nifty · « **Reply #89 on:** May 01, 2003, 03:53:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by tracerx
Anyone notice how the moon appears 3-4 times larger when it rises or sets then it does at its apex? Same with the Sun? I suspect that similar phenomena could explain the size of the reflection on the space man's visor on the moon. You can tell by the length of his shadow that the sun is definitely very close to the horizon. The reflection should not be the LEM since it is coming from the same general direction as the sun, and it would take a very odd angle to reflect an image off the LEM onto the astronaut. It would more likely shade the astronaut than reflect something onto him.

no, the moon is larger when it rises due to the angle you're viewing it through the atmosphere. The atmosphere kinda acts as a magnifying glass at the lower angles.

As for the sun reflecting off the visors. AKIron and Falstaff are correct. The angle of the sun reflecting off the visor will cause some difference in the size. The angle of the viewer (camera in this case) from the visor will also cause a difference in size. For a simple test, go outside, find the sun reflecting off an object and observe it from different angles. Some angles won't give you a good reflection of the light, while other angles will flat out blind you. This alone would be cause for differences in the size of the reflection of the lightsource on the visor (that is, the sun's angle to the visor and the angle of the visor in relation to the camera taking the picture.) Combine that with the fact in the "this is the real size of the sun" picture it's a still photo with very little motion and in the "this is too big to be the sun" picture it's a capture from a video feed or a low speed still photo from an object in motion and you've got a very plausible reason for the size differences in the two pictures.