I have been looking at the various utube video presentations about the unbelievable prospect that we did not go to the Moon.
I realised I have in the past simply dismissed the prospect that we did not go without ever looking at any of these productions.
I think I once raised the question as to why there seemed to be no time delay in conversations between the Moon and Earth and someone here gave a reasonable explanation as to why there was no problem...at least I think that is what happened... But my point is I never thought that much about it.
And saying I watched these presentations is not really the vase in so far as I tended to skip thru , some turned out to be flat Earth and well as you can imagine there is a lot of nonsence around.
However something I found bothering was the matters raised re the photography. As one presenter commented if you ask a photographer could they get the photos we all have seen using the manual camera they used without a view finder and the problems with getting focus and exposure spot on, his claim was all say they would be lucky to nail 50%. A further critism was the perfect framing in almost all cases.
After considering what I have seen so far I think there may be some case for at least the proposition that these shots seemed as if they were shot in a studio.
Now rather than just dismissing these Moon hoaxer s as nut jobs I ask firstly have you even watched a video that cases you to wonder about the photos...and if so as a photographer how difficult would you find it to get perfect framing withoit a view finder and the camera positioned on your chest.
Now folks resist the urge to dismiss this without having looked at something that point out the difficulty they must of experienced getting perfect photos.
What do you think?
Alex
I think the main landings did actually happen. I think if faked then there would be authorative people coming out with actual hard evidence.
It seems the only evidence conspiracy theorists have is interpretation of the actual evidence that they have been able to skewer to their way of thinking.
Found this at from a google search about how astronauts took pick - cameras had a framing ring:
Framing
The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera.
Hi Craig
Thanks for your contribution.
Have you ever watched a hoaxer video that has dealt with photos specifically.
I guess I am still dealing with the fact that I had never actually looked at any of the videos and dismissed them without looking at what their concerns were.
I suppose also because I never close any door to unlikely possibility ( law and real estate does that to you ) when I think ..heck would they could they..
I don't ever recall seeing a open review when I think back and often I have led the pack as they cry out " you are nuts".
I get such a sinking feeling when I realise that I could be conned.
Alex
I saw a doco by a film maker about how difficult it would have been to fake the moon landing TV footage with the tech available in the 60s. His opinion was that it was easier to go to the moon than to have faked it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the hoaxers are guilty of assuming (subconsciously or not) that modern day special effects techniques were at NASA’s disposal to fake the moon landing - simple answer is they weren’t!
The Apollo astronauts carried Hasselblad cameras and NASA has faithfully kept the original films to this day.
The only fine art reproductions to date were published in the book “Full Moon” by Michael Light who remains the only person permitted to laser scan the original films and produce a really beautiful, rare book which was published by Jonathan Cape using the highest printing process available. This is now a serious collectible - and yes I do have a copy.
There are several aspects to this book but several things really stand out. The book tells the story from launch, into earth orbit, spacewalks, then off to the moon and ultimately Neil Armstrong’s landing, the return to earth and splashdown, plus more from the subsequent missions. Put all this together and there is simply no way it was faked.
Secondly the superb resolution of the images - far better than any other reproductions I’ve seen after 48 years. When you see these again you realise it cannot be other than the real thing for all sorts of reasons.
There are numerous panoramas assembled digitally that fold out 3-5 pages wide to show the extent of the vista confronting the astronauts. These are unique, as far as I know.
The book also contains many images never published before and when you see these they go a long way to filling in the story.
As one who watched the 1969 landing live, and Neil Armstrong stepping out frankly I’m also of the view that any moron with the hide to suggest it was faked deserves an appropriate response - it is simply an outrageous insult that deserves a firm punch on the snout.
I've seen or read something about Apollo photos. I remember something about the shadows.
I tend not to watch / read these type of speculations simply because it really appears to be purposeful mis-interpretation of evidence and facts.
If there are no credible and authorative people involved then the story loses creditibilty for me.
The Chariots of the Gods book was fascinating and seemed credible until the last part of the book when the author explains how he is in communication with beings from another planet - that part was still interesting but not credible.
However something I found bothering was the matters raised re the photography. As one presenter commented if you ask a photographer could they get the photos we all have seen using the manual camera they used without a view finder and the problems with getting focus and exposure spot on, his claim was all say they would be lucky to nail 50%. A further critism was the perfect framing in almost all cases.
Hi Alex,
I guess like most of us, we ditch all our crappy or blurry photos and only show our friends the best ones we have. Perhaps that is the same with the public photos we have seen from those missions.
Pretty well all the film rolls from the apollo archives.
When you look at the photos in sequence there are quite a few duffs.
I used to do underwater photography a bit and you get used to no real view finder and parallax issues.
Just aim and shoot and then bracket with iso.
Then drop your slide film off to get processed. When i got them back on avereage 5% to 10% were usable
It was overexposed, underexposed, bad framing, out of focus, to much stobe fill, and every now and then one was good.
Astronauts did a lot of underwater training including photography to get used to the cameras.
Ive been an apollo fan for years and looking at my library I think ive read everything that ever been written from traing manuals to full flight plans and then debriefing and how these astronauts had to be test pilots, photographers, geologists, engineers, mathmations, astronomists, and statesmen all in one.
I still can't believe that conspiracy theories still exist about the moon landings.
500 000 people involved with Apollo have kept one of the biggest secrets ever and a lot of scientists are in on it as well !!
as an ex-photographer I never had issue with moon landing stuff, exposure and focus is easy and people forget the astronauts were in full bright sunlight and of course developing film you have leeway to adjust exposure anyway. these weren't cheap canon camera with basic kit lenses and everyone who buys those seem to think they suddenly know all about photography and they still cant take a single good photo but have thousands of pics. Usually photographers can preset their cameras for where they are taking photos and can shoot from any angle without need for using a viewfinder of any sort plus you only ever see the good photos and often cropped , using the body as a tripod to aim and steady a camera is common practice from way back, people now are too lazy and dependant and impatient to comprehend people can take photos themselves and without relying on the camera to work out everything itself. Plus some think a camera is a part of a phone too and dont understand a camera is a damn camera!
The only argument that gave me pause for thought was the flag waving therefore there was air and wind argument. I had never thought anything about moon landings may be fake and I'd never thought much about the flag. I assumed it was starched or something to hang nicely. but the hoaxers made me think and its such a great example of newtons laws, of course the flag will move in a vacuum since the astronauts touched it, might have made a good experiment these days to have a video camera watching while someone straightens the flag and releases it and watch until it presumably comes to a rest (friction and stiffness of fibres I assume will absorb the energy very slowly over a long period of time.
They thing that always does my head in is the feather and hammer drop test. Our earth-centric view of reality makes it hard to think through. I keep thinking about what the curvature of spacetime around the hammer would do, pull the moon towards it too and therefore it should hit faster than the feather. Should the feather fall towards the hammer?
Yes, Man went to the moon, no doubt about it.
Yes the earth is flat, otherwise it wouldn't fit on a map
Of course the world is flat, if it was round like a ball, we'd be bouncing around all over the place! And if it was round, every time you took a step, you would be walking down hill.
👀
👅
Having read the above link I can not see the joke.
Sorry.
And it is fiction.
Apart from the bible I have not read fiction since high school.
Never been interested in the stories made up by others only intetested in my own story which has been full of excitememt really.
Perhaps you can point out what it is that you see which I do not.
Alex
Of course the world is flat, if it was round like a ball, we'd be bouncing around all over the place! And if it was round, every time you took a step, you would be walking down hill.
👀
👅
Observation the prime tool of science.
I recall in the old days in Hyde Park folk would have a "soap box" and address the crowds on all sorts of things, religion politics you name it, all characters.
Well there was a guy flat Earth proponent hr.exposed the round earth conspiracy because none of the airlines he alproached would fly him on a course, 32 degrees south I think, which would get you to the closest edge.
Now why wouldn't they fly him there...obvious cover up.
Alex
Alex, in the movie Conspiracy Theory, Mel Gibson plays an eccentric character who believes in conspiracies. Gibson's character has actually been brainwashed by a secret government agency. This brainwashing purposefully imbued a desire to have a copy of Catcher in the Rye. Mel Gibson loses his copy and is immediately overcome with a desire to get another copy.
So that should help you understand my joke. And then you may have a chuckle
