My spray wasn't directed at Alex, but to address his points it would be wise to read one of the books. The moonpans one goes into considerable detail about how the photographs were taken. The lighting was not tricky as there were no clouds and it was all outside in direct sunlight. Each photograph was pre-planned and rehearsed, with camera settings specified in the cuff checklist, right down to the angle of the polarising filter. Despite all this, there are many shots that are not level, parts of the rover or lander are cut off by the frame edge, the overlap in the panoramic images shows a great deal of variation up and down, and as for the comment that the composition was perfect - well, none of the images follow the classic rule of thirds of composition, and they look to me exactly like the sort of photograph a highly intelligent, well trained professional operating in one of the most hazardous situations ever encountered would take. They are not the work of a pro photographer.
So Alex's point really boils down to the fact that the photos are well focussed. At f7, you can be pretty sloppy, and those Hassy's have a pretty accurate distance scale. Despite this, there are out-of-focus shots too, but why would NASA show them?
As to the line of logic that if some of the shots were taken in a studio on the earth then maybe all of them were - (and it is well documented that each mission was carefully rehearsed and the astronauts did take photos and review them afterwards) - well; inductive reasoning might win a legal case but it won't survive peer review in science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by csb
Alocky, he said the moon landings actually happened but photos may have been faked. And Alex explained his reason to have doubt - why are ALL the photos well aimed and generally good shots.
Well Alex, it's certainly possible that the landing photos were staged.
And if staged, it then provides fantastic evidence to those who say the landings themselves did not happen.
You say 100% of the photos are good shots. But probably you have only seen publicly available photos. The bad shots have been left out or thrown out, which is what all photographers (professional & amateur) do.
Got a link to the ladder photo. Don't link to a conspiracy video. Possible that authors have doctored the photo.
Craig
I am not going to search for anything I am sorry to say.
I do not wish to be seen as a hoaxer when I am not.
I wipe my search history daily or more frequent so its not possible to find what I looked at days ago.
As I said it seems raise what I raise and it becomes ...we went to the moon.
And you have to wade through other assertions I don't agree with to see photos...
If they faked it clearly most folk would reject the proposition as it would mean admitting they were conned.
Folk reject that it could be done one way or the other whereas I suspect if they wanted to it could be faked.
The secret could be within a few people I would think.
I don't care as I said I though photographers here may like to comment as I thought finding the photos would be easy...
The lost was for entertainment and I now drop it.
For whatever reason I can't download the photo of the astronaut coming down the stairs which by itself shows it is taken in shadow with noticeable lighting which was supposedly not there.
Anyways thanks to all for joining in, thanks to Blindman for your link, I will look at it later.
Alex
Tens of thousands of people actually saw the launches....aha, now I really believe you.
The best thing is: Now we don't have technology to go to the Moon, we lost everything.
Project Orion is now on, to learn if man can go to Space.
Wait the minute - if man can go to Space???
Maybe Moon is under the firmament as some books say.
Well since you didn't, you are certainly entitled to question whether or not it happened. So your explanation for the thousands of people who claimed to have watched the Apollo launches is what, mass hypnosis? Also include the hypnotised people all around the world who saw the lander and command module fly over during the earth orbit phase.
I suspect had there been any real inconsistencies the Soviets would have gleefully pointed them out at the time.
But I'm wasting my typing. You believe what you want. Do you want to know who really killed JFK, though? For a measly $500 I will reveal all to you. I know the guy who did it.
The Apollo rocket launches are not proof that the astronauts landed in the moon. Probably the conspiracy theorists even admit astronauts have been sent into space. But that is all that the mission launches prove.
I can't help myself.
Seeing as you all enjoy talking about this stuff and at the risk of being labelled a nut job, er hang on I already carrying that title, so here goes.
These are original points not from utube so never presented before.
The moons surface is a vacuum and the suits contain air.
Why did they not blow up like a weather balloon and burst or at least have the guys looking like the Michelin Man.
The thing I notice is the way folk commit to their belief and that causes for what ever reason to go that little bit further so rather than raise what could be seen as a reasonable question they jump to we didn't go to the moon and start with trivia that they grasp at they believe will strengthen their position whereas adding that little extra throws doubt on what should have been a mere enquiry...
I find that's why I tend to do well in argument as I don't form an opinion.
It could be this it could be that.
Probably my limited experience in law gives me that ability.
One day you act for the vendor and reject a request to move into a house before settlement as in reasonable...another day you represent a purchaser and present a request to move in before settlement as more than reasonable. You represent the client what they day is what you present as right.
I could argue the toss either way on the Moon thing but all the while not form a belief one way or another.
It was said if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything but I don't think so..if you stand for something you are positioned not to consider everything.
And so I find most arguments in necessary.
Even with my arguments in the religious section although I present as the worlds strongest atheist I do so to stir up the other side to fall into the pit of presenting extreme and unsupportable argument.
I ptetent to attempt to convert them but I don't care and if for one moment I was going to cause a other to change their belief I would back off and withdraw.
Yet most folks goal is to establish that their belief is right and all must come over to their way of thinking.
It surprised me when I should not be surprised at all how sensitive the Moon landing is for many.
All take a position for or against and that is it.
They did they did not...when really the only answer is you really don't know to be frank...for me I need to be the eye witness..yes I was on the Moon and they were not there or they were.
Same with most stuff you think you know but most cases you know what you believe.
Science tries to best that tendency in humans but even it is not entirely successful.
The big bang is a scientific model, subject to change at some future point, that's the science but many folk talk about it as a fact set in stone...its not. Science always holds the door open to a better model.
Anyways consider the Michelin Man proposition and I will try and come up with others for your entertainment.
Alex
The hardest question for me to answer in this whole discussion has not been whether or not the landings were faked (they weren't) but why the fact that a bunch of proven non-astronomers, non-astronauts, non-physicists, non-photographers, non-engineers and general non-scientists believe it didn't happen should carry any amount of weight.
The hardest question for me to answer in this whole discussion has not been whether or not the landings were faked (they weren't) but why the fact that a bunch of proven non-astronomers, non-astronauts, non-physicists, non-photographers, non-engineers and general non-scientists believe it didn't happen should carry any amount of weight.
Because it is all about believing.. and not about knowing.
And these days anyone is entitled to their beliefs... which is of course nonsense... but even legally sanctioned one.
And these days anyone is entitled to their beliefs...
I don't actually have a problem with that. I get hacked off when someone obscenely ignorant in a particular field professes to be in any way competent to teach others anything about it. Rant over
I don't actually have a problem with that. I get hacked off when someone obscenely ignorant in a particular field professes to be in any way competent to teach others anything about it. Rant over
Precisely what got me irritated too. There is an interesting and extremely amusing paper out of Cornell University that describes the Kruger-Dunning effect. These are people whose ignorance is so broad that it allows them to believe they are knowledgeable and intelligent, with extraordinary consequences.
I’m done in this thread!
Because it is all about believing.. and not about knowing.
And these days anyone is entitled to their beliefs... which is of course nonsense... but even legally sanctioned one.
And organisations somehow have set things up not to pay tax and O don't mean mining companies ...organisations promoting one belief or another...
And a lot of walking demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger effect will duly ignore him! I am a member of a facebook group that daily provides astounding demonstrations of the effect. It is one about engine management technology and theory and attracts a lot of "My engine is doing this, what is the problem" posts. Which result in any number of authoritative diagnoses from people who had a problem once that sounded just like the ten word description of the issue that was provided. Out of pure dumb luck, occasionally one of them is even right.
There was a Mythbusters episode that dealt with a lot of the "Moon landing was faked" theories, in particular the one you mentioned Alex about the lighting of the photo. In a nutshell, while there is no atmosphere to scatter light, the lunar surface is reflective enough for the nearby landscape to cast enough light on the austronaut in shadow for him to be well lit as per the photo in question. Another one dealt with the "non parallel" lines biz as well.
Last edited by The_bluester; 13-12-2017 at 06:21 PM.
In a nutshell, while there is no atmosphere to scatter light, the lunar surface is reflective enough for the nearby landscape to cast enough light on the austronaut in shadow for him to be well lit as per the photo in question...
Yeah, that argument by the fakeists always struck me as particularly stupid, considering it's the very same effect that gives us moonlit nights (the sunlit lunar landscape illuminating things that aren't lit by the sun directly).
The Apollo rocket launches are not proof that the astronauts landed in the moon. Probably the conspiracy theorists even admit astronauts have been sent into space. But that is all that the mission launches prove.
I thought blindman was just being facetious.
Ahh - can’t help myself....!
I guess it’s possible blindman was being facetious. The challenge with text on the Internet and no non-verbal cues is that someone being wryly amusing and satirical can appear to be exactly that which they are parodying.
As for the argument that just launching the Apollo hardware into orbit is not proof, I agree, but consider the following:
1 orbital mechanics of broadcasting from a point that appeared to be moving at exactly the same speed as the moon.
2 the hardest and most dangerous part of the mission was the first few minutes. Particularly for the later ones. Why take 99% of the risk and cost to perpetrate a fraud?
Anyway Aristotle managed to reason his way into a geocentric universe with some pretty laughable logic in retrospect, and I guarantee that he had more brainpower than the collective conspiracy crowd. That is why science has made so many great strides since we kicked these half-assed lawyers and their sophistry out, and replaced it with boring old observation and fact.
