Moon landing photos

[Rob_K]

Originally Posted by csb

A mere coincidence that a lunar animal has evolved into a creature that looks exactly like our domestic cat.

There are billions of planets out there. You think cats are only on earth?

Yes, and to think a simple domestic cat could evolve into a super-cool dude like in Red Dwarf. The Universe is truly a wonderful place.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by csb

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

But I don't believe in conspiracies.
My op was simply to draw comment on the photography,... Well I suppose I dressed it up a bit to get folk interested.
Alex

[TARS70]

Now tell me did you watch them or just just the first two you found when you got s result to a flat Earth google search.

Have seen them before

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by TARS70

Have seen them before

Both of them?
Alex

[TARS70]

Yes

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by TARS70

Yes

The links you posted seemed identical.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Also I wanted to vet a feel for how many folk may dismiss the hoaxers without actually looking at any hoax video.
The photos I find hard to swallow on close analysis is the one coming down the ladder.
The shot is in shadow but the subject seems well lit.
None of the hoax stuff I have seen causes me to doubt the moon landings and all I see is a possibility that the photos could have been " studio work".
Not hard to do.
I think out of 100 odd shots only 5 were crook and so many frankly just look too good ..the composition really top class.
I should have made note of the video.
But as I said I wanted to get a feel for others reactions and treatment of these videos.

Are you like me and never looked be cause they are obviously nonsence so you don't bother to look?

And yes I am bored minding the cat.

Did see a great video on the various folk through history who had the same story as Jesus and another linking JC with astronomy.
I won't lost that because it would be against the rules and probably upset some folk but it was interesting to link it as far back as the Egyptians and personifying Sun worship intergratyikn of pagan customs and strangely the zodiac

Ale

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

This is all I know about it.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye

Not heard of it before today.

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

Nice Try.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by JA

Nice Try.

Best
JA

I should have said non technical or text book law books.

I got real sick of reading because of law...it's all you do.
But I read the bible but in truth to find strange bits.
I do enjoy if arguing with a christian to say I have read the bible cover to cover have you.
Not met anyone yet who has.
Alex

[blindman]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

So you finally realised that it was all done in "studio".
As k Bart Sibrel - expert for movie effects. His father was employed by NASA and had big photo on the wall, of moon lander on the Moon, and Bart paid attention after 10 years - realising NO TRACES of the lander.....then he started to "study" all "anomalies" related to Moon missions.
There is one excellent video made by Bart about that......and Bill Kaysing explained how NASA works.
If anybody wants to read his book "We never went to the Moon" let me know.

[TARS70]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

The links you posted seemed identical.
Alex

Fixed

But I read the bible but in truth to find strange bits.
I do enjoy if arguing with a christian to say I have read the bible cover to cover have you.
Not met anyone yet who has.

Sounds like you need a challenge, why not read the Koran, Sunnah and Hadiths and argue about any strange bits you may find in there

[el_draco (Rom)]

Simple answer... as with most photographers... take lots of images and use the best...

Every hoaxer who has come out has been resoundingly discredited and there is a mountain of evidence to refute the claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV5QYg_KYdU

Tada....

unless they show me the landing sites, sans evidence they are wankers...

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by TARS70

Fixed



Sounds like you need a challenge, why not read the Koran, Sunnah and Hadiths and argue about any strange bits you may find in there

Thanks for the fix.
I am not that interested in reading other holy books.
I is apparent to me religion is here for a while to come and I have to get used to that.
But if I was leader I would not get rid of it ...in fact I would make it compulsory in schools, and law that you would have to go to church.
It has numerous advantages to control the masses.
It conditions them to accept authority which translates into accepting what you put forward.

I go to another forum where politics, religion can be discussed and arguing with a theist is like fighting in the mud with a pig after a while you realise you can't win and he loves rolling in mud.

But all good.

Alex

[blindman]

el_draco wrong video :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGlHR20P0e4

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Simple answer... as with most photographers... take lots of images and use the best...

Every hoaxer who has come out has been resoundingly discredited and there is a mountain of evidence to refute the claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV5QYg_KYdU

Tada....

unless they show me the landing sites, sans evidence they are wankers...

I am talking about the photos.

Have you looked?

The point is near 100% of photos are perfect.
Superb framing, composition. exposure lighting.

Look you are in the presence of the worlds most sceptical man.

Do you think I am easily fooled?

Don't you think the things I raise I would dismiss faster than anyone else here?

But if you don't need to look before you reject my observation I understand but if you did look I would be surprised if any photographer would not think that it is studio material.

I am not for a moment suggesting they did not go but I certainly am inclined to think the shots could well have been generated in the studio...and really why not.
They had the stuff, sets simulation things so it is quiet possible.
And frankly doing studio shots makes sense from a PR view point.

Anyways I don't care I just thought given the photographers here it would be neat looking at the photos and considering if you could get near 100% perfect photos.

Framing the perfect shot each time every time does not happen... Who here has shot 100 that are perfect.

And I am sorry that I started this thread you all now think I am a hoaxer and that was never my point and I doubt if anyone has considered what I am saying...all that your head is saying is we went to the moon, we went to the moon...

Alex

[TARS70]

It has numerous advantages to control the masses

What .....by promoting morality, good values and a sense of community and empathy to others .

I understand where you are coming from though....maybe read the Jefferson bible and see what you think from that angle.


Anyway back to the moon landings and people who have watched Capricorn One to many times.........

[bigjoe (JOSEPH)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

How do you explain this.
Alex

The Moons made of SWISS CHEESE ..there are mice on the Moon not cats..So this pic is obviously fake ..now if it were a mouse..

bigjoe.

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

Originally Posted by blindman

el_draco wrong video :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGlHR20P0e4

Not only is there nothing in here but speculation, no concrete evidence whatsoever - for example, just look at the diagram purporting to show non-parallel shadows by joing things up that aren't even in the frame of the picture. Then his utterly absurd and paranoid commentary around the Apollo 1 fire is disrespectful, deeply offensive and an absolute disgrace.
I work with NASA engineers and have a friend who was one of the geophysicists in the Apollo program. I have studied moon rock in thin section, and been in the alien materials receiving laboratory in Houston and seen the anhydrous anorthosite for myself (as well as having an idea of the implications of the mineralogy I saw).
Tens of thousands of people actually saw the launches, tracked the craft into orbit and beyond, more recently the high resolution footage from the Kaguya mission showing the landing sites and landers (so presumably Japan is in on the conspiracy too). How did NASA manage to fake the signals being received around the world at the various radio dishes? By definition, radio telescopes have a pretty small field of view. I'm pretty comfortable it happened exactly as NASA said.
In fact, last year, NASA even admitted that there was a conspiracy. Kubrick was hired to produce the footage, but being such a perfectionist he insisted it be filmed on location.
Flat Earthers, creationists, conspiracy nuts - keep it up, as it saves me five minutes effort of evaluating their critical thinking abilities...

PS - Alex - as others have said. What makes you sure that you have seen all the photos? If you read that Moonpans book there are plenty of references to bad shots. There was lots of stuff that didn't work during the mission. In fact the entire scientific value of the 14 mission was pretty much wasted because a large part of the instrumentation was deployed incorrectly.

[csb (Craig)]

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.

[Tropo-Bob (Bob)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I am talking about the photos.

Have you looked?

The point is near 100% of photos are perfect.
Superb framing, composition. exposure lighting.

Look you are in the presence of the worlds most sceptical man.

Do you think I am easily fooled?

Don't you think the things I raise I would dismiss faster than anyone else here?

But if you don't need to look before you reject my observation I understand but if you did look I would be surprised if any photographer would not think that it is studio material.

I am not for a moment suggesting they did not go but I certainly am inclined to think the shots could well have been generated in the studio...and really why not.
They had the stuff, sets simulation things so it is quiet possible.
And frankly doing studio shots makes sense from a PR view point.

Anyways I don't care I just thought given the photographers here it would be neat looking at the photos and considering if you could get near 100% perfect photos.

Framing the perfect shot each time every time does not happen... Who here has shot 100 that are perfect.

And I am sorry that I started this thread you all now think I am a hoaxer and that was never my point and I doubt if anyone has considered what I am saying...all that your head is saying is we went to the moon, we went to the moon...

Alex

I remember the live coverage from the Moon Landing. The lighting and contrast were terrible on our black & white TV.

A major talking point amongst my Astronomy mates after the landing (but before the famous first step) was the NASA voice over giving the number of seconds. It only recently that I understood that was the time left to burn fuel before they would have insufficient fuel to get back to the orbiter.
That would be a very clever touch if it was faked!

Nevertheless, it is good to hear what the skeptics saying and be able to rebut their points if they care to listen. However, from the way that they talk about the flag waving in the breeze, and ignoring the explanation of what was actually occurring, well, I don't think they want to know.

At least Alex, U are showing that U are better than most by showing that U are prepared to listen and consider points raised by those with an opposite point of view.