Moon landing photos

[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

[csb]

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.

[xelasnave]

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

[DavidTrap]

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!

[Wavytone]

Alex, there is a better book.

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.

[csb]

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.

[redbeard]

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.

Either way, interesting post topic.

Cheers, :thumbsup:

Damien.

[mynameiscd]

Good site here
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

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 !!

[xelasnave]

Thanks to all who contributed.
Now for the big question.
Is the world flat?
Alex

[Steffen]

Good question. I just had a look, as far as I can see, yes. Judging by parts of my backyard, it is actually concave.

[csb]

Alex, is your copy of "Catcher In The Rye" well worn? :screwy: :lol:

[sil]

define flat

:)

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 :)

[redbeard]

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.
👀
👅

[TARS70]

Remembered these two you tube clips in reference to the above quote :)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5almZZU7ahk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmetQD1q4bY

[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

[xelasnave]

How do you explain this.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I will watch the second one later.
Bit I stopped the first one after I got what I wanted to hear..

The Sun is smaller than the Earth ..Says so in the Koran.
The guy is smarter than me if not for the captions I could not understand anything he said.

Thanks for those ... 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.

Alex

[xelasnave]

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

[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:)

[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? :P

[Rob_K]

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]

:D

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:):eyepop:

[TARS70]

Have seen them before

[xelasnave]

Both of them?
Alex

[TARS70]

Yes

[xelasnave]

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]

Nice Try.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

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]

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]

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

[el_draco]

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

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... :question:

[xelasnave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[blindman]

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.

[alocky]

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.

[xelasnave]

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

[alocky]

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.

[csb]

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.

[xelasnave]

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.

Alex

[xelasnave]

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

[N1]

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.

[bojan]

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.

[N1]

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 :)

[ZeroID]

Focus ? Very bright moon, very small aperture required, focus from about 1 meter out to infinity .. and an excellent camera of course.

" To infinity and beyond !!! " @ f22 or something

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

[alocky]

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!

[PeterM]

Brian says...

[xelasnave]

And organisations somehow have set things up not to pay tax and O don't mean mining companies ...organisations promoting one belief or another...

That escapes observation.

Alex

[PeterM]

Anyways consider the Michelin Man proposition and I will try and come up with others for your entertainment.
Alex[/QUOTE]

Alex I did find these.

http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/31.html

https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit1.htm

https://www.space.com/21987-how-nasa-spacesuits-work-infographic.html

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-astronauts-explode-in-space

[xelasnave]

Does that include theists and atheists?

Politics?

Even Brian is expressing an opinion.

Alex

[The_bluester]

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.

[xelasnave]

Alex I did find these.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit1.htm

https://www.space.com/21987-how-nasa-spacesuits-work-infographic.html

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-astronauts-explode-in-space[/QUOTE]

Thanks Peter I will have a look.
I will try and come up with another

Anyways on my way back to Sydney so I will.look at those when I get back.

Alex

[N1]

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).

[alocky]

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.

[LewisM]

Could be interesting IF it happens:

https://sputniknews.com/science/201701091049412041-russia-lunar-satellite/

[xelasnave]

Andrew
Great to see you hanging in here.
But remember these folk ( or me) don't make you angry.
Anger or irritation is your personal response and you can't blame others.

So the drift so far is we have covered the photos and the Michelin Man fallacy but the interesting issue would now seem the right to hold an opinion.
Opinion is belief.
Belief is always out of bounds...It my belief the world is 5000 years old...well that's your belief no comment.
End of story.
Opinion open for argument.
So it seems this way.
Some of you seem to feel opinion should be restricted to an expert.
Do I have to have a degree in Theology to reject one religion over another.
And if you stand by such an approach it seems that those who may be wrong must shut up.
So who do you want silenced, tarot card readers, astrologers, those damn communists, the liberals or the labour folk, how about Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Hindu.


Does anyone get it?

OK Next worry.
How did they keep warm or cold?

And how was the film carried there and back?
Could it be exposed via radiation?

When I get back I intend to look at blindmans video.
I have not looked at anything yet all the way thru but I will take the time and to change position I intend to be critical of the video, point out why I think they could be wrong ...if nothing else to Demonstrate my general cynicism.

Also anyone able to comment on how they kept warm or cool, I have often wondered about that mainly from the energy I expect it would use.

Keel calm folks and thanks again for you all participating.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Won't prove anything.
They do they don't find something the " loser" will claim photo shop.

Alex

[PeterM]

Also anyone able to comment on how they kept warm or cool, I have often wondered about that mainly from the energy I expect it would use.

Keel calm folks and thanks again for you all participating.
Alex[/QUOTE]

Hi Alex this seems to answer that one. And that the "The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it" answers many more questions.

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/

[xelasnave]

Why did we not go back?

Answer. No Oil.

I would have thought some sort of base, to do science, install a big scope better still a canon that can fire something at near light speed.
Taking out a city would be like shooting a rabbit in the bottom paddock.

Mmm maybe there is one already up there.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Alex this seems to answer that one.

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/how-did-lunar-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperatures-on-the-moon/[/QUOTE]

Thanks Peter for taking the time I will look when I get back..
Leaving Taree now.

Alex

[PeterM]

I think $spendollar$ had a lot to do with not going back.

Well now Alex it seems we are going back to the Moon.
Maybe Trump will build a tower there...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/president-trump-says-were-going-back-to-the-moon/

[LewisM]

UFO nuts will tell you we never went back becaus the Aliens claimed the Moon as their base and warned us not to come back.... seriously, that is the claim by many UFOnuts...

:ship1:

[75BC]

No he wants to go back to kick the aliens out as illegals and he’s going to build a wall around it. :P

[xelasnave]

The wall is not going between US and Mexico now but between US and Canada to keep citizens from leaving.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I don't know if it is just me but in trying to find hoaxer stuff I seemed to turn up all sorts of other nonsence from UFOs being there, secret bases and flat Earth...
Alex

[AndrewJ]

More likely Daneel Olivaw was already there
and simply repurposed the memories of anyone required
to cover his tracks.;)

Andrew

[alocky]

It’s more frustration than anger. Yes people are entitled to an opinion. I am also entitled to make fun of them. But it’s only when you turn your opinion into a hypothesis, design and execute an experiment that does or doesn’t support it that you should expect anyone to give a sh!t about it.
I don’t think anyone should be silenced. Especially the people making fun of idiots, and unfortunately they’re the ones who are told to be quiet these days in case the idiot’s feelings are hurt. Likewise if we silence the idiots we won’t have anyone to laugh at. It’s an ecosystem!

[xelasnave]

I would get frustrated with my mate who was a tarot card reader, he actually believes they work.
It is so hard to finally accept that is how he sees the world.
There is a simple response for folk with a " theory"...
Read Karl Popper and second less have your theory.
They are not a threat, other than anti vaxers and intelligent design and you can't laugh with them as they are very dangerous.
I have been studying the Arabian Golden Age, at time when science was mostly coming from them...Its no wonder two third of stars were named by them but then one guy, a holy dude, proclaimed numbers were the work of the devil and he seemed to get traction with the mob, and that seemed to mark the start of the decline.
And there seems a parallel now in our times, think Pauline and Donald but they reflect the mobs disenchantment with intellectuals.
When I was a kid science ruled you never heard from fundamentalists...but I hear there is a trend to religious schools world wide...of course that is here say but given how folk are choosing sides and frightened by terrorism I suppose it may be correct.
And there is the net. Where you post a utube video and draw in others.
Alex

[blindman]

Were they on the Moon or were not - does it change your life? No!
Actually it doesn't matter.
What matters is that NASA is sucking 52,000,000.00 USD DAILY, and they LIE a lot.

[alocky]

So NASA is the thing that bothers you the most about honesty and integrity in the USA at the moment?

[blindman]

no comment

[xelasnave]

Hi Blindman
I arrived in Sydney one hour ago.
After watering my dead plants I started to watch the video.
I was 30 minutes in and the sound went funny such that I could not hear anything but garbled voice.
I could dee old mates puss and some shiela and from there I jumped thru and it seemed the same.
All I can comment upon is the first thirty minutes.
No meat I am afraid.
He sounded a reasonable fella but as I said no meat.
Frankly if that's the best you can do, assuming it was simply an interview and no photos accompanied by comment, it simply does not cut it.
There was nothing.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Extraordinary claims need evidence.
You can't accuse them of lieing and simply walk away. That's not cricket old chap.

Leave the Moon landings out of it, and tell me what do they do that you can say " and they lie a lot".

And where do you get your figures from.
And do you have any link explaining their spending.

And thanks for participating in the thread.
Alex

[blindman]

Too tired for explaining.
I have spent hours & hours viewing science videos / news & "conspiracy"
channels / videos. You have to decide for yourself to believe or not to believe
NASA discoveries / projects / etc.
Only when you research both sides, you see what is garbage and what is or may be true.
In some cases NASA is treating us as an complete idiots.
Just sayin'

[xelasnave]

You are letting down the side..I was ready to change camps...All I needed was some evidence.
But if you say you have watched heaps of video s that's good enough for me.
Alex

[N1]

Depending on who you mean by "us", one might understand why they would do that. :hi:

[xelasnave]

I wish there was a like button I would press it as I would a lift button.

Alex

[xelasnave]

"We did not go to the Moon"
I can prove that statement to be correct.
Any takers.
But remember just because you can be fooled, by me, does not mean you are a fool.
Alex

[bojan]

Well, "we did not go to the Moon" because I certainly wasn't there at any time ;)

[xelasnave]

You are on the money.
Well spotted.

Alex