Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both pictures were stopped down. That is why the moon looks so dark and gray. It would require a longer exposure to get the starts to appear on the film. But then the earth and the moon would be washed out losing any kind of definition.
Knowledge of things like f-stops is de facto admission to being part of the conspiracy. You are so busted.
Both pictures were stopped down. That is why the moon looks so dark and gray. It would require a longer exposure to get the starts to appear on the film. But then the earth and the moon would be washed out losing any kind of definition.
Baloney. Pure nonsense. The earth is thousands of times further away than the surface of the moon in this photo. Yet you're saying that the shot was stopped down so that the moon isn't washed out, while the earth turns out looking perfectly bright and blue like a studio picture of a glass marble? N O N S E N S E.
But you're just making a wild guess that you really don't have a shred of foundation for making here, because you don't know what the moon actually looks like from a few miles up, now do you? Of course you don't!
But if you take 5 seconds to think, instead of flap your gums at me with this barrage of BS, what should become obvious to you is that according to this photo, the Earth must be orders of magnitude brighter in illuminance than the moon is ... otherwise, the moon would appear brighter than the much further away Earth, no matter what aperture or shutter speed settings were used. You at least get that, don't you? After all, that is the argument you're using to justify no visible stars, for crying out loud
That is the argument right? That the moon is so much brighter, the astronauts couldn't see stars, and neither could their camera, because it had to be stopped down to compensate? But the photo clearly argues that point .... the moon isn't nearly as bright as claimed, since the Earth appears much brighter.
Now look at this photo ... and tell me what is the brightest? The Moon's surface or the Astronaut? (There are more problems in that photo ... but I'm sure you'd have an equally false excuse for them too, so I won't bother pointing them out).
This next pair of photos also have problems.
Same background, one with an astronaut, and the other with the LEM. In the first photo, way to the right and far forward shows the LEM in the distance, with the astronaut in the near foreground. Just to the left of the astronaut is a darkened "pothole". Now look at the second photo with the LEM ... same "pothole" and exactly the same background which is labeled B, D, and E. Their exact perspective, and the two "potholes" dismisses the excuse that the first photo was taken in front of the LEM. The potholes are the same, and so are the shadows and size of the background humps B,D, E.
No PanTerra, all settings in all photographs know to exist are constant and can thus be used to determine validity by picking any two at random pictures from google image search to examine brightness levels and make scientific declarations of authenticity due to inconsistencies.
I'm still somewhat in awe of these people going thru such effort to make a fake moon landing and dammit the stars guy was sick that day so it was left out. Now they are so busted.
Here is another fake, this one supposedly taken from the Space Shuttle. Stars painter guy was sick that day too...
I don't know which of you will win the Darwin award, but my money is starting to lean toward you!
You don't notice anything at all odd about a photo of the Earth which shows the moon looking like a very bright star, just slightly larger, but not much bigger than Venus? Really? You see nothing at all odd? Or how that might affect the camera picking up stars?
If you own a newer model car, check your passenger side mirror ... read that little message "object may be closer than they appear" ... for the big clue.
No PanTerra, all settings in all photographs know to exist are constant and can thus be used to determine validity by picking any two at random pictures from google image search to examine brightness levels and make scientific declarations of authenticity due to inconsistencies.
I'm still somewhat in awe of these people going thru such effort to make a fake moon landing and dammit the stars guy was sick that day so it was left out. Now they are so busted.
Here is another fake, this one supposedly taken from the Space Shuttle. Stars painter guy was sick that day too...
Sarcasm, right? Stars aren't going to show up in these high ev photos.
I think we went to the moon. But, I find it amazing we went there in 1969, when we barely even had computers, but can't go there today, nearly half a century later.
Then why on earth (tee hee) would you "think" we went to the moon? Your conclusion doesn't follow your intact logic.
We did NOT go to the moon!
Below linked is one of the most interesting, entertaining, and enlightening articles I have ever read. Even if you are convinced we went to the moon, you will love this article. It is long, but presented in easy to read parts. Enjoy!
Wagging the Moondoggie, Part I
October 1, 2009
by David McGowan
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” ~
Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
Baloney. Pure nonsense. The earth is thousands of times further away than the surface of the moon in this photo. Yet you're saying that the shot was stopped down so that the moon isn't washed out, while the earth turns out looking perfectly bright and blue like a studio picture of a glass marble? N O N S E N S E.
What color is the moon in that picture? A neutral density gray - much duller than if the picture was shot to highlight the moon itself. That tells you it was stopped down to get the color and density of the earth's image correct. You are just being silly.
Quote:
But you're just making a wild guess that you really don't have a shred of foundation for making here, because you don't know what the moon actually looks like from a few miles up, now do you? Of course you don't!
No wild guesses, just experience. I can look through telescopes. I can fill the eyepiece with the entire image, and yeah it is a lot brighter that a dull gray. But to really get some additional definition on a photograph, you can do some additional processing. Try it some time. Look at the moon in a full frame. What happens? Your iris closes down - funny how that happens, because it is so bright. And the stars seem to just disappear.
Quote:
But if you take 5 seconds to think, instead of flap your gums at me with this barrage of BS, what should become obvious to you is that according to this photo, the Earth must be orders of magnitude brighter in illuminance than the moon is ... otherwise, the moon would appear brighter than the much further away Earth, no matter what aperture or shutter speed settings were used. You at least get that, don't you? After all, that is the argument you're using to justify no visible stars, for crying out loud
You haven't photographed the moon much have you. You haven't done much astrophotography. Try it some time. And good luck. I gave you the exposure formula to get good photos. It may get you away from pin-headed conspiracy theories.
“It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.” ~
Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon
Good thing nobody has argued that "man flew directly from the earth to the moon", then. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, look it up.
Their exact perspective, and the two "potholes" dismisses the excuse that the first photo was taken in front of the LEM. The potholes are the same, and so are the shadows and size of the background humps B,D, E.
This one, just like the first one, are not real.
Those craters look nothing alike. Do try harder.
And are you going to address the handful of pictures taken in orbit with lots and lots of sky but no stars showing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
