27 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelWell you have to realize that pics can be faked on both sides. The overall number of pics taken is more convincing to me. I don't know how to verify the numbers that was claimed though. I am not sure this can be proven.
The pics I saw were fake. Very common 'moon-landing' pics shown in many a publication. I wish I could provide a link but thats just not me.
Not that providing links is a bad thing, its just not my thing.
The pics I saw had two distinct light scources so unless thay took a lighting guy with them to the moon they were definatlly fake.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelhehe, crop circles, obviously aliens with too much time on their hands, eh.
probably you are right. My point was not really regarding the moon-hoax theory anyway. I was just exploring some ideas based on what I've witnessed. No biggie. My thinking is not set in stone.
BTW I checked out your song. The River,is it?
Very nice. I'm so jealous of you people that can afford such nice acoustic guitars.🙂
(so you going to let the crop-circle comment slide?)
Thanks for the compliment. Did I tell you I had a my space thing? BTW, that guitar was 450 bucks new! It is a great little guitar, a re-issue of an 1898 washburn parlor guitar. I wonder if the original in the 19th century sounded as good! Those tunes are from my first self made CD, am doing CD # 2 now. Not exactly sure how to market a self made CD. Any ideas?
I know about CD baby and such but does anyone actually make bucks on it? The price of that guitar now, an R305 Washburn is about 900 bucks US now, I got a good deal on it. I actually played about 4 of them that had come into the 19th St Guitar center in Nazareth, fell in love with them and took almost 4 solid hours of playing to decide the one I got was THE one! They probably got tired of me being so obssessive, eh. When it has new strings, it sounds like a $5,000 guitar!
29 Jul 09
Originally posted by sonhouseAh...Someone after my own heart🙂
hehe, crop circles, obviously aliens with too much time on their hands, eh.
Thanks for the compliment. Did I tell you I had a my space thing? BTW, that guitar was 450 bucks new! It is a great little guitar, a re-issue of an 1898 washburn parlor guitar. I wonder if the original in the 19th century sounded as good! Those tunes are from my first self made CD, ...[text shortened]... ot tired of me being so obssessive, eh. When it has new strings, it sounds like a $5,000 guitar!
I too look for cheap guitars that are more valueable than they seem .
As for ideas to market your c.d. I have only one avenue and that is some friends in melbourne who play for a certain record label that said they might sign me up if I get together some good demos . The type of arists this record label signs are more 'alternative rock band ' orientated , not 'sweet acoustic' stuff that you do , but you never know. If I get my foot in the door I will not forget you!Your music is cool!!!
Now as for 'aliens' having 'too much time on their hands'. I dont really think that is accurate. For one they are 'beyond' time and the effects of time . Secondly,as they see it, we dont have that much time left. Crop-circles are a 'gradual' way to introduce the general public to the greater mysteries of our lives.
They tried going to the government some years ago but the government wasn't interested in sharing the 'good news' from them. All they (the government) wanted was the 'lollies' (?!)
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo you believe in the 2012 end of times thing?
Ah...Someone after my own heart🙂
I too look for cheap guitars that are more valueable than they seem .
As for ideas to market your c.d. I have only one avenue and that is some friends in melbourne who play for a certain record label that said they might sign me up if I get together some good demos . The type of arists this record label signs are mo ...[text shortened]... 'good news' from them. All they (the government) wanted was the 'lollies' (?!)
Do you have a myspace site? I'd take a listen.
30 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse1.I lend weight to the 2012 end times theory,based on my research. At the end of the day I guess we should do the best we can because we dont know when the Earth will end or when we will die. There is definately change a'comin but to try to pinpoint it down to one date and one cause is focussing on the wrong thing.
So you believe in the 2012 end of times thing?
Do you have a myspace site? I'd take a listen.
I knew one srong 'spiritual character' who use to repeat over and over : 'Its 90% preparation.' He wouldn't say any more on the subject, I think he was letting me think for myself when it came to the rest...
2. I have one song one you tube. Its under 'charlie aczel'.
(please understand that this was not properly finished when my 13yr old daughter went and put it on there. Its quite embaressing really , but give me a couple of months.. I am working on some other better recorded music. (I just got an interface and am in the process of deciphering the manual))
Do you play live? Your music would be perfect for certain cafes or pubs, I reckon.
30 Jul 09
As to moon photos needing to have "two distinct light sources", is this because of non-parallel shadows, or something else. If it is the shadows thing, it has been establish time and again that shadows like that happen easily due to camera perspective and a low angle for the light.
Check out this site if you don't believe me.
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/strangeshadows.html
It has one of the commonly disputed moon pictures, and below it, a picture of the site author casting a shadow at the same angle compared to the shadow in the background. This was done with just the sun as a light source and NO OTHER SOURCES OF LIGHT.
30 Jul 09
Originally posted by FrogspondenceLooks to me like they are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to capture more book sales before the subject becomes mute when they revisit the original Apollo sites and photograph the footprints close up. They will have a much harder time trying to fire up a conspiracy theory then.
As to moon photos needing to have "two distinct light sources", is this because of non-parallel shadows, or something else. If it is the shadows thing, it has been establish time and again that shadows like that happen easily due to camera perspective and a low angle for the light.
Check out this site if you don't believe me.
http://www.apollo- ...[text shortened]... background. This was done with just the sun as a light source and NO OTHER SOURCES OF LIGHT.
31 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FrogspondenceYeah,well how did the moon hoax theory gain any credibilty at all? Are you suggesting the populace was gullible enough to believe such a thing even though they really went there?
As to moon photos needing to have "two distinct light sources", is this because of non-parallel shadows, or something else. If it is the shadows thing, it has been establish time and again that shadows like that happen easily due to camera perspective and a low angle for the light.
Check out this site if you don't believe me.
http://www.apollo- ...[text shortened]... background. This was done with just the sun as a light source and NO OTHER SOURCES OF LIGHT.
I dont know either way and like the title of this thread suggests this should be the end of such nonsense.
I checked out that site. No it was not about parallel shadows. Like I said in the picture I saw there were two light scources. There is a possibility I remembered it wrong. I just remember that I was a bit taken aback at the time.
I have actually tried to find these photos, but have been unsuccesful so far.If I remember right there was a photo of an astronaut where you could see the reflection of the sun in his visor. The shadow(s) on the ground were almost going in a totally opposite direction. Also it is claimed that there are no stars in the fake photos.
This sort of information should probably be made free and if you have to buy a book to find out about this it makes it more suspect in my book
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelIt didn't. Having large numbers of 'believers' does not equal 'credibility'.
Yeah,well how did the moon hoax theory gain any credibilty at all?
Are you suggesting the populace was gullible enough to believe such a thing even though they really went there?
The US 'populace' seems to be extremely gullible - look at how Bush kept taking them in. Of course in the moon case it wasn't really 'the populace' but a fairly small proportion of people.
If I remember right there was a photo of an astronaut where you could see the reflection of the sun in his visor. The shadow(s) on the ground were almost going in a totally opposite direction.
The opposite direction of what? Of where the sun was? That is where they should be.
Also it is claimed that there are no stars in the fake photos.
That is correct and how it should be. If you have ever tried taking photos of the moon you will probably also have no stars in your photos. It is because the contrast between moon light and star light is so great that the camera does not pick up the stars. (I don't know if astronauts on the moon can see the stars.)
31 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadLike I said ,I'm not an advocate of this paricurlar theory.
It didn't. Having large numbers of 'believers' does not equal 'credibility'.
[b]Are you suggesting the populace was gullible enough to believe such a thing even though they really went there?
The US 'populace' seems to be extremely gullible - look at how Bush kept taking them in. Of course in the moon case it wasn't really 'the populace' but a fai ...[text shortened]... es not pick up the stars. (I don't know if astronauts on the moon can see the stars.)[/b]
And I agree with all of your explanations. Except the 'shadows going in the opposite direction' one.
Even a simpleton like me knows that the shadows should go in the opposite direction of the light scource(in this case the Sun)
Just trust me when I say I have researched a great many things and I'm am still searching for these photos. I admitted I may have been mistaken but it was only a slim possibility. I wont say any more on thiis topic till I find those pics. Thanks for any readers out there who have put up with this thread bare scientific thread. To have provided so little proof on a scientific forum is embaressing ,even for me.
31 Jul 09
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo clarify the no stars thing:
[b]Also it is claimed that there are no stars in the fake photos.
That is correct and how it should be. If you have ever tried taking photos of the moon you will probably also have no stars in your photos. It is because the contrast between moon light and star light is so great that the camera does not pick up the stars. (I don't know if astronauts on the moon can see the stars.)[/b]
1: The moon does not have an atmosphere, so light is not scattered. Therefore the sky on the moon is black even during the day. The moon landing pictures were taken during the day (hence the shadows). So it isn't light reflecting off the moon that is making it too bright to see stars, it is the fact that the sun is in the sky. Just like on Earth, you can't see the stars during the day, and on the moon the same thing is true. The SUN is just too bright.
2: Because of the brightness of the Sun and the fact that space suits and whatnot are white (reflecting a lot of light), the moon photos were all taken with very fast exposure times and with the apertures on the cameras less open to keep out a lot of light. With these sorts of camera settings you would never see stars anyway. When you want to take a picture of stars (at night) you open the aperture wide and have a long exposure time so you can capture enough light to make them visible.
3: The Earth, as seen from the Moon, ought to give off more (reflected) light than the Moon as seen from Earth does, just because of the size in the sky and the atmosphere. No idea how much that matters to illumination as you would never be able to see stars given the exposure times and the SUN even if the Earth weren't there, but it is yet another thing to think about.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it isn't light reflected off the moon surface that is the problem, but you definitely should not be surprised there are no stars.
-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, and I just remembered another of the "must be two light sources" pictures. There is a picture somewhere of an astronaut in the shadow of the lander, and the astronaut is illuminated despite being in shadow. People say there have to be two light sources for that to happen. Actually it happens because of the reflection of light off the lander and the soil.
The very top of this page has a good example of this done with a toy moon lander:
http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
I suspect when he finds his picture, it will be something like this. Not that it isn't weird, but it is just a neat thing about being on the moon, not something proving it was a hoax. Also, have you ever been outside in a field that is completely covered in new fallen snow? That is sort of like the surface of the moon. We can have pretty reflective days even here on Earth.
Anyway, it is just one more neat thing, and one more reason to believe NASA anyway. All the so-called "problems" with the lunar photos are things we would EXPECT, and with all these things you would expect after thinking about, but contrary to common experience, what are the chances they wouldn't have screwed something up if they were trying to make a hoax with that many little easter eggs.
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by FrogspondenceActually it is the light reflected off the moon surface as well as "the fact that space suits and whatnot are white (reflecting a lot of light)
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it isn't light reflected off the moon surface that is the problem, but you definitely should not be surprised there are no stars.
Most of the photos are of the moon and the main features are the moons surface and the cameras are adjusted to take that in. Most cameras simply do not have the dynamic range to capture both the very bright 'day light' of the moon and also the stars. Presumably though they could have taken a photo of just stars (with a longer exposure).
31 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo are you saying that the reflection of the sun was on the same side of the astronaut as the shadows? You are not being very clear.
Except the 'shadows going in the opposite direction' one. Even a simpleton like me knows that the shadows should go in the opposite direction of the light scource(in this case the Sun).
Are you sure it was the sun anyway? If you look at this photo:
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10001215.html
The reflection in the astronauts visor is not the reflection of the sun but that of the surface.
Just trust me when I say I have researched a great many things and I'm am still searching for these photos.
It is odd though that the photos you are looking for are so hard to find. You must have come across them because someone said they were contravertial and you would expect someone to have posted them somewhere.
31 Jul 09
I think the vast majority of released Apollo photos are available at
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
by the way. It would be a good place to look for whatever it is you are looking for, although there are a ton of pictures there, so it could take a while.
twhitehead; I don't think you and I disagree here, I was more clarifying. It isn't that the reflection off the surface alone should be enough to prevent stars, but that with the Sun in the sky/on the horizon and the camera settings required by the reflection from the surface, you are far beyond the point of being able to pick up what little light stars give off. If you disagree that the surface itself reflects too much light (not at all sure what the difference is, but if you have a way it is different) then maybe we should spin that off into a new thread, since I think we both agree that the moon landing happened.