31 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FrogspondenceI don't think we disagree either.
I don't think you and I disagree here, I was more clarifying.
Its just that you talked of the sun in the sky and discounted the surface of the moon (mentioning only space suites, landers etc.).
I actually do not recall a single picture which includes the sun, (maybe it is too bright ? ) and in the majority of the photos the main light source is the lunar surface. If you take a photo of the surface from close up it must be many time brighter.
My original point was that even from our great distance, if you take a photo of the lunar surface (a photo of the moon at night) you will find that unless you are a wizard at camera settings you will not see any stars in the photo.
If you search for images of "The moon" in Google, you will find plenty of photos of the moon taken from earth and certainly on the first 7 pages of images not one of them includes stars.
31 Jul 09
3 edits
Moon in the sky thing from Earth is an excellent point. Didn't think of/catch that.
All (or nearly all at worst) of the moon landing pictures were taken around local dawn or dusk with the sun on the horizon (but risen/not set; the sun is in the sky). They always have to take the pictures facing away from the Sun for brightness reasons. Yes there is light reflecting off the surface and everything else, but that light is because it is daytime on that part of the moon. At night there is no reflection of light off the surface. Hence the lunar cycle we see from Earth.
Anyway, yes light reflects off the surface majorly (like my snow example), but the reflected light is the "daytime" sun, for the moon's daytime, not ours. I think this has clarified things to death, but I'm not seeing anymore posts from the anti-moon landing people, so maybe we convinced them? 😕
01 Aug 09
Originally posted by FrogspondenceDon't hold your breath🙂
Moon in the sky thing from Earth is an excellent point. Didn't think of/catch that.
All (or nearly all at worst) of the moon landing pictures were taken around local dawn or dusk with the sun on the horizon (but risen/not set; the sun is in the sky). They always have to take the pictures facing away from the Sun for brightness reasons. Yes there ...[text shortened]... not seeing anymore posts from the anti-moon landing people, so maybe we convinced them? 😕
There is one idiot here, an otherwise very intelligent person, who insists she has inside knowledge of fakery, I think she is deranged, she just spouts hatred of American science mainly, I think her (I think it's female, not sure about that) main stance stems from that hatred. Hatred clouds one's thinking. Not much coming from her camp lately for which I am thankful.
When it comes to the lunar sky, think about the sun's energy level, what reaches the moon's surface is 1355 watts per square meter. That is several times more than EVER reaches the Earth's surface. In terms of square inches, that is almost one watt per square inch, which is roughly the size of the standard camera, film or CCD camcorder. Think about the light levels a modern camcorder can make decent pictures in, you are beginning to count individual photons there and on the moon, you aim a camera like that at the sun, it would not be long before the sensor would be fried, so it's no wonder there is not much in the way of sun pictures from the moon. When we look at the sun, for instance, I have a pair of binoculars, 80X20, and I can see sunspots directly with them but I have to use a filter that would do a welder proud to keep from damaging my eyes. That concentrates all the sun's energy from about 250 square mm onto about a 3 mm spot inside the eye. If I was to be looking at the sun on the moon's surface, I would be cramming about 1/3 of a watt in a 3mm sized hole in my eye where the pupil size is about 7 mm, or around 9 square mm, which would be the equivalent of about 37,000 watts per square meter, think how long it would take for that 1/3 watt to make a hole in your retina. So you can see why nobody was anxious to take photo's of the sun from the moon or even from the ISS.
The moon hoaxers have come up with the lamest excuses they call 'evidence' I ever heard. I think it must be a lot easier to invent UFO evidence than the lame crap I hear from them.
01 Aug 09
Originally posted by sonhouseI wouldn't take pictures as evidence anyway. I did look some over though and a lot of them can be explained with uneven terrain causing the shadows to apear to be cast in different directions. The question I have is how many pics were taken and how much time was available to take them. I haven't been able to find this again on the web.
Don't hold your breath🙂
There is one idiot here, an otherwise very intelligent person, who insists she has inside knowledge of fakery, I think she is deranged, she just spouts hatred of American science mainly, I think her (I think it's female, not sure about that) main stance stems from that hatred. Hatred clouds one's thinking. Not much coming from her ...[text shortened]... it must be a lot easier to invent UFO evidence than the lame crap I hear from them.
01 Aug 09
Originally posted by joe beyserWell remember, they were not digital camera's, just film. So there would be a limited amount of film per flight, lets say ten rolls (just a guess) so with 10 rolls and say 24 pics per roll, 240 images per flight, times 6 flights? So there is a possibility of over 2000 shots being taken. Not all of them would come out of course, some overexposed, shaky camera, underexposed, etc. So I guess over a thou came out.
I wouldn't take pictures as evidence anyway. I did look some over though and a lot of them can be explained with uneven terrain causing the shadows to apear to be cast in different directions. The question I have is how many pics were taken and how much time was available to take them. I haven't been able to find this again on the web.
02 Aug 09
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat I read once pertained to the amount of time available for taking pictures rather than the amount of film.
Well remember, they were not digital camera's, just film. So there would be a limited amount of film per flight, lets say ten rolls (just a guess) so with 10 rolls and say 24 pics per roll, 240 images per flight, times 6 flights? So there is a possibility of over 2000 shots being taken. Not all of them would come out of course, some overexposed, shaky camera, underexposed, etc. So I guess over a thou came out.
02 Aug 09
Originally posted by joe beyserYeah, that's a good point, it's not like they were tourists. Is there an official count of the photo's taken? Considering how they just blew it and destroyed the data on thousands of tapes including the original images of the 'one step for man' I wouldn't be surprised if they were trashed also.
What I read once pertained to the amount of time available for taking pictures rather than the amount of film.
03 Aug 09
Originally posted by sonhouseI can't seem to find this info again. I will keep looking from time to time. I was not aware they lost tapes and pics. How can that happen?
Yeah, that's a good point, it's not like they were tourists. Is there an official count of the photo's taken? Considering how they just blew it and destroyed the data on thousands of tapes including the original images of the 'one step for man' I wouldn't be surprised if they were trashed also.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by menace71Still would not be enough for the moon hoax theorists. It is good evidence that we landed something on the moon but not that we landed men on the moon.
They the Astronauts also left a device/mirror on the moon in which we now bounce lasers off the moon.(some university somewhere I think)They can determine exact distance from the earth to the moon. Enough evidence in that alone to know that we landed on the moon.
Manny
--- Penguin.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by PenguinMoon hoaxers never said we never sent robots and probes to the moon, just men. The fact that they are as full of sheet as a Christmas turkey is another story.
Still would not be enough for the moon hoax theorists. It is good evidence that we landed something on the moon but not that we landed [b]men on the moon.
--- Penguin.[/b]
05 Aug 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelNo, I certanly don't see any strange with the picture. I can easily take a similar picture with only one light source.
So you didn't see anything strange in the '2 light source picture'?
Thats cool . Ever see the movie 'Capricorn 1'. Its a movie from the 70's about a staged moon landing. Very curious subject this.
Capricon One is a Hollywood product. As are other movies where the president is assasinated with a sniper. They are also Hollywood products, and the president is still alive. So why think Capricorn One is a documentary?
A very good movie it is, but with some flaws within.
06 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasCapricorn 1 is also considered the beginning of the moon hoax idiocy.
No, I certanly don't see any strange with the picture. I can easily take a similar picture with only one light source.
Capricon One is a Hollywood product. As are other movies where the president is assasinated with a sniper. They are also Hollywood products, and the president is still alive. So why think Capricorn One is a documentary?
A very good movie it is, but with some flaws within.
06 Aug 09
Originally posted by sonhousePeople with a certain type of personality tend to believe any conspiracy. They get their fuel from governements trying to explain their faults in reasoning. "If they try so hard to deny these things, there must be som truth in this!"
Capricorn 1 is also considered the beginning of the moon hoax idiocy.
This group, small but big mouthed, are used of editors and authors with low moral, writing and selling books and other material to make a buck out of their ignorance.
They don't want to know the truth, because the truth is boring. They want to believe in their things, because it make the life more exciting.
It's like a religion for them.