-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
UFO following a BA 747???
- Thread starter DaSonyGuy
- Start date
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
Not really. When GW Bush announced that he wanted man, or more precisely, American man, to go back to the Moon and then on to Mars, nobody batted an eyelid as in their gullible minds they "knew" it had been done before. However, when an "advisor" wispered in Obamas ear that it could'nt actually be done and "we made up the first attempt", not supprisingly it was'nt long before he cancelled the plans. Or do you think the richest country in world cancelled the plans, just to save a few bucks?..Wake up and smell the coffee!
SigmaChrome
Forum Pro
I don't think it will ever be resolved... well, not until Alf talks to an Apollo astronaut - and even then he probably won't believe what he hears.
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!
http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries
--I hope this gets solved before we reach 151 posts - it reads like a thriller
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!
http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
Ah, good at last someone has taken up my challenge. OK, not sure why but I cant view the original pic I posted anymore, so here is another, of "Buzz":
First some irrefutable facts:
The only light source the Astronauts had with them for photography was the Sun. No flash equipment or incandescent lighting was ever taken on Apollo missions.
The Sun shines at virtually the same luminosity over the thousands of square miles of the Lunar surface lit by it.
The Astronauts had large/bulky Hasselblad cameras with them. To keep their hands free they were mounted on chest height brackets on the front of the suits.
They were no different mechanically than existing models, they just had different colour paint coatings and they were not especially shielded against radiation.
The cameras used conventional stock Film.
The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat.
Now this should give you plenty of clues as to why it was'nt taken on the Moon, or even by the person reflected in the visor.
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
There would be no point, they could never divulge the truth.
As Starboy has already stated "Most of them were test and fighter pilots and had already risked their lives on test and battle mission many times."
When your in the military, and your told to stay stum, you stay stum. Besides there were some very sweet perks offered for going along with it, worldwide fame and fortune being the main sweeteners.
However when one of Astronauts could not live with his conscience anymore and threatened to blab the truth to the press he was murdered in an "unfortunate" fire disaster while training in a space capsule on Earth.
Armstrong has been very quiet in the past about his supposed hugely historic acheivement but this should not be taken as a sign of his great modesty but , more a sign of his guilty conscience of having to "live the lie" for the rest of his life.
yvind Strm
Senior Member
No, I fail to see why it couldn't be taken on the moon. Enlighten me, please.
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm
--Ah, good at last someone has taken up my challenge. OK, not sure why but I cant view the original pic I posted anymore, so here is another, of "Buzz":
First some irrefutable facts:
The only light source the Astronauts had with them for photography was the Sun. No flash equipment or incandescent lighting was ever taken on Apollo missions.
The Sun shines at virtually the same luminosity over the thousands of square miles of the Lunar surface lit by it.
The Astronauts had large/bulky Hasselblad cameras with them. To keep their hands free they were mounted on chest height brackets on the front of the suits.
They were no different mechanically than existing models, they just had different colour paint coatings and they were not especially shielded against radiation.
The cameras used conventional stock Film.
The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat.
Now this should give you plenty of clues as to why it was'nt taken on the Moon, or even by the person reflected in the visor.
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm
Chuck Lantz
Senior Member
What has always amazed me when listening to these Moon landing conspiracy theories is that the theorists can't grasp the simplicity of the process. And the idea that the USA and USSR were somehow involved in a conspiracy is bizarre in the extreme.
Besides that, thinking that we are the "richest country in the world" totally ignores today's economic reality, where every nation faces serious problems. If you have to borrow just to pay the bills, being the "richest" becomes meaningless. The budget released today, where basic social programs are being cut to shreds, with more on the way, allows no room for Moon missions.
--
'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com
Chuck Lantz
Senior Member
So, what you are claiming is that the conspirators were smart enough to carry out the hoax, but dumb enough to artificially light that shot? You do realize that you are claiming that their desire for a perfectly lit photo overcame their desire to fool everyone?
--
'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com
rick decker
Forum Pro
You have to hurry as it ends in an hour.
R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
You were definitely dropped on your head as a child. I live in Tallahassee where several astronauts have taken up residence. I've met several of them at parties and educational events and all were very proud of their achievements. And they are completely amazed at how stupid, idiots like you, can be.
Your idiocy just doesn't stop does it? You may want to look this up, but during the moon race the US and Russia were in a cold war. Both countries fought hot wars with each other in client states like Korea and Vietnam. People died. Both countries had vast nuclear arsenals pointed at each other and on a few occasions were on the brink of a full out nuclear conflict like the Cuban Missile crisis.
You would have to be a grade A idiot to think that there would be an agreement between the US and Russia to collude so as to allow the Russians to loose the space race by allowing the US to fake a landing on the moon. Yup, you would have to be a primo, number one, first rank moron.
Mostly Lurking
Senior Member
--
William Wilgus
William Wilgus
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
Oh really, all Astronauts connected with the Apollo space program are they?...If so, what an amazing coincedance!
Sure they are...They are hardly going to lean over and wisper in your ear- "pssst, dont tell anyone but we faked the whole Apollo thing" are they!
Their just living the lie and managing to fool poor, deluded, sychophatic chumps like you with their tall tales.
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
Actually you would have to be a first class moron to think the Americans were even in the space race! All the crowning acheivements in the "race" were already won by the Russians...First artificial satellite in Earth orbit, first animal (a Dog) in Earth orbit, first Man in Space and the first man to orbit the Earth, plus the first robot landers on the Moon...Meanwhile American Rockets were blowing up, virtually everytime they try to launch!
Your jingoistic Yankie patriotism is blinding to the realities son.
It's not how you start the race, it is how you finish. If you think for one minute the Russians would let a faked lunar mission pass when they would know damn well if the US sent a mission to the moon then you're not only a moron but medically delusional.
DaSonyGuy
Forum Pro
Ah, good at last someone has taken up my challenge. OK, not sure why but I cant view the original pic I posted anymore, so here is another, of "Buzz":
First some irrefutable facts:
The only light source the Astronauts had with them for photography was the Sun. No flash equipment or incandescent lighting was ever taken on Apollo missions.
The Sun shines at virtually the same luminosity over the thousands of square miles of the Lunar surface lit by it.
The Astronauts had large/bulky Hasselblad cameras with them. To keep their hands free they were mounted on chest height brackets on the front of the suits.
They were no different mechanically than existing models, they just had different colour paint coatings and they were not especially shielded against radiation.
The cameras used conventional stock Film.
The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat.
Now this should give you plenty of clues as to why it was'nt taken on the Moon, or even by the person reflected in the visor.
OK, I will. Lets look at the first fact: "The only light source the Astronauts had with them for photography was the Sun. No flash equipment or incandescent lighting was ever taken on Apollo missions."
Going by the shadow cast by the Astronaut, which you will note is a deep black, the position of the sun is easy to assertain...It would obviously be behind and above to the Astronauts left, yet somehow, the front of his suit is perfectly lit, even on the opposite side from the sun...In reality, the front of his suit would be in Silhouette, and inky black, just like his shadow.
Heres is another pic, where this time the back of the astronaut should be in silhouette but its not, its clearly lit:
Now lets look at fact two: "The Sun shines at virtually the same luminosity over the thousands of square miles of the Lunar surface lit by it."
Now look at the brightness of the Moons surface in the photo...It is clearly brightest within the small area in which the Astronaut is standing and it gradually gets darker the greater the distance away the surface is from his position.
In reality, there would be no noticable difference in surface brightness from the foreground right out to the visible horizon.
Now for facts three and four: "The Astronauts had large/bulky Hasselblad cameras with them. To keep their hands free they were mounted on chest height brackets on the front of the suits."
The Hasselblad cameras were not specially shielded against highly penetrating radiation from the Solar wind, such as high energy Helium Nuclei produced by nuclear fusion in the sun. Unlike the Earth, the Moon has no magnetic field to deflect the solar wind so its surface is constantly bombarded by it.
Even in the apollo space capsule or inside the Eagle lander, there would be no protection from such radiation which can pass through several meters of dense shielding. And all the time they were travelling to the Moon and back they would be exposed to it constantly as well. To make matters worse this same radiation produces deadly X-Rays when the particles colide with gas particles, such as that within the Apollo spacecraft and of course within the Astronauts suits.
So with all that penetrating radiation and X-Rays flying around on the week or so long mission, why are there so many all too perfect looking NASA apollo photos around when in reality most the negatives would be fogged and therefore useless by the time they got back to Earth.
Now fact five: "The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat."
So why is that an important clue?...Take a good look at the reflection in the visor.
If the two Astronauts were at the same ground level relative to each other, and the Hasselblad camera was at chest height, the reflection in the visor would not be directly in line with the horizon as shown in the photo. It should be much higher in the visor. A moonhoax researcher calculated that the camera taking the image would have to be 12 feet above the surface the subect Astronaut is standing on but going by the reflection in the visor, this is cleary not the case!
Conclusion...The reflection in the visor has been doctored to hide the original reflection which would have shown the real photographer, who was standing on a gantry on the Apollo Astronaut training area inside Groom Lake Airbase, Nevada (Area 51).
Satellite photos from flyovers of Area 51 show man-made craters exactly like some of those found at the proposed landing sites on the Moon...A film set of the Moon no less. Overhead spotlights were used to light the "Actor naut" and fill lights were used from various directions to fill the silhouttes.
There was never any danger to the Actor nauts or film from radiation, as it was all shot right done here on Earth!
yvind Strm
Senior Member
Excactly. Maybe everything is within our own imagination.
Even the SD-1.
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm
Even the SD-1.
--
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm
polarabbit
Senior Member
=-)
now the object looks like a bird to me
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com
Gary
now the object looks like a bird to me
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLERY: http://galay.fotki.com
Gary
coenskiekjes
Member
Personally I love these conspiracy theories, I however never believe them. I guess I don't have a very small paranoia brain centre. These theories usually are created by asking suggestive questions (like a lawyer in court) to blur our perception of the facts.
As an aerospace engineer (not -yet- part of the conspiracy) I dont think that any of the arguments hold.
Higher radiation in space a thread for humans? No real problem, since people have been in space for month in a row (record even more than a year). If you have enough cash, Richard Branson will take you normal mortals there for a minute in a fibre composite spaceship.
Protection by the earth magnetic field? This field extends a long way, furthermore the density of the solar wind (particles only) is so low it would even have no effect on the entire trip. The rest of the space grade nuclear radiation is received by the autronauts residing in the ISS as well since there is no atmosphere to absorb it.
Shadows on the moon? Lets not forget that we can read a book with moonlight on earth on a clear night. The moon reflects a whole lot of visible light (otherwise it wouldn't be visible on the photo either). I expect the astronout to be also lit from behind by scattered light form some mountainranges or crater nearby and him leaving a very dark shadow on the moon (like on the photots). The astrounout in his white suit reflects this light better into the camera than the darkish lunar lander. Like on the photo.
Dark horizon? As we can see with our own eyes and zoom cameras, the moon does not have only one shade of gray. Since I've not been there myself I cannot be shure but I expect some toning of moondust quite plausible. It could also be that there is some curvature present.
Film in space? A lot of photos have been taken in space, with film and mechanical cameras. Space radiation is either no real issue or just blocked enough by the camera body to save the film.
Like flight the basics of space travel have been covered long ago. We've had plenty of credible milestones that have lead to an active space industry today. Maybe you should visit a nearby IMAX cinema to enjoy the astronouts repairing the HUBBLE telescope. Space suits, (large) orbiting spacecraft, sensitive electronics in space are all part of our every day reality.
Extra protection from radiaton? In spacetravel every (milli) gram counts. For sure other things are far more important as NASA discovered with their space experiments in the fifites and early sixties. One must think of 4 degrees Kelvin outside, human conditions inside. I expect very little lead to be present in a spacecraft.
I can go on and on and on to counter all the quasi factual arguments that created doubt in the minds of the succeptible, but I won't.
I just had to react once, but realise won't bring anyone to other thoughts, just giving food to counter 'arguments'.
Can't wait until an astrounout takes his SD1 into space though!
have a happy thread,
regards, Coen
As an aerospace engineer (not -yet- part of the conspiracy) I dont think that any of the arguments hold.
Higher radiation in space a thread for humans? No real problem, since people have been in space for month in a row (record even more than a year). If you have enough cash, Richard Branson will take you normal mortals there for a minute in a fibre composite spaceship.
Protection by the earth magnetic field? This field extends a long way, furthermore the density of the solar wind (particles only) is so low it would even have no effect on the entire trip. The rest of the space grade nuclear radiation is received by the autronauts residing in the ISS as well since there is no atmosphere to absorb it.
Shadows on the moon? Lets not forget that we can read a book with moonlight on earth on a clear night. The moon reflects a whole lot of visible light (otherwise it wouldn't be visible on the photo either). I expect the astronout to be also lit from behind by scattered light form some mountainranges or crater nearby and him leaving a very dark shadow on the moon (like on the photots). The astrounout in his white suit reflects this light better into the camera than the darkish lunar lander. Like on the photo.
Dark horizon? As we can see with our own eyes and zoom cameras, the moon does not have only one shade of gray. Since I've not been there myself I cannot be shure but I expect some toning of moondust quite plausible. It could also be that there is some curvature present.
Film in space? A lot of photos have been taken in space, with film and mechanical cameras. Space radiation is either no real issue or just blocked enough by the camera body to save the film.
Like flight the basics of space travel have been covered long ago. We've had plenty of credible milestones that have lead to an active space industry today. Maybe you should visit a nearby IMAX cinema to enjoy the astronouts repairing the HUBBLE telescope. Space suits, (large) orbiting spacecraft, sensitive electronics in space are all part of our every day reality.
Extra protection from radiaton? In spacetravel every (milli) gram counts. For sure other things are far more important as NASA discovered with their space experiments in the fifites and early sixties. One must think of 4 degrees Kelvin outside, human conditions inside. I expect very little lead to be present in a spacecraft.
I can go on and on and on to counter all the quasi factual arguments that created doubt in the minds of the succeptible, but I won't.
I just had to react once, but realise won't bring anyone to other thoughts, just giving food to counter 'arguments'.
Can't wait until an astrounout takes his SD1 into space though!
have a happy thread,
regards, Coen
Chuck Lantz
Senior Member
I'll concentrate on just this one "conclusion".
It truly amazes me that someone with photographic experience would not understand the simple reflection principle involved here. The visor is round , not flat. As your view move up, down or sideways while looking into a round reflective surface, so does the reflection!
And as far as your "moonhoax researcher's" information goes, there is absolutely no visual evidence in that photo that suggests that the camera is 12' from the ground.
Besides that, your assertion that the ground shouldn't be lighter in the area they are standing on than it is as you look towards the horizon is patently absurd. You fail to take into account that the closer you are to the subject, the less steep the angle from the ground to your eyes. As you look towards the horizon while standing on any surface, the more directly-reflected light diminishes, and the surface will appear darker.
This is all just common sense. If the "moon-hoax" conspiracy folks like yourself would use that approach, instead of using a preconceived agenda as a starting point, you'd be much better off.
--
'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum