UFO following a BA 747???

DaSonyGuy · Feb 15, 2011

coenskiekjes said:
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.

They have been in space, yes, but only in comparative safety zone of low earth orbit, inside the Van Allen belts and therefore protected from the solar wind.

coenskiekjes said:
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 density isnt as important as the enegry of the particles in the wind. You only have to look at the effect the solar wind has on passing comets to see that.

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.

Again, like all manned missions in space, the ISS travels in low earth orbit where they are protected from the ravages of the solar wind.

coenskiekjes said:
Shadows on the moon? Lets not forget that we can read a book with moonlight on earth on a clear night.

The Moons surface has a albido of only 8% so while its hardly a perfect mirror it does indeed reflect some light back to Earth from the Sun. However that reflected light is soft and duffuse, not not harsh and sharp like sunlight on the Moon.

coenskiekjes said:
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.

But again, all in the safety zone of low Earth orbit, where there is very little radiation available to fog film.

coenskiekjes said:
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.

In direct sunlight in space, the side of an Astronauts suit that faces the sun can reach approximately 150 degees C, so its not all cold in space, or on the Moon come to that.

coenskiekjes said:
Can't wait until an astrounout takes his SD1 into space though!

I'm waiting for the Chinese or Indians to put a man on the Moon, where they can hopefully visit some of the supposed Apollo landing sites. If they dont find any evidence of the Apollo Moon landings then I will know I'm right, but if no remains of any of the lunar landers are found and they can prove that then I'll be happy to go along with NASA'a story of events...Till then I'm not convinced.

DaSonyGuy · Feb 15, 2011

Chuck Lantz said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

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!

Click to expand...

Chuck Lantz said:

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).

Click to expand...

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!

Since you bring up the visor issue, perhaps you can explain another little anomaly labout this photo that does'nt add up...Look at the direction of the shadows of Buzz's legs. They clearly run diagonally off to the bottom left of frame. From the reflection in the visor we know that the photographer was virtually directly in front of Buzz. Yet, the reflection in the visor shows the same leg shadows running almost directly towards the direction of photographer!

I tried to replicate this with a shiney bowl to replicate the convex surface of the visor, but found that it was impossible for those leg shadows to face that way in that reflection. Or am I just missing some simple reflection principle here?

Chuck Lantz said:
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.

You could use Trigonometry to confirm that figure, as the 12' figure was derived by someone else in exactly the same way.

It should be possible to guestimate the distance (X) between the photographer and Buzz, from the reflection in the visor. My guess would be around 15-20 feet, because a wide angle Zeiss Biotar was used on the Hassy camera, but you can choose your own figure.

Now, if you know the height of Buzz and the distance X, then you can calculate the angle of the horizon reflected in the visor. If the calculated figure matches where the horizon is shown reflected in the visor in the photo, then I will be very supprised! Of course, if the reflection was doctored, then the real photographer could have been standing at the same ground level as Buzz, which makes the calculation redundant so they only sure way is to find out is to use something to replicate the visor, stick it on a dummy, that is the same height as buzz and at the same ground level as you and then see if you can replicate the horizon reflected in the visor as shown in photo.

Chuck Lantz said:
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.

We are not talking about reflected light miles away, we are talking about how the light fades off even just a few feet away from Buzz and how it continues to fade away as the distance increases, yet there should have been only a single light source, the Sun, which spreads even illumination over thousands of miles of Lunar surface.

Chuck Lantz said:
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.

I'm supprised that a photographer like yourself cant see the evidence thats right in front of his own eyes...Or are you just ignoring it because you already have preconcieved agenda?

Usee · Feb 16, 2011

Well,

let me tell You a story...

-

The cold war...

...President Kennedy (a katholik) was shot by probably stupid people,
after he made a promise...

Now, what can one do to stabilize not only one community in this difficult situation?

...a common goal, far away from the sorrows on earth and the fulfillment of the promise, a dream, one of the biggest dreams beyond religious, or ideologic power:

-

In this situation they knew that they must succeed and that cheating isn't new on earth - especially for loosers, who want to win, even if it is only for a minute... :|

...as we know, we are here in a community, who likes pictures and everybody knows, that pictures are the strongest tool if it is about to make one believe.

Therefore it exists something like embeded journalism, which can be used or not!

-

And now for something completely different...

...the compromise:

They prepared themselves for the emergency case, that the mission could fail...

...and made enough material for the press, just for the case of failure.

-

But everything worked out just fine:

They had an successful lift off, a successful journey to the moon...

...but maybe they went sweat and don't wanted to take the biggest risk at a point, where no one would (ever

) know, whether they really made the big step today, or not!

So they let the lander land with it's scientific equippment, but maybe without carrying a man to the moon...

...than they left the moon orbit, travelled back to earth and the PR gang couldn't hold in using some of their hard made emergency case studio shots.

However the following missions may have touched the moon...

...only the first shown step of a man on the moon may be a fake, but the following may not, because the race was officially over.

Only the poor first crew and some folks around the unfailable mission had to live with a lie...

-

...but now, let's have a look at Sigma.

-

They build cameras for taking fotos - really!

--

If I´m writing in bold letters, I do not shout , like one mentioned to me -
I´m just trying to improve the readability!

Uli

coenskiekjes · Feb 16, 2011

Ok, I'm just too tempted

Just to set is straight:

The earth magnetic field (magnetosphere) deflects the solar wind, which is good for life on earth and orbiting spacecraft. But it also contains high energy charged particle plasma (beta radiation) within confined zones, the Van Allen Belts. This is NOT good, especially for orbiting spacecraft.This is the very opposite of 'protection'.

In fact the inner belt allready starts at 100km, well below the ISS 350km average orbit (LEO). All satellites passing the Belts pass tough a zone with intense radiation and countermeasures have to be taken to protect electronics and reliable dataaquisition. Astronauts are protected to some extend by the aluminium hull of the spacecraft.

Photons add up to 1.4kW/sq meter, but the sun hardly emits any energy above UV-C, wich is blocked by the hull of the spacecraft. So no thread but a very convenient source of energy.

Solar wind outside the magnetosphere (> 16.000 km) may cause harm to astronouts in spacecraft when exposed to it for quite a long time. Effects of a 10 day trip to the moon are benign.

I rest my case that for the Apollo missions radiation was no major issue for humans nor their cameras and film and that all basics to pull it off in the sixties have been developed in the decades before (the math and physics are even 18th centrury stuff).

Furthermore it has been shown that the lunar 'landscape' is deceptive. There are no familiar objects to reference against, so it is hard if not impossible to tell how big or far away and object or landmark is. I find theorising about 'expected' horizons and refelction on a compex curved shape highly speculative.

There is no argument that cannot be explaned in another (more scientifically plausible) way. The moon visits remain much more likely to me than the conspiracy theory.

regards, Coen

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

Hi Alf

Ah, you have trown in the conclusion to early. I'll get back to that.
You should not believe everything on the Internet, Alf.

BTW, about 20% of the population in the US think the Moon travels is a hoax!

DaSigmaGuy said:
yvind Strm said:

No, I fail to see why it couldn't be taken on the moon. Enlighten me, please.

Click to expand...

DaSonyGuy said:
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:

1 is easy to explain.

Lets assume we took two pictures of a person (on earth) with the same sun angle, distance to subject and focal length/exposure. The only differnce should be the surface the person stands at.
a) on a dark surface
b) on a light surface, like a sandy beach.

Comparing these two images, one will have considerable more fill light than the other.

Again, two pictures, this time both on the beach. One person with no clothes (skin is Zone 7), the other in highly reflective white dress.
Again, there will be a difference.

This establish that there is a fill effect from the ground, and that it increase when the person has a highly reflective white suit.

Oh, wait. Didn't those astronauts have that kind of suit? Highly reflective, white suits? Yeah, they did! And that reflection will not affect the shadow, so no inconsistency there. Case closed. Well, not really.
There will certainly be an effect, but is it enough?

Unfortunately, the reflection from the moons dark-grey mineral dust is poor. But compared to what? The surface of the moon reflects only 1/3 as much light as the surface of the Earth. So, even if the light from the moon is impressivly strong, its nothing compared to the Earth.
Hmm, wonder if the Earth is visible from the moon.

Hey, if the Earth reflects 3 times as well as the moon, and due to its size, has 40 times the light intensity of the moon, and seen from the moon, its relative size is 4x the sun? Isn't it possible that this could explain the fill effect?

Since I havn't been there, and neither have you, I can't rule out that these two factors (ground reflection and Earth) may contribute to the fill light.

More posts to follow.

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

DaSonyGuy said:
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.

2. Easy to explain, or at least refute.

You claim it must be a hoax, because there is a light fall off. So there must be additional lights illuminating the background. Only problem with this theory is that if there was an artificial light causing this fall-off, it had to be placed quite near camera position. The shadows on the ground clearly tells this is not the case. Also see the rock reflecting light; it also receive light from the same . And if the artificial light was on one side, the fall off would be in another direction. As the fall off decrease with distance, it suggest that the light must be awful far away - maybe as far as the sun! If they placed lights on both sides, they would be REALLY, REALLY good to construct that fall-off in that direction.

I challenge you to suggest an artificial lighting that achieve this smooth transition from front to back, maintaining shadows from rocks and stuff on ground. You may even consult your hoax sources, if you like.

The clue is that intensity of reflections from a surface is dependent on the angle of the illuminant in relation to the camera position, and how the material reflects light. Read the book "Light, Science and Magic" and read about "Family of angles".

So, I am still not convinced.

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

DaSonyGuy said:
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.

3 and 4
Not sure what is 3 and what is 4, or if its only one issue.
But the film issue could be explained like this:

If the radiation was so strong that it would blur the films, the astronaut would not have survived.
If the film survived, the radiation was not lethal.

They could have had special boxes that kept the film, and quickly return it after exposure.
I wasn't there to tell, you was not, and so were none of the hoax guys either.

If one of the points was how they could frame the shots with the camera on the chest?

A hasselblad has a viewfinder that you look down into. You flip it open, tilt your head a little bit forward (it seems like there is possible to look down inside the visir) and look down into the viewfinder. You focus on the screen. Easier than on earth, because no sky would reflect down there.

The whole issue about radiation is of course controversial, but there are experts on both sides, so I can't tell.

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

DaSonyGuy said:
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!

DaSonyGuy said:
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

5

I havn't seen the calculations, so I can't verify them. But AFAIK they might even be correct. But that does not rule out that the picturec dould be taken on the moon.

But, maybe the camera was not mounted on the white figure, seen in the visir, when taking the picture. Do you know for sure that they always had their cameras on their chest? Maybe they had tall tripods/monopods.

I can't know, you can't know.

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

DaSonyGuy said:
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!

Area 51. Is that were they have that real UFO also?

So, the evidence is that a Sovjet spy satelite has seen man-made craters in Area 51. I would say that it would surprise me more, if there were NO craters in a Astronaut training area.

Some hoax guys says it was taken out in the desert near Area 51, close to the craters. But others claim its inside one of the hangars. You can't even agree? Any other evidencel?

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

text moved

yvind Strm · Feb 16, 2011

DaSonyGuy said:
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!

5
I havn't seen the calculations, so I can't verify them.

But, maybe the camera was not mounted on the white figure, seen in the visir, when taking the camera. DO you know for sure that they always had their cameras on their chest?

None of the guys in your pictures has. So maybe they had a tall monopod that the guy holds?
I can't know, you can't know.

Area 51. Is that were they have that real UFO also?

So, the evidence is that a Sovjet spy satelite has seen man-made craters in Area 51. I would say that it would surprised me more, if there were NO craters in a Astronaut training area.

Some hoax guys says it was taken out in the desert near Area 51, close to the craters. But others claim its inside one of the hangars. You can't even agree? Any other evidence in favour of the Area 51 theori?

--
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 · Feb 16, 2011

coenskiekjes said:
Ok, I'm just too tempted

Just to set is straight:

The earth magnetic field (magnetosphere) deflects the solar wind, which is good for life on earth and orbiting spacecraft. But it also contains high energy charged particle plasma (beta radiation) within confined zones, the Van Allen Belts. This is NOT good, especially for orbiting spacecraft.This is the very opposite of 'protection'.

In fact the inner belt allready starts at 100km, well below the ISS 350km average orbit (LEO). All satellites passing the Belts pass tough a zone with intense radiation and countermeasures have to be taken to protect electronics and reliable dataaquisition. Astronauts are protected to some extend by the aluminium hull of the spacecraft.

Photons add up to 1.4kW/sq meter, but the sun hardly emits any energy above UV-C, wich is blocked by the hull of the spacecraft. So no thread but a very convenient source of energy.

Solar wind outside the magnetosphere (> 16.000 km) may cause harm to astronouts in spacecraft when exposed to it for quite a long time. Effects of a 10 day trip to the moon are benign.

I rest my case that for the Apollo missions radiation was no major issue for humans nor their cameras and film and that all basics to pull it off in the sixties have been developed in the decades before (the math and physics are even 18th centrury stuff).

Furthermore it has been shown that the lunar 'landscape' is deceptive. There are no familiar objects to reference against, so it is hard if not impossible to tell how big or far away and object or landmark is. I find theorising about 'expected' horizons and refelction on a compex curved shape highly speculative.

There is no argument that cannot be explaned in another (more scientifically plausible) way. The moon visits remain much more likely to me than the conspiracy theory.

regards, Coen

Coen; There you go again, tossing solid scientific facts against the brick wall of conspiracy. Good luck with that, ... unless you happen to be Chinese or Indian, and newly-returned from a Moon mission.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

DaSonyGuy · Feb 16, 2011

yvind Strm said:
yvind Strm said:

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!

Click to expand...

5
I havn't seen the calculations, so I can't verify them.

But, maybe the camera was not mounted on the white figure, seen in the visir, when taking the camera. DO you know for sure that they always had their cameras on their chest?

None of the guys in your pictures has. So maybe they had a tall monopod that the guy holds?
I can't know, you can't know.

All the the Apollo missions were three man missions. Two Astronauts from each mission went down to the surface of the moon in the lander whilst one remained in lunar orbit in the command module until the other two returned, after which they returned to Earth.

The official NASA story line would have us believe that the two Astronauts who went down the Moons surface on the first mission (Apollo 11) were Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, or to give him his full monica, Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr. (now you know why they stuck with calling him Buzz!), whilst Michael Collins stayed in Lunar orbit.

Now this of course means that the photo of Buzz on the moon that I posted before must have been taken by Neil Armstrong, as there was noone else there to press the shutter release on the camera.

No tripods or any other camera supports were taken with them. But if you look at the chest area of Buzz's suit you can see the bracket for holding the Hasselblad camera. Presumebly they only had one camera with them as Neil must have it on his chest bracket. Interesting that you think that the photographer reflected in the visor, who could only be Neil Armstrong does'nt seem to have a camera with him! I never mentioned it myself because the reflection of "Neil" in the visor is far too small to be able to see if he had a camera or not.

yvind Strm said:
Area 51. Is that were they have that real UFO also?

Its possible that they may have had some wreckage of something there once but whether it was something man-made or of alien origin is anyones guess.

yvind Strm said:
So, the evidence is that a Sovjet spy satelite has seen man-made craters in Area 51. I would say that it would surprised me more, if there were NO craters in a Astronaut training area.

yvind Strm said:
Some hoax guys says it was taken out in the desert near Area 51, close to the craters. But others claim its inside one of the hangars. You can't even agree? Any other evidence in favour of the Area 51 theori?

For true authenticity, any lunar set would either have to be fully or partially evacuated of all, or most of the air, or, the simulated Lunar surface would have to be damped down with fine water sprays before use. If one or the other expedient was not carried out, any dust kicked up by the Actor-Nauts would float around the set and that would be a dead give away. This would be more of a problem for movie footage than static shots. It is possible that some kind of large sealed film set was set up in one of the hangers, but we have no evidence of this and its highly likely that any such set would have been dismantled years ago.

If the surface was damped down with fine water sprays though then it would no longer be a neccessity to keep the set indoors or evacuated as even the wind on an outdoor set would not lift wet dust. And wet dust would also explain why NASA's photo of Armstrongs "Moon boot" print, supposedly taken on the Lunar surface looked so detailed and how it held its shape so well.

DaSonyGuy · Feb 16, 2011

Chuck Lantz said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

They were'nt being dumb in using artificial light, they just had no choice but to use artificial light as the shots were either taken on an outdoor set at night or on an darkened out indoor set, which could be used any time of the day or night.

Chuck Lantz said:
You do realize that you are claiming that their desire for a perfectly lit photo overcame their desire to fool everyone?

Of course, but they had no choice...It was that, or have no pictures at all. And they needed good photos more than anything else to keep the PR machine rolling.

There is a very good book on this subject I'd recommend you read. Its called "Apollo. Dark Moon And The Wistle Blowers".

Starboy · Feb 16, 2011

DaSigmaGuy said:
DaSonyGuy said:

You do realize that you are claiming that their desire for a perfectly lit photo overcame their desire to fool everyone?

Click to expand...

Of course, but they had no choice...It was that, or have no pictures at all. And they needed good photos more than anything else to keep the PR machine rolling.

There is a very good book on this subject I'd recommend you read. Its called "Apollo. Dark Moon And The Wistle Blowers".

My guess is that you are young idiot. At the time the live coverage had no photographs. There was a video and audio feed from the moon. Photos had to wait until the astronauts got back to earth and the film was processed and released. But by that time people had moved on. The big show was the TV show. They didn't need the photos to keep the PR machine going.

In any case there is no way to tell if the lighting was wrong since color processing of the time was all in the lab.

DaSonyGuy · Feb 17, 2011

Starboy said:
DaSigmaGuy said:

Starboy said:

You do realize that you are claiming that their desire for a perfectly lit photo overcame their desire to fool everyone?

Click to expand...

Of course, but they had no choice...It was that, or have no pictures at all. And they needed good photos more than anything else to keep the PR machine rolling.

There is a very good book on this subject I'd recommend you read. Its called "Apollo. Dark Moon And The Wistle Blowers".

Click to expand...

My guess is that you are young idiot.

If I'm an idiot, I'm a middle aged idiot, so have some respect for your elders sonny.

At the time the live coverage had no photographs. There was a video and audio feed from the moon. Photos had to wait until the astronauts got back to earth and the film was processed and released.

Obviously, but totally irrelevent.

But by that time people had moved on. The big show was the TV show. They didn't need the photos to keep the PR machine going.

Of course they did, or Apollo 11 would have been the last Apollo mission!

Starboy said:
In any case there is no way to tell if the lighting was wrong since color processing of the time was all in the lab.

Processing negatives in a lab is not the same as touching up photo details. They may not have have photographic aids such as photoshop back then but they their ways to doctor photos all the same.

Since you seem to be the most fervent believer of NASA's Apollo fairytail, you therefore need more convincing evidence that they have been telling you porkys. So, here is an official NASA Apollo pic with a very interesting photographic anomoly for you to ponder...I'll give you a clue what it is- Remember how there were never more than two Astronauts on the Moons surface on any of the Apollo missions, and the third guy orbited the moon in the command module?...

lightismagic · Feb 17, 2011

It seems that to some people the whole world is a hoax... well, maybe they're right. After all - what is the thing called "reality" anyway? Coming back to your photo: try googling the following string: "Alan Bean on the moon". Select "images" from googles result page.

This leaves the question whether this is a forum about photography or a platform for hoaxers...

(And by the way: Elvis is still alive!!)

yvind Strm · Feb 17, 2011

DaSigmaGuy said:
yvind Strm said:

DaSonyGuy said:

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!

Click to expand...

5
I havn't seen the calculations, so I can't verify them.

But, maybe the camera was not mounted on the white figure, seen in the visir, when taking the camera. DO you know for sure that they always had their cameras on their chest?

None of the guys in your pictures has. So maybe they had a tall monopod that the guy holds?
I can't know, you can't know.

Click to expand...

All the the Apollo missions were three man missions. Two Astronauts from each mission went down to the surface of the moon in the lander whilst one remained in lunar orbit in the command module until the other two returned, after which they returned to Earth.

The official NASA story line would have us believe that the two Astronauts who went down the Moons surface on the first mission (Apollo 11) were Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, or to give him his full monica, Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr. (now you know why they stuck with calling him Buzz!), whilst Michael Collins stayed in Lunar orbit.

Now this of course means that the photo of Buzz on the moon that I posted before must have been taken by Neil Armstrong, as there was noone else there to press the shutter release on the camera.

No tripods or any other camera supports were taken with them. But if you look at the chest area of Buzz's suit you can see the bracket for holding the Hasselblad camera. Presumebly they only had one camera with them as Neil must have it on his chest bracket. Interesting that you think that the photographer reflected in the visor, who could only be Neil Armstrong does'nt seem to have a camera with him! I never mentioned it myself because the reflection of "Neil" in the visor is far too small to be able to see if he had a camera or not.

I agree, the reflection of Neil in the visor is far to small to determine if he has a camera or not. Therefor I thougt it was obvious that hen I said "None of the guys" I meant of course those being photographed (not the reflection of the photographer). I only suggested Neils camera could be placed somewhere else for the purpose of THIS particullar photograph, but still released by him.

Well, even if accepting that was at shoulder level, it is still possible that the reflected horizon is level with actual horizon. You present it as a fact that the ground was level. Well, what if it wasn't? Did that moonhoaxresearcher calculate other possibilities? Maybe the subject was below ground level, and the phototgrapher a bit higher? What could this height difference, angle of lens (tilted up or down) with a wideangle and maybe angle of helmet (if it was not completely round) do to a picture?

DaSonyGuy said:
DaSonyGuy said:

Area 51. Is that were they have that real UFO also?

Click to expand...

Its possible that they may have had some wreckage of something there once but whether it was something man-made or of alien origin is anyones guess.

DaSonyGuy said:

So, the evidence is that a Sovjet spy satelite has seen man-made craters in Area 51. I would say that it would surprised me more, if there were NO craters in a Astronaut training area.

Click to expand...

DaSonyGuy said:

Some hoax guys says it was taken out in the desert near Area 51, close to the craters. But others claim its inside one of the hangars. You can't even agree? Any other evidence in favour of the Area 51 theori?

Click to expand...

For true authenticity, any lunar set would either have to be fully or partially evacuated of all, or most of the air, or, the simulated Lunar surface would have to be damped down with fine water sprays before use. If one or the other expedient was not carried out, any dust kicked up by the Actor-Nauts would float around the set and that would be a dead give away. This would be more of a problem for movie footage than static shots. It is possible that some kind of large sealed film set was set up in one of the hangers, but we have no evidence of this and its highly likely that any such set would have been dismantled years ago.

If the surface was damped down with fine water sprays though then it would no longer be a neccessity to keep the set indoors or evacuated as even the wind on an outdoor set would not lift wet dust. And wet dust would also explain why NASA's photo of Armstrongs "Moon boot" print, supposedly taken on the Lunar surface looked so detailed and how it held its shape so well.

Ok, so no evidence at all that Area 51 was used. Just theories, assumptions and speculations.

--
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

yvind Strm · Feb 17, 2011

Hi Alf

Do your homework.

That is a manipulated picture, but not by NASA.

I can dig up the name of the guy who made the manipulation (for fun), and the NASA reference number for both pictures.

If this is your most convincing evidence....

And btw, AFIK, the stills were shot on Ectachrome.

DaSigmaGuy said:
Starboy said:

DaSigmaGuy said:

DaSonyGuy said:

You do realize that you are claiming that their desire for a perfectly lit photo overcame their desire to fool everyone?

Click to expand...

Of course, but they had no choice...It was that, or have no pictures at all. And they needed good photos more than anything else to keep the PR machine rolling.

There is a very good book on this subject I'd recommend you read. Its called "Apollo. Dark Moon And The Wistle Blowers".

Click to expand...

My guess is that you are young idiot.

Click to expand...

If I'm an idiot, I'm a middle aged idiot, so have some respect for your elders sonny.

At the time the live coverage had no photographs. There was a video and audio feed from the moon. Photos had to wait until the astronauts got back to earth and the film was processed and released.

Obviously, but totally irrelevent.

But by that time people had moved on. The big show was the TV show. They didn't need the photos to keep the PR machine going.

Of course they did, or Apollo 11 would have been the last Apollo mission!

DaSonyGuy said:

In any case there is no way to tell if the lighting was wrong since color processing of the time was all in the lab.

Click to expand...

Processing negatives in a lab is not the same as touching up photo details. They may not have have photographic aids such as photoshop back then but they their ways to doctor photos all the same.

Since you seem to be the most fervent believer of NASA's Apollo fairytail, you therefore need more convincing evidence that they have been telling you porkys. So, here is an official NASA Apollo pic with a very interesting photographic anomoly for you to ponder...I'll give you a clue what it is- Remember how there were never more than two Astronauts on the Moons surface on any of the Apollo missions, and the third guy orbited the moon in the command module?...

--
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

DaSonyGuy · Feb 17, 2011

lightismagic wrote:

Coming back to your photo: try googling the following string: "Alan Bean on the moon". Select "images" from googles result page.

lightismagic said:
This leaves the question whether this is a forum about photography or a platform for hoaxers...

I have seen the other version with one person reflected in the visor but you must agree mine could just as well be the orginal version as that one could.

UFO following a BA 747???

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts