We have all seen a lot of HB stuff on the surface photos, but I haven't seen much for the HBs on the photographs and movies taken from orbit.

How do they explain these photos, especially the long movies taken by the various crews?

video camera and a beach ball with some plaster and paint...

What's to stop them being filmed by unmanned spacecraft (which then land and place the laser reflectors)?

And then the remotely controlled robots exited the unmanned probe, walked around with moon boots, made imprints, picked up the rocks that the controllers decided on (after discussing a bit with the geologists), took pictures with chest mounted cameras, etc. The whole package.

Tell me again why manned missions werent possible? radiation? oh right, it takes less radiation to blow up electronics than it takes to kill humans... couldnt create airtight compartments? oh right, submarines. Couldnt create rockets? hmm, how did the germans bomb london in ww2? V2 rockets you say?

hum, where was I?

oh never mind

Well, compare this one from Apollo 11,



to this from Lick Observatory.



Doesn't look like some beach ball with some plaster and paint.

__________________
~AstroMike

The problem is that there are not only movies but also 70mm photographs taken from orbit. The hoax believer tend to concentrate on the lunar surface photography and ignore the equal number of photos taken in lunar orbit from the command module.

Most of these are sequences of photos taken of the same feature as the command module orbits. Thus there is considerable visible parallax in these sequences of images. The three-dimensional structure is easily visible.

Now there is the first problem of accurately duplicating in plaster and paint the 3D structure of features that can be seen from earth. There is also the additional problem of lighting and photographing them in miniature.

Miniature photography almost always suffers from errors in depth of field. This is because there is a major optical difference between shooting something small from close range, and shooting something large from very far away.

But there is an interesting side point. Hoax believers say the reason we have no photographs of astronauts on the moon with the earth in the background is because the only way to obtain those photos would have been by unmanned probe, and there was not enough photography on hand to provide for all weather conditions.

That fails for two reasons. First, earth as photographed by the Hasselblads from the moon would occupy only about 3° of arc in the photo -- too small to determine weather patterns. Also, too small to require it to be falsified using actual photographs.

Second, Apollos 8, and 10 each provided dozens upon dozens of photographs of the earth in various phases, showing various continents, and showing various weather patterns. The argument that a sufficient basis of earth photography didn't exist by Apollo 11 is pretty thin.

The real reason there aren't many Hasselblad photographs of the astronauts and the earth is because the earth was pretty high in the sky from the point of view of the landing sites. It's hard to photograph something on the ground simultaneously with something overhead, especially while wearing a space suit. Second, with only three degrees of arc you're just going to get a small white spotch on the frame. Not exciting, and probably a waste of film.

There are some photos with the Earth and astronauts in them though. One of my favorite photos is AS17-134-20384, which I think is one of the most dramatic shots in the record.

I just found this on the ALSJ, and the dialog shows a little of the difficulty you mentioned in taking such shots.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

"One of my favorite photos is AS17-134-20384,"

Percy "analyses" this photo in What Happened on The Moon.

"Remembering that there was no view finder, how was the photographer sure of including the earth? But this is not our main gripe with this photo......."

He then details a "whistle blow", in the supposed difference in the "manner in which the flag has eben adjusted" between the still photo and the corresponding video footage that showed them taking the photo.
It is of course, rubbish.

Here are some examples:



<center></center>


AS08-15-2561



<center></center>


AS08-16-2593



<center></center>


<a href="http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS10/10075142.jpg">AS10-34-5013
</a>



<center></center>


<a href="http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS10/10075143.jpg">AS10-34-5026
</a>

__________________
~AstroMike