Did man walk on the moon? Goodness gracious no. But let's suspend disbelief for one moment, and ask a more cogent question. Were all those pictures taken on the Moon? and the answer is, Sweet goodness gracious no. It's obvious that none of you rocket heads own a camera, but have you ever looked at a picture before? Hey!! I got some genuine swamp land for sale. Them astronauts dropped some moon rocks there on there last orbit around Uranus. Live long and prosper. Much love, J

__________________
<marquee>http://www.idavisislands.com </marquee>

Joe, would you please post your questions in the Lunar Conspiracies forum? Thank-you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-06 16:03 ]</font>

Haha. You are obviously very troll-like, which means you are on thin ice on having your threads locked and your username banned. If you have somethine of merit to contribute you are welcome to, but if you continue like this you will be gone. Read the FAQ.

It's obvious that none of you rocket heads own a camera, but have you ever looked at a picture before?

I own several cameras and have at times made my living as a photographer in addition to my full-time employment as an engineer.

Further, not everyone here is a "rocket head". Some are professional photographers who can speak at length about the supposed "anomalies" in the Apollo photographs.

Finally, we engineers make frequent use of the science of photogrammetry, which is the geometrical interpretation of photographs. Most photographers themselves do not receive training in this area, since the taking of photographs is quite different from the interpretation of photographs. I will be glad to discuss any problems you have with the Apollo photographs.

JoetheBartender = John McCartney

Jagster, I don't think he's John McCartney.

__________________
~AstroMike

Pay him no mind. He's just trying to take the micky. Failed stand-up comedian, perhaps.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Ok folks, try reading between the lines. At least some of the supposed moon pics were not taken on the moon. I doubt cameras would work on the moon. Extremes in temperature, dust, radiation, Could it be possible that they went to the moon and also took some pics out in Nevada? As back up? Or maybe they were practicing, and the real pics didn't come out. Or got lost at the drugstore. Some of the pics have been AT LEAST retouched. Tell me you are an engineer and well versed in photography, and you can't see reflectors, artificial lighting, retouched negatives. I don't think Photoshop was yet a practical solution to pulling the wool over people's eyes yet. They may have gone to the moon and still taken the pics in Nevada. Hows about a critical obseervation or two. much love, joe

__________________
<marquee>http://www.idavisislands.com </marquee>

I haven't seen all the pics Joe, but in each case when I've turned my gimlet eye against them, it is the moon hoax believers's criticism that has suffered, not the photos. If you think that there is a reason that a particular photo is obviously fake, offer up the photo and your obvious reason, and let's have at it.

You have extremes in temperature orbiting Earth too. Do you doubt cameras work there? What about the probes sent to Venus and Mercury? Surely if temperature extremes are too much on the moon, then cameras wouldn't stand a chance closer to the Sun.

How do cameras work on the Earth where there is not only dust but moisture and oxygen, which is highly corrosive?
And how do you know if there is dust on the moon, anyway? What evidence convinced you it exists? And don't tell me you saw a photo of it [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

--Tommy

I guess all those GPS satellites and your direct tv/regular TV satellites and everything on CNN is fake since they can't work in space. They're far more delicate than regular cameras!

Oh my god! The truman show!

__________________
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

At least some of the supposed moon pics were not taken on the moon.

Which ones, and how do you know?

Extremes in temperature

The extremes of temperature cited for the lunar surface are exactly for that -- the lunar surface. A chunk of carbon and a chunk of aluminum sitting on a card table on the moon would not reach the same equilibrium temperature. Why? Basic thermodynamics -- something the hoax believers neither understand nor care for you to understand.

A camera coated with shiny alumimum will not absorb as much sunlight as the basically dark gray lunar surface, and will therefore not get as hot. And with no atmosphere to transfer the heat to the film inside the magazine, there is very little heat to worry about. As for cold, the film stock chosen was the Ektachrome emulsion on the Estar base. The Estar base was developed by Kodak for use in aerial reconnaissance -- it's good to at least -50 F.

dust

Dust is a much bigger problem on earth because the atmosphere holds it in aerosol suspension. On the moon the dust just falls back to the surface. I've taken cameras less well designed than the lunar surface Hasselblad to extremely dusty environments. (I live in a desert, you know.) They do just fine.

radiation

The only danger posed by radiation is the brief transit of the Van Allen belts, during which the film magazines were inside the spacecraft or in the protective MESA attached to the lunar module. The normal cislunar environment does not pose any appreciable radiation danger to photographic film. Cosmic x-rays will not penetrate the magazines.

Could it be possible that they went to the moon and also took some pics out in Nevada? As back up?

What's hypothetically possible is irrelevant. The question is whether they actually did go out and take pictures on earth, attempting to pass them off as lunar surface photos. Can you prove they did?

I live among the geology of the Southwest, and it looks nothing like lunar geography. Our terrain is quite clearly eroded by water runoff, while the signs of that are completely absent from the photos taken on the moon.

Some of the pics have been AT LEAST retouched.

Which ones, and how can you tell?

Tell me you are an engineer and well versed in photography, and you can't see reflectors, artificial lighting, retouched negatives.

I am an engineer, and I am reasonably well versed in photography and lighting, and I see nothing in the Apollo photos that can only be explained by artificial lighting, other similar apparatus, or negative retouching.

Hoax believers generally disregard all sources of natural reflection, and ignore the special reflective properties of the lunar surface (and, indeed, of any textured surface lit by sunlight). Their analysis is thoroughly naive.

If you have some specific examples you wish to discuss, by all means bring them up.

They may have gone to the moon and still taken the pics in Nevada.

Then why don't the pictures look anything like Nevada? How much time have you spent in Nevada?

Why would they need to do this? If they had genuine pictures, why would they also need fake pictures? Very few people have the inclination to look at all 20,000 photos taken on the Apollo missions. Why would they have to "pad" the collection if people are typically only interested in a selected sample?

If, for example, you had 100 genuine photos taken on the moon, why would you falsify another 100 just so you could say you had 200 photos taken on the moon? It gives you little or no advantage, and puts you at considerable risk of discovery. It's just a dumb way to do things, and I don't buy into theories that rely on the notion that people have acted intentionally stupidly.

Excellent points well stated, Jay. It is your position, then, that the astronauts went to the moon, took pictures, brought them back, had the film developed, and had machine prints made of the negatives. (Positives). Let's say the astronauts snapped a picture. And the exposure was off, due perhaps to serious backlighting by the sun. And they found that the American Flag was in a shadow, and you couldn't make it out. When the picture was printed, the technician dodged the flag so it was properly exposed. Would you have a problem with this? I wouldn't. I do it all the time. (I use Adobe's Photoshop) How would you feel about that?

That's how all photos used to be developed before these machines in the one hour places took over and now our photos are all too dark or too light depending upon which camera we use!!!
I can remember a time when the guy in the shop did each film by hand, and if he didn't like what he got, he tried agin with slightly more or slightly less time of exposure. That is part of the art of photography. It seems to have been replaced by technology, with detrimental results.

johnwitts

And, we're talking about 1969

Quote:

They may have gone to the moon and still taken the pics in Nevada.

Then why don't the pictures look anything like Nevada?

Speaking from personal experience, they also don't look like Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, or West Texas, though some parts of Mars do. Think wind and water, both of which are noticeably absent on the Moon.

There is a difference between "faking" it and "backing it up" Hey. I could have taken those pictures too!!! If I had a camera crew, $10000 worth of lights and reflectors, and all day in a studio. The film they had was transparency (slide) film which is forgiving to about a half an f stop. The astronauts are fighter pilots, not photographers. Did they go to the moon? I don't know, but if they said they did I'll take their word for it. But I am here to tell ya, some of the photographs they "brought back" look like studio work. Not the work of a fighter pilot in a very restrictive space suit. How'd they focus?

If I gave a child a camera and had him snap a thousand pictures, I guarantee that I would get at least one that looked good, just by chance. The point being that the more pictures you take, the better chance you have of getting some good ones.

Now couple that with the fact that the "fighter pilots" practiced with the equipment they used on the moon for months prior to the mission, to the point that they were intimately familiar with the workings of the cameras, AND that they took hundreds and hundreds of shots, and you get a high probablility that you'll get some keepers. Not to mention the fact that many of the pictures you see have been cropped and enhanced.



There is a website somewhere that shows all of the "outtakes", pictures that didn't make the cut. There are many underexposed, overexposed, framed incorrectly, etc. Not every picture they brought back is perfect.

Also, if you would take a few minutes and check out Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, you will see that prectically every time they stop to take pictures, they discuss the settings of the camera with Mission Control. There was little left to chance.

Weren't the cameras mounted on their chests and I'd assume they had autofocus. I don't see why it has to look like studio work, that logic makes no sense. No one has ever been to the moon before so everything you see is going to be new and different with virtually nothing to compare to that we have here.

__________________
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Browse through http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...log/index.html and you'll find lots of under-/overexposed, out-of-focus and heads-cut-off shots.

The cameras weren't autofocus. Just a lot of practise and a lot of bad shots that never made it into prints. If you'd make a thousand pictures on your holiday trip, which fifty of them you'd put in your album?

Harald

Thanks. I actually learned a thing or two. Now. All these "practice" shots. THe ones taken here on the good ship Earth. THe ones taken in a (whoops!!! almost said the studio word) Where were they taken. Where are they? Gee. I hope they didn't get mixed up with the ones they took on the moon. Hey. you can put a thousand disposable cameras on a thousand wedding reception tables, and you know what you get? zip. nada. niente. Which fully disproves your "take a lotta pictures" theorem.