Ok guys i know this is something that some people are 100% that NASA faked some are not sure and some the fools in us will say it is 100% real. Now i have read every story seen every picture and the evidence is not in NASAs favor, and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground. Any way back to why i am writting this post i was scaning the video clips agin then something hit me just seemed to make me rewind and pause over and over but in this video you can make out a face.

This is video clip http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Go down the page to the title One For The Sceptics, and it is the 3ed bigger picture view that video. and from the point of 1 min watch the light very closly, the face comes then seems to move out of sight.

Like to know what you all think.

Daniel Killick

P.S the video on this site is not meaning to point this out i just noticed it as i was watching it

Try here.

Also, check out this site, it probably discusses every claim that you can make.

Link.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Which explanations are you doubting?

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

G'day Dan, and welcome to the BABB.

If the effect is the one I'm thinking of, then all that happened was that Buzz Aldrin inside the LM opened up the aperture on the camera to let more light in. He wasn't sure whether the camera would record Armstrong correctly, so he checked with Mission Control. They told him the correct settings, and Aldrin changed the settings on the camera in accordance with their instruction.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is a record of all the activities of the astronauts on the Moon: http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/

If you go to Apollo 11, and read the section dealing with the first Moon walk, you can find this conversation as Neil Armstrong reached the base of the ladder (the numbers represent hours:minutes:seconds since lift-off):

109:22:28 Aldrin: Okay. Will you verify the position - the opening - I ought to have on the (16 mm movie) camera?

109:22:34 McCandless: Stand by. (Long Pause)

109:22:48 McCandless: Okay. Neil, we can see you (on the TV) coming down the ladder now. (Pause)

109:22:59 Armstrong: Okay. I just checked getting back up to that first step, Buzz. It's...The strut isn't collapsed too far, but it's adequate to get back up.

109:23:10 McCandless: Roger. We copy.

109:23:11 Armstrong: Takes a pretty good little jump (to get back up to the first rung). (Pause)

109:23:25 McCandless: Buzz, this is Houston. F/2 (and)...

109:23:28 Armstrong: Okay, I'm at the...(Listens)

109:23:29 McCandless: ...1/160th second for shadow photography on the sequence camera.

109:23:35 Aldrin: Okay.

{The ladder is mounted on the west strut and is, therefore, in the LM's shadow. The recorded image is fairly dark. Journal Contributor Markus Mehring notes that, as a result of the information from Bruce, Buzz changes settings on the DAC and the recorded scene brightens, "just in time to catch Neil and his historic step off the footpad."}

109:23:38 Armstrong: I'm at the foot of the ladder. The LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It's almost like a powder. (The) ground mass is very fine. (Pause)

{Just before Neil's next transmission, as a result of Buzz's changes to the 16-mm camera settings and Neil's position on the footpad, the film record shows the LEC attached to the front of Neil's suit. We can see reflections of what appear to be parts of Buzz's suit as he changes the camera settings and monitors Neil's activities out the window.}

109:24:13 Armstrong: I'm going to step off the LM now.

= = = =

Of course, I might have this wrong, so apologies in advance if you had something else in mind.

Hi Dank, welcome. Did you notice a couple spaces lower on the menu there is a whole section here devoted to nothing but the lunar conspiracy issue?

I think you will find plenty discussion there. And while you are at it, I recommend you read our host's book, Bad Astronomy

Wow. Borderline flame-bait there, dank. Great way to make a first impression.

What is your background in photography, physics, etc. that allows to make the claim that "the evidence is not in NASAs favor" (sic)?

It's been my experience that the folks most likely to dismiss the words and knowledge of the ones responsible for, or knowledgeable of, such an impressive feat, are the ones who have zero, little, or even a mis-understanding of the science involved. The "no stars" claim is a particularly good example of this.

Basically, the ones who believe the moon landings were faked don't seem to know much about the moon landings to begin with, and generally have a pre-conceived notion that "the establishment" is the enemy.

Certainly such bias only works to hinder your understanding of the event. Who do you trust if you don't trust the people who pulled it off?

Others have offered a number of websites, and I had one to offer, too, but it seems to be down at the moment. Perhaps it's only temporary, so here's the link anyway:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Dank,

Welcome,

I hate say this, but we've seen this link years ago. It was debunked primarily by Jay Windley as you can see here in this thread. As you'll see if you read the entire thread, he's good at dodging the questions put to him.


This should read CosmicDave is good at dodging the questions.

Hi Dank,

I think, it's a great example how the conspiracists work. They ask "why does it get brighter?" and prove that they have done zero research because if they do, it is easy to find out what happened.
And yes, you see reflections of Aldrin in the window through which the camera is looking.
To give you an idea, here's a photo taken during the trans-lunar coast showing the window and the camera:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-36-5389.jpg
Recognize the reflection of the camera in the window.


Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

Well i work in 3D SGI so i can notice a lot of floors maybe i will write something on it, you can bring it down to buzz in the window, but he does not look to me as he has a suit on how long after armstrong would you say he came on to the floor of the moon. With out a dout light coming from no where just makes not sence. Also in the same video notice how at the start you see just the shadow of the LEM with the surface very blue, it is not this that a am flooring but notice how the shadow of the LEM seems to just go befor the the video itself has stoped just leaving a shadow to the left of the video for about 2-3 secs. Also notice the light behind LEM at the start of the video when it is blue, when armstrong is walking down the ladder later in the video it seems to have change to be coming from the leftside i dont think so. thanks for all the feedback i hope there is more hear for us to talk about.

Dank, can you please better sturcture your posts? Makes it easier to read and answer. Thanks.

Let me say one thing first: If you really want to analyze the videos, don't use the low-res RealVideo crap from some websites. Go and buy the DVDs from SpacecraftFilms. The footage is not continous and edited, so it is difficult to make any points.

The reflection isn't very clear, but Aldrin of course wore a spacesuit and bubble helmet as the LM was depressurized. He didn't had the reflective visor down.

Here some images from Apollo 17's LM aproaching the CSM. You can see Gene Cernan pretty well behind his window, despite he's wearing his suit and helmet.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17-149-22859.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17...2859mlh_sm.jpg

Blueish colours may be from the coating of the window. That it changes is just because the angle between camera and window changes when Aldrin repoints the camera.

Colour was basically a difficult thing on the moon. Pictures have all kinds of tints due to different types, but also astronauts described what they saw pretty differently. With regards to photography, read http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/apollocolor.html

Basically: When this stuff should be faked, why would the fakers release such crappy footage?

Harald

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

In the time was it crappy??? if this was real then we would not be able to find one mistake. Also in movies if you want to find mistakes you will, all movies have mistakes in final cuts, and the movie studios are trained to find mistakes but they never find them all. Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes. Why because some of the work was done on Earth sorry to say.

As a witness to the events in July, 1969, I distinctly remember various commentators complaining about the low quality of the lunar video transmissions. In fact, as I sat there watching the live TV from the Moon, I thought to myself, "Darn. Why couldn't they have used better equipment, with less of an image decay rate? Those shots where you can see 'through' the astronauts due to image persistence will probably have some people crying 'fake!'"

Later I found out NASA had not even originally planned to have a video camera along on the flight.

Mistakes, no, since nothing was artificially generated. Artifacts, of course.

That's because movies are artificial depictions of reality. The Apollo videos and photos aren't.

Artifacts are not "mistakes". Misinterpretations of photographs and videos are not mistakes in the photographs and videos, they're mistakes made by the person doing the misinterpretations. Re your final "sentence", you've provided no information that would validate that conclusion.

Editorial aside: Why do I get the feeling I'm at a recycling center? :roll:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Because, you're Covered in Garbage?

:wink:

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

I was only 7 1/2 when the first moon landing took place. I remember the footage being really bad. Looked like two ghosts jumping around on the screen.

If you think that are errors give us some specific examples and links.

You should re-word this. Generally, "dodging questions" means avoiding the issues and not really answering the questions. I doubt if Jay has ever dodged a question in his life.*

(*except for that kindergarten cookie incident, but the statute of limitations has run out... )

Yes, the "he" in that sentence refers to "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette, the author of the site Dank refers to. "Cosmic" Dave is an artful dodger of questions.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The evidence is there. Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first. Something to always be rembered of doing " The USA first to land a man on the moon" they love all that ****. (not to dig at anyone from the USA , this is just a point)

Yeah, So We Went and DID It!

The Onus is on You, to Prove we Didn't ...

And, Please, No More Tired Old Arguements, Jay's Gettin' Bored ...

:^o

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

The evidence is there.

Such as?

Why would they do such a thing what would be the point. Well as the USA gos they like to be the first to do things and they new that Russia was close to landing on the moon, but the USA wanted to be the first.

Correct. Why does that prove that the moon landings were fake. Wouldn't a genuine mission also satisfy the need to be first?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Daniel, Are you sure you want to know what "fools", think?
You say you have looked at everything, but I wonder. Have you read some of the historical books about the Space program of the 1960's? It would put a lot of the so-called "evidence" into perspective. Have you visited Astronautix.com and reviewed the hundreds of pages of chronological activity, detailing many of the crucial decisions and milestones in the program? Realize please how BIG of a thing it would be to fake the moon landings. Asking questions is fine, but I think you should withhold making any assertions as to what one could conclude from the minimal data you have presented so far.

Now i have read every story seen every picture
Really? You've studied every one of the tens of thousands of still photographs of Apollo development, testing, operations, and lunar photographs? Including the Mercury and Gemini photographs - they were part of the Apollo development program, after all? You've read all the histories, accounts, and transcripts? I'm truly impressed.

and the evidence is not in NASAs favor,
Funny, I've seen flight hardware, photographs, film and video, read some of the history, seen some of the transcripts, and worked for and with people who actually worked on Apollo, people who designed and built the hardware. The evidence looks in NASA's favor to me - of course, I'm just an engineer who's been working in the space field for 15 years.

and the resons NASA gave for some of the evidence was something you would hear in a playground.
Be specific. Handwaving doesn't support your point. I could just as well point out the the reasons the hoax believers give for some of their "evidence" is something you'd hear in an insane asylum.

Same with a lot of the footage there are mistakes.
There may be things you don't understand, but that does not automatically make them "mistakes" (by which you mean evidence of a hoax). Please be specific, but I also strongly recommend you use the Search feature to see if a particular claim you wish to make has already been addressed.

You also should consider that, say, a shadow which cannot be explicitly traced to a certain object does not necessarily "prove" a fake. I can look at pictures of the D-Day landings and see things I can't explain. Does that mean the D-Day landings were fake? The burden of proof lies with you, the hoax claimant, and the bar is set quite high given the truly massive weight of physical, personal, documentary, and scientific evidence for Apollo.

BTW, welcome to the board.

ok im am getting it left right and center hear, but still will not make be belive the landing was real.

Most Shocking
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/8702/cshad3wt.jpg
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/1481/good3hv.gif

Shocking to whom? The C-Rock debacle has been debunked so many times I was genuinely surprised to see you bring it up. Refer Clavius (about half way down).

What exactly has shocked you about the second image?

(edited to note: Dank, you would gain a great deal if you read Clavius from start to finish. It will answer any and all queries you may have and it will teach you an enormous amount about a wide range of topics. By the end, you should also have gained an appreciation of how a website can be set up with clarity, concisely and with a refreshing dearth of exclamation marks and words written entirely in capitals.)

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Most shocking is that it's mostly likely a hair copied on a scan. At any rate, it doesn't apperar on the original.

I find nothing shocking about the second one. Surely you don't mean the wrinkled flag?

You are not putting up much of an argument here. I could deal with everything you've posted so far and I'm an idiot. Come on, get something for Jay to sink his teeth into.

I second the motion to send you to Clavius.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

dank, watch your language. There will not be a second warning.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

This 2ed picture from Apollo 15 is really an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources... more likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising. hmmm money money money

They did know what was in the shot. They had hundreds, if not thousands of hours of practivce making picutres and framing them up on earth. They knew exactly where the camera lense would be and what it would take in after that much practice. Hell give me a day in that suit with a fixed camera on my chest and i can perfectly frame pictures just as well. And i can bet you will be able too. Its not hard.

Its only hard when the camera is not fixed to your chest.

im sorry but the picture is far to pin pointed. You try use your body to point in the rough direction of a subject picture.


http://www.spr-consilio.com/campbellsmith3.htm
To view the footage click here

I've taken cameras, both SLR film cameras and digital, held them over my head with one hand, pointed them in the general direction I wanted, and got shots that were framed fine. Ok, my batting average is maybe 33%, but film is cheap and you can take lots of shots. As Humphrey pointed out, these guys were not doing anything nearly that hard and they had practiced it for a very long time.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Don't jump to conclusions. The photo you show is actually the last of a series of 4 photos between AS15-88-11863 and AS15-88-11866:

AS15-88-11863
AS15-88-11864
AS15-88-11865
AS15-88-11866

Of these 4, only the last has everything nicely grouped and your version of that image has clearly been cropped to enhance the effect! Have a bit of a look through the Apollo 70mm Archives and see just how many shots it took to get those 'perfect' images.

(edited for clarity)

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith