Earth Videos and Star Photos

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Steve2650, Oct 8, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm quite sure they faked the moon landings. Here's a few points that I haven't seen discussed. All are extremely difficult to explain if they actually went to the moon, but are exactly the kinds of problems they'd run into in faking it.

    1. No video of the Earth from the moon. I've seen exactly one (1) video clip of the Earth from the moon, and it lasts about 5 seconds, and it looks fake. If they had really done 6 missions to the moon, there would have been overwhelming interest in shooting video of the Earth. There would be many, many shots of astronauts working, with the moon above and behind them. They would intentionally compose shots that way. Remember, the Earth in the black lunar sky would be about 4 times the diameter of the moon in our Earthly sky. Faking those shots would require video of the Earth from space, which they couldn't do.

    2. No star photos. It's true that setting a photo exposure for bright sunlight would make stars appear less bright, possibly even disappear completely. However, going to the moon would have represented the best opportunity ever to photograph the night sky. Is it even imaginable that NASA would go all the way to the moon, 6 times, and make no effort to bring home astonishing photos of the milky way, taken from the moon?

    3. No motion picture film. Motion picture film would have been the best way to study the motion of objects in 1/6 g, far better than the ultra crappy video that was allegedly radioed back to Earth. It also would have provided a far higher picture quality for posterity. If you were faking it, a huge problem is getting the motion passably correct. Objects need to fall slower, but travel horizontally the same as on Earth. You do it with slow motion, and instructing the actors to move as quickly and suddenly as possible. But clear, high-quality motion picture film is the last thing you want people to see.
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOLOLOLOL.. Its been a while since I heard this silly conspiracy theory..

    Did you watch the broadcast in real time?
     
  3. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The cameras were mounted to the suits. How would they have stood still enough for, I don't know, 20 bloody seconds, for the pictures to turn out?
     
  4. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm politely suggesting that NASA could have figured out how to point a camera at the sky, and would obviously have wished to do so. They would have brought 35mm or even 70mm camera, and made the best photographs ever taken of the night sky, including the spectacular EARTH.

    Remember, there was no Hubble Telescope.

    Am I honestly supposed to believe the made 6 trips to the moon, and forgot to take spectacular photos and videos of the EARTH, and the Milky Way? Really?
     
  5. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That wasn't the reason to go. The other thing to remember that taking a camera would have cost an additional tens of thousands of dollars perhaps more.
     
  6. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ROTFLMFAO. 10's of thousands of dollars, out of hundred's of BILLIONS of dollars budget.

    Good one!
     
  7. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And your opinion is important why? Are you an aeronautics specialist? A scientist? An astrophotographer?

    It is very clear by your comments that you are none of those - no shame in that, but one has to ask why you would question the behavior of experts in these fields when you have not got the required knowledge. The fact that you haven't (or are pretending not to have) seen the answers to your points posted ad infinitum on numerous forums suggests you have not bothered to research the topic at even the most shallow level, or are perhaps trolling?

    .. if you are ill-informed.

    Completely wrong. Here are the first glaring examples of a lack of research - start with:
    Code:
    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1652245.rm
    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1251904.rm
    http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1455122.mpg
    And there are several others. There aren't a huge number, partly because video technology was in its infancy (let alone the development of ones that would operate in a vacuum), but also because they didn't actually go to the Moon to film earth, or for any other aesthetic reasons, despite your apparent desires.

    Well, we now know that is rather embarrassing for you.

    Which one is it, and why exactly does it 'look fake'? You make these throwaway comments without citing the clip or explaining why, and expect to be taken seriously?

    Who from? You?

    The Moon? Don't you mean the Earth?

    Why? Just to please you? And I gather you haven't found these shots either?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Again, there are several others. You really need to get out more..

    But they very obviously DID - I gave the links above. So, according to your own logic you now must agree that they went. Or would you now like to move your goalposts? :D

    Possibly???? Of COURSE they would disappear completely! (with just one exception..) So it is clear that you are not familiar with daylight photography and the exposure settings (and tripod) needed to record stars? How about you do a little work - tell us what exposures were needed for recording the astronauts activities on the Moon. Then tell us what would be needed for a decent star image that showed the Milky Way. Then tell us about the dynamic range of the film they used, and whether, at daylight exposures, it would be capable of recording any stars. I know the answers to all that - do you?

    That is completely ludicrous.
    1. How much better is a night sky on the Moon? VERY LITTLE.
    The difference between a NIGHT sky on earth, compared to a NIGHT sky in the vacuum on the Moon, is about 1/2 to 1 stop at most. In other words barely perceptible. BUT THEY WERE ON THE MOON IN BROAD DAYLIGHT!!! NOT ONLY would they have to find a location completely shielded from the Sun, it would have to be shielded from the lunar surface, from the astronauts in their white suits, from the LM structure, from the brightly shining earth.. and then they would have to mount the camera on a tripod and take a lengthy time exposure.

    FTR, they did use a specially developed camera (equipped with a long shielding barrel and tripod) to take some star images, in exactly that way. I guess you didn't know that either?

    2. Could they have got better images than possible from earth? NO.
    For a start, as above it was DAYTIME. And even if they could overcome that huge hurdle, they would have had to take a telescope as large as the largest one on earth, to gain any advantage whatsoever. It is the SIZE OF THE COLLECTION DEVICE that makes for the best stellar photographs, along with very long exposures. Even a moderately sized scope on Earth on a clear night will easily outperform any 'dark side of the Moon' effort.

    Not to you, but I think it is clear to most folks who take the time to understand astrophotography.

    No motion picture film??? How many links would you like?

    How about you start here:
    http://www.spacecraftfilms.com/apollo11menonthemoon.aspx
    or here...
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3Oi9JWsyM"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3Oi9JWsyM[/ame]

    Seriously, pick another CT. You obviously can't be bothered with doing this one properly.

    BTW, I thought you were claiming politeness? ROTFLMFAO isn't very polite. And could you cite when NASA got hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on Apollo?
     
    countryboy and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page