Jump to content
The Education Forum

Moon hoax - Photographic claims


Recommended Posts

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :rolleyes:

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Except quite often one can see the background change ever so slightly because it is a 3d object and does have depth. There is not much of a change as the mountains are many kilometers away but there is a change. I already posted one such example earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the phony Apollo 'moon' mountains have any 3D depth to them , it's only because one painted mountain flat may have been positioned behind another one ... The fact that there is no depth perception in most of the Apollo photos is one of the main reasons the photos look so fake .... Had they really been taken on a real planet , the mountains would have appeared to be miles away from the foreground subjects , instead of only several feet away .... Plus , they would have looked like real mountains , instead of the painted scenery they so obviously were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this magical 'depth perception' that you believe exists in 2d photos? Surely you can't mean atmospheric haze, as there's no atmosphere on the moon. Nor can you be judging size relatively, since you'd need to know either the size or the distance of the mountains to figure that. So what are you using to judge depth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this magical 'depth perception' that you believe exists in 2d photos? Surely you can't mean atmospheric haze, as there's no atmosphere on the moon. Nor can you be judging size relatively, since you'd need to know either the size or the distance of the mountains to figure that. So what are you using to judge depth?

What is this magical 'depth perception' that I believe exists in 2d photos?

How about photographs of the REAL MOON taken by UNMANNED missions ... I will post some of the real moon photos here so you can see the difference between them and the Apollo fakes .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :rolleyes:

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding.

ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns)

n.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the paragraph in Dr. Jones' linked article that you are having such a problem with ?

"In an attempt to compensate for the distortion introduced by the World's atmosphere, either post-detection techniques, such as speckle imaging, or real-time, pre-detection techniques - adaptive optics - may be employed, with varying levels of success. Alternatively, one could try a satellite-based approach, as is claimed with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Such satellite telescopes would not work either, though, because they could not be locked onto a faint object for long enough, and are yet another example of science fiction masquerading as fact."

The very same. He states quite clearly that the HST can't work.

I just read the article you linked here and have no idea where you have gotten your incorrect statements from .

"And the brightness of the full moon is wrong, and can't be explained by the sun."

"And the Earth doesn't rotate - the stars and planets rotate around the Earth."

I got them from Dr Neville Jone's website. I'm glad you agree he's wrong. Here are the links, I was pushed for time when I posted before.

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page80.htm

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page17.htm

Other than you are just another nasa stooge , busy spreading more disinformation ... and not very good at it , at that .

Disinformation? I posted information from Dr Neville Jones own website that I believe is pertinent to his level of scientific knowledge.

Speaking of disinformation, how about addressing the point that I've raised THREE times now? Don't pass it off as irrelevant - the thread is about photographic claims and Dr Neville Jones. Whether he can understand perspective is very important and relevant to the discussion.

So... for the FOURTH time...

He also quite clearly has no idea about how perspective works, as he demonstrates in this paragraph.
ANSWER

He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.

A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.

My bolding. The effect is called Crepuscularity.

052705-1w.JPG

Using his logic, the sun would be just behind the clouds. Last time I checked, it was approximately 93,000,000 miles away. The light rays in the photo are (essentially) parallel - they don't look parallel due to perspective. The author has shot himself in the foot by demonstrating he can't understand this basic concept.

So - is Doctor Jones correct when he infers that the sun should be "just above the clouds" according to the photo I posted? Or can you not answer my rebuttal without admitting he is wrong? I suspect that is why you failed to answer my post last time and went straight on the offensive wuth the unwarranted false accusation of lying. Try sticking to the message this time.

PS if you think I somehow faked this image, you can Google up a whole host of them fior yourself. Here's a few to be going on with.

Google results for "crepuscular rays"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the picture you posted the sun is just above some of the clouds and just below some of the others ...Why would this picture prove Dr. Jones wrong about perspective ?

Duane

I've explained this phenomenon, and Dr Jones misinterpretation of it, several times, and very clearly. Why does Dr Jones call it an "outlandish claim" that the "rays" should trace back to the sun?

And what of his claims re HST, lunar illumination, stars rotating above a stationary earth? Agree or disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :)

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding.

ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns)

n.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

lamson , using the word sociopathic in regard to your demonstrated lack of humanity is not an insult at all , it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your sad mental condition .

so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-)

n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :)

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding.

ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns)

n.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

lamson , using the word sociopathic in regard to your demonstrated lack of humanity is not an insult at all , it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your sad mental condition .

so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-)

n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Duane, I see you have assumed you had the mental ability to either describe or insult another person....you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the picture you posted the sun is just above some of the clouds and just below some of the others ...Why would this picture prove Dr. Jones wrong about perspective ?

Duane

I've explained this phenomenon, and Dr Jones misinterpretation of it, several times, and very clearly. Why does Dr Jones call it an "outlandish claim" that the "rays" should trace back to the sun?

And what of his claims re HST, lunar illumination, stars rotating above a stationary earth? Agree or disagree?

Why are you focusing on this one small point about the sun's rays ? .. Because it's the only point you could find to play games with perhaps ?

I read the article by Dr. Jones and it didn't look as though he was making those claims himself , but rather quoting the writings of scientists from the 18th and 19th centuries ..

But that article has NOTHING to do with his opinions and evidence about APOLLO !! ... And this is why I completely lose patience with the way you discuss this subject ... You constantly go off topic and attack the messenger and not the message .

Your lame attempts to discredit Dr. Jones does nothing to prove your case .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :)

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding.

ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns)

n.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

lamson , using the word sociopathic in regard to your demonstrated lack of humanity is not an insult at all , it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your sad mental condition .

so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-)

n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Duane, I see you have assumed you had the mental ability to either describe or insult another person....you don't.

Me thinks the sociopath protests too much .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Neville Jones

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs. (By the way, I did outdoor and studio portrait photography, both colour and black and white, together with video photography for over ten years. I, too, have developed my own films, colour negative and positive, and black and white negative.) I no longer do this, because I hold that the creation of images of living creatures is contrary to Scriptural instruction. This is the reason that you will not see photographs of people or animals on the website.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered. The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images. They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

His comment, “given the poor quality live video presented on world television,” is a little misleading, because television networks were not allowed any “live” feeds at all. They were actually broadcasting pictures off a large screen. The images on that screen were produced by NASA. In absolutely no way can one claim that the television broadcast was of a live event.

He complains that the astronauts did not have an exposure meter or a viewfinder backing that up with "guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images." This shows that he has not even really reviewed many of the images from Apollo. Anyone that has looked at more than a few will quickly see that many of them are overexposed, underexposed, badly framed, out of focus, suffering from lens flares and sunstrikes. To claim that there are magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images shows his ignorance and appears like he is just repeating the claim from from other hoax proponents on the internet.

Then he says there was no protection for the extremes of temperature or radiation. True but a vacuum does not have a temperature which he would know if he were really a physicist. The only part of the moon that would have a temperature would be the surface and as they landed during lunar morning on all the missions, would not have heated up fully yet. As for the radiation, he hasn't shown that the amounts of radiation would be significant. He says nothing about types of radiation (as some types could easily be stopped by paper or thin metal) or flux. Again he appears to be repeating claims originally put forward by other hoax proponents.

Lastly, he comments on the filming of the images off of a screen at NASA. This was only done for Apollo 11 as the video format on that mission was not compatible with television directly and they did not have a converter. This technique was not used on later missions. Yet again this sounds exactly like an argument found on other sites.

He states, under “no evidence of air,” that, “The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape.” However, after having watched James Collier’s video, “Was It Only A Paper Moon,” I do not understand how he could have missed the undeniable evidence of air. Unless, of course, he has been watching NASA footage that has been “enhanced,” just as the “C” was airbrushed off the famous rock picture. (Just a thought here, why would NASA be touching up old photographs anyway?)

Within the same section, he states that, “some hoax advocates [say about the LM takeoff that] there should have been a huge flame which would destroy the LM platform and flag.” He may be right, but I have never heard this claim before.

His next comment, however, is just plain rubbish: “Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.” Anyone who has seen this “thunderbirds”-style takeoff will recall the phenomenal rate of acceleration off the supposed lunar surface, and, of course, the exhaust must be pushing on something. So we are told that there is enough dust to leave zillions of footprints, but that this layer was not blasted away in all directions upon firing the engine! I do sometimes wonder about Dr. Bouw.

I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.

I've seen "Was it Only a Paper Moon" also and the dust being kicked up appears to me to behave exactly as we would expect in a vacuum. There is no clouding like we would find in an atmosphere on Earth. The rate of fall of the dust corresponds to the 1/6 gravity found on the Moon. Then he mentions the "C" rock. Not only does the "C" not exist in the same picture after, it does not exist in the same picture before. Also, the "C" does not match any common font. The simplest explanation is that the "C" is a hair that was on the scanner when it was scanned for the Internet. Indeed, if you zoom in on the "C", it looks suspiciously similar to what a hair on a scanner looks like. I've never seen any evidence that film or stage crews use letters to mark prop locations anyway. If marking props with letters of the alphabet is common practice, it should be simple to find a few examples in any of the films and television shows that exist or have existed.

He claims that the rate of acceleration for the takeoff from the surface is too fast but of course gives no figures to show so. One thing to note is that part of the way we perceive acceleration and speed is by how long an object takes to travel it's own length. The LM had a relatively short height and appears to move quicker. Then he claims that the exhaust must be pushing on something. Is he serious? He's really supposed to be a physicist and doesn't understand Newton's third law of motion? That's the one that is commonly paraphrased as "For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force." A rocket doesn't need to push on anything. Then he comments on why the dust was not "blasted away in all directions." Obviously doesn't realize that the ascent stage separated from the descent stage and thus the thrust from the ascent stage didn't impact the surface at all.

Then he mentions the clip of Rene with the leaf blower not realizing that the pressure from the leaf blower would be much greater than the rocket engine. The descent stage was throttled down to about 3000 puonds of thrust on landing. Then we have the engine bell was 54 inches across giving it an area of about 2,300 square inches. This means that the thrust at the engine bell would have had a pressure of about 1.5 pounds per square inch. Due to being in a vacuum the thrust would also spread out more rapidly than in an atmosphere lowering the pressure even more. Then he mentions Rene's glove experiment. Rene used a simple rubber glove in his box. Firstly the space program would definitely be using something more substantial than a rubber glove. Secondly the suits and gloves used on Apollo were also used on the Apollo missions that occurred in Earth orbit and for Skylab and they are not that dissimilar from the suits used today. All of those astronauts were able to move their fingers. Why would the ones on the Moon not be able to?

Overall, again he seems to be taking arguments directly from other sources. Nothing so far is the least bit original.

I may post more later if I get around to it. Some of the photographic arguments though can be better addressed by others or already have as they again appear to be taken from other websites and other hoax proponents.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depth perception I am referring to is the fact that the moon set stages were usually only about 50 to 100 feet in depth .. and most of the fake painted mountain scenery was obviously only a few feet away from the astro-actors, who were usually in the foreground in the faked moon photos ....

The only time any real distance could be observed was when small scale models were used .

All of this photographic fakery evidence is discussed and proven in the documentary 'What Happened on the Moon' .

lamson ... Don't you know any other insults besides the word "ignorant" ? ... Because you've posted it so many times now that it's beginning to lose it's 'importance' ... :)

Duane, using the word ignorance in regard to your demonstrated lack of photographic knowlege is not an insult at all, it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your understanding.

ig·no·rance (ĭg'nər-əns)

n.

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

lamson , using the word sociopathic in regard to your demonstrated lack of humanity is not an insult at all , it's simply the perfect word to describe the state of your sad mental condition .

so·ci·o·path (ss--pth, -sh-)

n.

One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Duane, I see you have assumed you had the mental ability to either describe or insult another person....you don't.

Me thinks the sociopath protests too much .

Me thinks the ignorant no longer has an argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...