• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Goodness. That's not even close to what I said. Do I really have to quote your post to remind you what you said?
Surely they would be encountering the sunlight, right? The Earth shine, right? The light of the sun on the surface of the moon, right? Okay, what was the speculation?
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
The lighting conditions they would be encountering that I was demonstrating was only one of the conditions that I could demonstrate in that photo, and it clearly showed that the lunar surface is over exposed before stars show up. No speculation in that, nor that they would be lit by the surface of the moon and also the light of the sun.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Surely they would be encountering the sunlight, right? The Earth shine, right? The light of the sun on the surface of the moon, right? Okay, what was the speculation?
There's shade on the faked moon photos, I've seen it in NASA photos. The Earth looks tiny in lots of faked moon photos...doesn't look all that bright to me. Again, shade is a thing.



There's tons of speculation here. You just say "Earthshine!" like that's supposed to mean something. Is that like a bunch of hollyweird spotlights in the eyeball worth of light? Can you put "Earthshine" into quantifiable terms? Candela...lumens...anything? Never having been to the moon myself I don't really have a good frame of reference as to how bright it is. I see a bunch of playtex space/time suits and a bunch of aluminum foil in fake photos. There are no blinding reflections off these things.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
There's shade on the faked moon photos, I've seen it in NASA photos. The Earth looks tiny in lots of faked moon photos...doesn't look all that bright to me. Again, shade is a thing.



There's tons of speculation here. You just say "Earthshine!" like that's supposed to mean something. Is that like a bunch of hollyweird spotlights in the eyeball worth of light? Can you put "Earthshine" into quantifiable terms? Candela...lumens...anything? Never having been to the moon myself I don't really have a good frame of reference as to how bright it is. I see a bunch of playtex space/time suits and a bunch of aluminum foil in fake photos. There are no blinding reflections off these things.
Of course there are not blinding reflections in that photo. It appears to be properly exposed. Hence why you don't see stars in the background. If you exposed it to show stars, it would overexpose the Earth and the astronauts. Is that really that hard to understand?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
It's not about "that" photo, it's about ALL of the Apollo photos. Are there any stars in ANY of them? Every single photo? Then they get back and can't agree on whether they saw any stars. LOL

You took a photo of a very bright moon. The moon was brighter in your photo than anything I've seen in any Apollo fakes. Despite this, I see plenty of stars in your photo.

If your position is that NASA guys are incompetent, then I disagree. If your position is that they faked the whole thing and left a star background prop out of their scam, then I think we're on the same page.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,825
Likes
5,732
Location
Instant Gratification Land
What makes you think exposure works differently if you go to a different place?
Because, reasons!

If you exposed it to show stars, it would overexpose the Earth and the astronauts. Is that really that hard to understand?
Apparently so.

Despite this, I see plenty of stars in your photo.
Only in the one that's overexposed.

The moon was brighter in your photo than anything I've seen in any Apollo fakes.
Why don't you go outside and try taking your own pics, and see for yourself?
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,003
Location
Seattle
Unh, sol, look what you said here:
You took a photo of a very bright moon. The moon was brighter in your photo than anything I've seen in any Apollo fakes.
"... brighter... than anything I've seen in the apollo fakes." And that (like Eric has been very patiently try to show you) is why there are NO FUCKIN STARS IN THE DAMN PHOTOS

BF
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
I have no idea what you just said. Cat's claim, if I understand his word salads, is that the exposure of the Apollo photos had to be such that allegedly bright objects would not ruin the shot. Yet, he himself snapped a pic of a ridiculously bright moon that had stars in it.

...and why are you shouting? ...and cussing? If you think it's reasonable that 12 men went to the moon, took thousands of pics all without stars in them, then came back and had a public debate about whether they saw any stars...then good on you. I think it's a bunch of horse piss.

I do find cat to be patient, polite, and obviously intelligent. I also find his positions in this thread to be contradictory and riddled with cognitive bias.

I have posted lengthy videos entirely produced by professional photographers. They refute everything claimed by NASA about the Apollo photos.
 
Last edited:

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,003
Location
Seattle
I'm sorry, sol, that's what I'm like in the meat world also. I apologize.

I go from the reasonable assumption that you have taken photos.
Have you ever overexposed a subject of your photo?
How did you know it was overexposed?
Probably by the lack of detail in the overexposed part.
Notice that Eric's photo of the moon has absolutely no detail. In matter of fact someone couldn't tell if that was the moon or a spotlight.
The stars. The moonscape. The earth. They (from the moon) would all take different exposure settings.

K?
BF
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
You're not getting it. It's not about detail, or pretty, or perfection, etc...it's about the complete and total absence of anything in the background in all the Apollo photos. I'm not doubting cat's photos or his integrity, I'm simply saying that it's a completely inadequate explanation for how/why NASA's Apollo actors supposedly took thousands of photos every single one of which lacks any evidence that stars even exist. We know they at least appear to exist, we know too that when the Apollo 11 guys got back they engaged in public discourse about whether they saw any stars.

Do I "know" the lighting conditions on the moon? Absolutely not, but I've never claimed to either. I just find the excuses to be not very compelling, particularly when people take pictures of stars with bright objects in the same frame all the time. Just dismissively claiming "earthshine" + "moonshine" + "sunshine" as excuses for thousands of photos to lack background detail sounds like a total cop out to me, particularly when none of us "knows" any of that is true, and stars would have been some of the best evidence available to prove or disprove moon landings. They also would have been incredibly difficult to fake.

No stars in thousands of still photos because...reasons.

No video footage of Earth from the moon because...reasons.

$84 billion well spent. Yay! Go NASA!
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,543
Likes
3,982
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I just want to know why these space floaters keep saying "We can't get there now" But, but, but we were already there. Sounds like a snow job to me. Don't these learned people know we already went to the moon? Oh that's right Technology as far as space has regressed instead of moving forward.
 

the_shootist

The war is here on our doorstep!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
19,780
Likes
20,824
Location
Somewhere out there!
There's shade on the faked moon photos, I've seen it in NASA photos. The Earth looks tiny in lots of faked moon photos...doesn't look all that bright to me. Again, shade is a thing.



There's tons of speculation here. You just say "Earthshine!" like that's supposed to mean something. Is that like a bunch of hollyweird spotlights in the eyeball worth of light? Can you put "Earthshine" into quantifiable terms? Candela...lumens...anything? Never having been to the moon myself I don't really have a good frame of reference as to how bright it is. I see a bunch of playtex space/time suits and a bunch of aluminum foil in fake photos. There are no blinding reflections off these things.
Shouldn't the Earth appear much larger then that from the Moon? I believe it should!
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Shouldn't the Earth appear much larger then that from the Moon? I believe it should!
Given that the moon is allegedly 27% of the size of Earth, absolutely it should. In some Apollo fake photos the Earth does appear to be quite large...and then you have this photo...





Why? HOW? Exposure issues? Earthshine? Moonshine? Starshine? Sunshine?

Perhaps the answer is simple...NASA lied.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,825
Likes
5,732
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I have no idea what you just said.
award.PNG


Congrats!


I have posted lengthy videos
Damn skippy you have. Why does seemingly every vid you post trying to convince us the Earth is flat, have to 2 hours long?


Do I "know" the lighting conditions on the moon? Absolutely not, but I've never claimed to either.
God gave ya a brain, yea? Well dont'cha think that the closer you are to a bright thing, the brighter that thing will appear? Apparently that thought never entered your mind? It's called the inverse square law. Look it up.


I just want to know why these space floaters keep saying "We can't get there now"
Because they can't, now. As in, at this point in time. Not as in, never ever.


You guys act as though this stuff is rocket science or something. lol
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
joking be like "look how smart I am...I can regurgitate everything I learned at brainwashing camp..."

 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,543
Likes
3,982
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Because they can't, now. As in, at this point in time. Not as in, never ever.
Awwww did their tinker toys go boo-boo?

joker you just got busted there. Your own nasa-ites mouths say we can't go there though according to you we have already been there. Give it up as your side of the court just lost due to the digital Low Earth Orbit testimony of people that would know more than any of us.

Members of the Jury remember these words the space floaters spoke: "it is toooo dangerous to go there now because of the radiation in the van alley belts , but, but, but when nasa builds this heavy lift rocket aka orion then we can go to the moon, mars and beyond."
Yes memberless members of the jury I give it to you we never have been to the moon because nasa's own paid employees have said so time and again." Then of course you would object and request a side bar, so we'd all skoot over and whisper-whispers....while you avail your point of "this is not rocket science."
and, I counter with "That is what our point has been all along "It's not rocket science your honorless-honor 'IT's PROPAGANDA.'"
And, you would counter with "But, but, but...that is not what I meant."
And, I would counter with "Well then I move we take the witless jury to the moon to see first had these artifacts of man that were left there."

And, the judgeless-judge would bust out with a hearty "FUCK YOU Michael didn't you understand the testimony of those low-earth-floaters? We'd all DIE."
Then I would object and ask that you get charged for contempt; specifically "CONTEMPT OF REASON." *snickers*
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Holy cow, this is freaking hilarious!!!


Like it was built by a second grade class.

Contempt of reason. lol


Hahahaha
 
Last edited:

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,003
Location
Seattle
Lookit here; that stupid NASA can't take any pictures without phonying them up. No stars again!

How far is the Earth from the moon?


Earth to Moon.png

In October, OSIRIS-REx, a spacecraft that’s bound to intersect an asteroid in August this year, took the photo above from about 5 million km (3 million miles) away from the Earth. NASA posted the picture on Jan. 2, providing the public with a unique view of our planet and its moon. The angle is great to get a grasp of what the distance between the two celestial bodies really looks like, but it’s not perfect.

No, their not perfect,
BF
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,003
Location
Seattle
Shouldn't the Earth appear much larger then that from the Moon? I believe it should!
Man, you'd think you guys have had some experience taking photos, but I guess not. There must be some difference between a I-Phone camera and Digital SLR, eh? Like interchangeable lenses? How about a photo taken with a 28mm lens versus one of the same scene with a 150mm lens? Do foreground and background objects maintain the same size relationship?

The difference between what the eye sees and what the camera records can be quite amazing sometimes.

BF
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,543
Likes
3,982
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Lookit here; that stupid NASA can't take any pictures without phonying them up. No stars again!

How far is the Earth from the moon?



In October, OSIRIS-REx, a spacecraft that’s bound to intersect an asteroid in August this year, took the photo above from about 5 million km (3 million miles) away from the Earth. NASA posted the picture on Jan. 2, providing the public with a unique view of our planet and its moon. The angle is great to get a grasp of what the distance between the two celestial bodies really looks like, but it’s not perfect.

No, their not perfect,
BF
I remember some shots on the pool table that were just like that one. haha I used my eyes and gestimated.
 

the_shootist

The war is here on our doorstep!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
19,780
Likes
20,824
Location
Somewhere out there!
Man, you'd think you guys have had some experience taking photos, but I guess not. There must be some difference between a I-Phone camera and Digital SLR, eh? Like interchangeable lenses? How about a photo taken with a 28mm lens versus one of the same scene with a 150mm lens? Do foreground and background objects maintain the same size relationship?

The difference between what the eye sees and what the camera records can be quite amazing sometimes.

BF
I respectfully call bullcrap sir. There are several reference points in the photo like the image of the astronaut itself and also what appears to be the moon's surface. My spidey sense tells me the damn Earth should appear bigger then that!

No human has landed on the Moon sir!
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,246
Likes
5,003
Location
Seattle
I found the photo as17-134-20471 in the apollo archives and I attempted to duplicate the findings of the zeit-coin site but failed to find evidence of a pasted earth. Of course I've only been using photoshop since 1997 so it could be that I am lacking their specific skill set. Her's the best I could achieve:
BF as17-134-20471.jpg

No evidence in any of my manipulations.
closeup of earth:
Closeup.jpg

So the supposed pasteup? I ain't buyin it.

BF
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
So which scale Earth is correct then? You think that tiny little ink blot is somehow an accurate representation of Earth from the moon? How's that possible if the Earth is 4x the size of the moon? ...and how can that be to scale AND this be to scale? Why is the explanation for NASA's bs always that everyone else is just dumb?

"You don't know photography!", "You don't know physics!", "You don't know how light works!". Come on guys, get some new material already. There's nobody in this thread that's "dumb". We've all been indoctrinated and some of us question stuff and some of us do not.



NASA debunks their own Apollo missions and people still somehow disagree. Keep the hopium alive I guess.

When your beliefs are founded upon something other than reason and logic...it's called "faith".

go to 13:14-15of the first vid and plz tell me that I am not looking at a face in that triangle. Oh-oh....


I'd love to tell you that, but that's a gray haired dude or a picture of a gray haired dude.

Some have been suggesting that elements within NASA have been trying to debunk the moon landings/space time travel for some while. A Face of Pluto on Pluto, messages written into the clouds of their fake blue marble images, old men in their images of the LM...
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,825
Likes
5,732
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I'd love to tell you that, but that's a gray haired dude or a picture of a gray haired dude.
That's Cernan.

This guy. He was looking out the window when they launched and the camera caught him. Why is this a big deal?
...and it's proof that you are applying a confirmation bias to your examination of this stuff. Ie: all you do is look for anything you think might show something that proves your point, then completely stop digging for any other possible reasons for it. What you should do is to keep digging to try to prove your original assumption wrong.
apollo-17.jpg
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
You took a photo of a very bright moon. The moon was brighter in your photo than anything I've seen in any Apollo fakes. Despite this, I see plenty of stars in your photo.
I have no idea what you just said. Cat's claim, if I understand his word salads, is that the exposure of the Apollo photos had to be such that allegedly bright objects would not ruin the shot. Yet, he himself snapped a pic of a ridiculously bright moon that had stars in it.
You missed the whole point but it seems like you're starting to understand the concept a little. I do not mean to dispense word salad, I am trying to make you understand how invalid the "no stars" claim really is, if we agree on nothing else you should at least know you could prove this for yourself if you tried. Did you compare that photo to the other one in the same post? The other picture in the same post was taken very close to the same time and at the same position. It shows the moon properly exposed in that you can start to make out surface detail. In that photo you cannot make out any stars. So yes, as you say the moon looks ridiculously bright when you expose for long enough to show stars. My most recent example of the same thing clearly shows how over exposed the moon has to be before stars just start showing up. Then it shows how over exposed the moon would have to be to get stars bright enough to be able to barely make out bright constellations. In that example, there are many internal reflections. I'm not saying it would be impossible for them to image stars but it sure would be hard to make it look good.

I have posted lengthy videos entirely produced by professional photographers. They refute everything claimed by NASA about the Apollo photos.
As an avid astrophographer, I have photographed meteors, comets, aurora, sprites, planets, the moon, star clusters, nebula and even distant galaxies. I understand lighting and exposure as well as most professional photographers. Is there any specific claim they made that you find particularly compelling? Everything I recall mentioned here about the photography is pretty easily explained by the lighting conditions.

No stars in thousands of still photos because...reasons.
This is kind of creepy, youtube recommended this video for me last night. lol. It discusses the very thing I have been trying to describe when it comes to exposure of sunlit objects. Interestingly they show an example of a long exposure of the Earth that shows stars in UV light at about 3 minutes.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,543
Likes
3,982
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Look joker, it is a big deal because the light from the "sun" as you have claimed will wash out all other light =and= and back light every thing else.....so why is the light over his head not canceled out by the glare of the sun off of a window that should be shielded from them pesky rays?

Oh darn, I suppose that, that reflective tape has no meaning also. Darn bub when you go to the bar and get pulwalkeyed do you go home mistakenly with the bouncer?
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
So which scale Earth is correct then? You think that tiny little ink blot is somehow an accurate representation of Earth from the moon? How's that possible if the Earth is 4x the size of the moon? ...and how can that be to scale AND this be to scale? Why is the explanation for NASA's bs always that everyone else is just dumb?

"You don't know photography!", "You don't know physics!", "You don't know how light works!". Come on guys, get some new material already. There's nobody in this thread that's "dumb". We've all been indoctrinated and some of us question stuff and some of us do not
Here you are ignoring the concept of focal length in photography. I can make the moon (or almost anything really) look big or small just by using a different focal length. There's a reason you are getting the feeling that we are saying that you don't know photography. I don't mean this as a slam, your statements are showing that you should read up a little on the subject before you start throwing statements like this around. The most basic concepts of photography, that you could test yourself, easily explain what you seem to think is a huge problem.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Sigh. I've posted videos of photographic professionals that have said precisely the opposite of most everything you say, but of course you don't bother watching that or refuting that information. You just stick to your lanes...you guys don't know nuffin' bout nuffin'.

Then you get lost in technical analysis of photography and it never even seems to bother you that the Apollo actors were wearing thick playtex space/time suits, helmets with limited neck motion, heavy playtex gauntlets, and were using chest mounted cameras without any viewfinders at all. Yep, it's everyone else that doesn't get it.

Hint. They didn't take the pictures slick.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Sigh. I've posted videos of photographic professionals that have said precisely the opposite of most everything you say, but of course you don't bother watching that or refuting that information. You just stick to your lanes...you guys don't know nuffin' bout nuffin'.

Then you get lost in technical analysis of photography and it never even seems to bother you that the Apollo actors were wearing thick playtex space/time suits, helmets with limited neck motion, heavy playtex gauntlets, and were using chest mounted cameras without any viewfinders at all. Yep, it's everyone else that doesn't get it.

Hint. They didn't take the pictures slick.
Really? What is an example of something they said that is opposite of what I said regarding photography? Please enlighten me.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Radiation destroys film. Exposure adjustments are nearly impossible while wearing a thick space/time suit. There's no way the Apollo actors could stage these photos one after another. The Apollo actors would have to have spent nearly all their time on the lunar surface taking photos...and again the photos were numbered. There were long stretches where the Apollo actors never took a poor photo.

I can find you the entire video again if you're interested in refuting it...instead of just glossing it all over. I've posted at least one lengthy video in this very thread, but you ignored it.

You talk about how many hours it takes you to snap quality pictures and somehow miss the irony that you're posting in a thread about Apollo actors faking a moon landing. They couldn't spend hours posing for the camera, they were wearing thick suits, their gear totally sucked compared to yours and yet nothing but crickets, there definitely nothing to see here. How do you even begin to address the simple fact that their camera lacks a viewfinder?

This dude doesn't know what he's talking about then?

 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Radiation destroys film. Exposure adjustments are nearly impossible while wearing a thick space/time suit. There's no way the Apollo actors could stage these photos one after another. The Apollo actors would have to have spent nearly all their time on the lunar surface taking photos...and again the photos were numbered. There were long stretches where the Apollo actors never took a poor photo.

I can find you the entire video again if you're interested in refuting it...instead of just glossing it all over. I've posted at least one lengthy video in this very thread, but you ignored it.
Yeah I might not have watched every lengthy video on this thread, what I have seen so far was pretty incompetent so please enlighten me. You yourself are making claims like the size of the Earth seems wrong without realizing it all depends on the focal length of the exposure. By the way, I have done astrophotography in sub zero temperatures, where if I removed my gloves I wouldn't be able to feel the camera anyway to know what the hell I was doing so I gotta fumble with my gloves to set the exposure, focal length and most difficulty the focus (which is much harder for wide apertures you would want for low light pics like stars). My avatar is an example, out in a cold winter sky using film and bundled up so much it is hard to maneuver. Sometimes we question why we do these things but there is much beauty in the heavens and at least that is what drives me to do it.

Focal length:
Look how small the moon looks:
MoonTree-2015-11-23-Img_9851SS.jpg


Now it looks so much larger.
Moon-12-22-2012-IMG_1274SS.jpg


Both taken from my backyard.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
Good on you. They're lovely.

...now back to the topic at hand. You know, the topic where you claim to KNOW what lighting conditions confronted Apollo actors pretending to be on the moon.

Presumably you also KNOW then that radiation on the moon wasn't a factor and couldn't possibly have affected their pics?
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Good on you. They're lovely.

...now back to the topic at hand. You know, the topic where you claim to KNOW what lighting conditions confronted Apollo actors pretending to be on the moon.

Presumably you also KNOW then that radiation on the moon wasn't a factor and couldn't possibly have affected their pics?
As is my understanding, a few days in space is like a year on Earth in terms of radiation exposure. I have not tested this myself but that is my understanding about the levels of radiation they would have faced. I would assume there may have been some effect from it but I don't think the exposures would have been ruined. Ever developed a year old roll of film? I know I did some older ones once but probably not quite a year old without trouble.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Oh, and thanks for the comment on the pics. I hope you understand now why the size of something in a pic doesn't necessarily reflect the view an observer would have from that position because there are other factors at work such as focal length.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
I understand it just fine, I just find it a cop out as usual.


We dumb landlubbers just can't grasp the concepts that these super smart department of war parasites can!

You'd think there'd be like a parasite liar round table or some such where they all get their lies synchronized.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
634
Likes
1,023
Location
Southern MN
Ah well, here I thought I could teach you a thing or two about photography but I guess most of those observable testable facts go against your preconceived notions.

You told me:
said precisely the opposite of most everything you say
What did I say about photography that they said the opposite about?
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,123
Likes
2,910
Location
On a mail train.
A question from an audience member:
With the naked eye , the December super moon looked like the moon in the amateur photo.
If I was standing on the moon looking at the earth , would the earth look really huge , sort of like the artists photo?
Back to lurking........
24313311_10212442417234283_8962435301762714874_o-1.jpg
is-the-sun-bigger-than-the-moon-and-earth_90c5de8cc1461ba6.jpg
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,046
Likes
7,592
It certainly should given the proportions/distances we've been provided. Picture that moon x3.67.
What did I say about photography that they said the opposite about?
See post 912. I've attempted to discuss this video with you previously, but you didn't seem interested.
 
Last edited: