Moon Landings - Real or Fake?

by Black Man 89 Replies latest jw friends

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    I always thought that due to light polution in the cities, we cant get a good view of the night sky. Last time I checked their are no cities on the moon to interfer. The physical characteristics of the moon's atmosphere (as it were) should not have the same affect of distorting light as the Earths atmosphere does.

    What you forget is that this wasn't a night sky on the moon. They did not land on the "dark side" of the moon. All those photos were taken during the daytime. Since there was no atmosphere, there was no refraction of light in the sky and there would have been stars visible to the naked eye. But because it was the daytime, the ground would have been brightly illuminated as it is on earth during the day. All those photos with "missing stars" show the ground as well as the sky. People weren't on the moon shooting pictures of only the sky. And that raises the issue of dynamic range that AlanF and I discussed already, in which the image contains both very bright and very dark sectors. Cameras generally lack the same dynamic range of the human eye and thus would either overexpose the bright areas in order to correctly expose the dark areas, or underexpose the dark areas in order to correctly expose the bright areas. Since they were there to shoot the ground, not the sky, the photos have correct exposures for the ground but underexpose the sky which is fine since it was already black aside from the stars. This is exactly what any photographer would expect in this circumstance. It's a basic issue of exposure. AlanF's comparison with stadium lighting is very appropriate because the ground is illuminated as brightly as it is during the day. And don't forget that there was also a sun shining in the sky on the moon.

  • parakeet
    parakeet

    There have been thousands of photographs of Earth taken from satellites and from manned orbital flights outside the Earth's atmosphere. Do you believe they are all faked, too?

    If you believe those photos are real, then it's only a matter of a little more propulsion to get a manned capsule out of Earth's orbit completely and into the moon's orbit. Some common sense here, please!

  • parakeet
    parakeet

    Check out this link. It may explain some of the unusual characteristics of light on the moon.

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03jan_moonshadows.htm

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    "It's a basic issue of exposure."

    Yep. The proper exposure for the moon at night (to see good detail in the surface) is the same exposure combination you use to take a picture of your friend in bright daylight. Said exposure is known as the "sunny 16" rule, where your aperture is f.16 and your shutter speed is approximately the same number as your film speed (so with 200 speed film, your exposure is f.16 @ 1/200th, with 64 speed film, your exposure is f.16 @ a 60th, and so on). This exposure will not show you many (any?) stars at night.

  • aniron
  • brinjen
    brinjen
    Anybody familiar with the Van Alan radiation belt?

    Sure have.

    http://www.phy6.org/Education/Iradbelt.html

    I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to how they got through this area without getting roasted...

  • darth frosty
  • aniron
    aniron

    I've never heard a reasonable explanation as to how they got through this area without getting roasted...

    A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

    Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

    This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts

    <http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html>. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo <http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm> site. An interesting read!
    It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program

  • jaguarbass
    jaguarbass

    What I think is if they went they forgot to take the camera and shot the pictures here on earth.

    You cant really believe anything the government tells you.

    The space craft material was too thin to get thru the radiation belt.

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    it is real

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit