Nasa's Moon Landing Hoax

[tankasnowgod]

No, the lunar surface in direct sunlight would not be brighter than the stars.

Then the stars (or at least some stars) should at least be visible in the first photo I posted. Yet, they aren't.

You're confusing it because it looks like a nighttime setting (black sky) but it's actually daytime in that shot and a sunlit area is very bright.

So what? Again, the point of the composite that NASA posted was that, if you could turn off the atmosphere, stars would be visible during the daytime. Direct quote- "If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ..."

The moon has no atmosphere. Therefore, it has no scattered sunlight. How are you not getting this concept?

The sunlight going into my apartment in a similar angle, through the glass, through the atmosphere, makes everything so bright that you can't even tell that the lights are on.

There you go again, comparing how sunlight works on a planet with an atmosphere, and assuming it works the exact same way on the moon, which has no atmosphere.

Starlight is way weaker than lamplight. You can barely see the stars when you're in a city just due to the light pollution from the streetlights, even if you're on a small dark spot, now compare that difference with direct sunlight vs starlight.

Again, irrelevant comparison. All cities and lamplight at night, as compared to the stars, are again viewed ON A PLANET WITH AN ATMOSPHERE.

And even in big cities with light pollution and other pollution and an atmosphere and a full moon in the sky (none of which exist on the surface of the moon), there are still several stars and planets visible with the naked eye. So why doesn't a SINGLE star or planet (other than the Earth) appear in any of the official moon photos?

Also, even here on Earth, some stars and planets can be photographed during the day, even with all the light scattered from the sun- How to See Sirius in the Daytime

 

[Quelsatron]

Then the stars (or at least some stars) should at least be visible in the first photo I posted. Yet, they aren't.

So what? Again, the point of the composite that NASA posted was that, if you could turn off the atmosphere, stars would be visible during the daytime. Direct quote- "If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ..."

The moon has no atmosphere. Therefore, it has no scattered sunlight. How are you not getting this concept?

There you go again, comparing how sunlight works on a planet with an atmosphere, and assuming it works the exact same way on the moon, which has no atmosphere.

Again, irrelevant comparison. All cities and lamplight at night, as compared to the stars, are again viewed ON A PLANET WITH AN ATMOSPHERE.

And even in big cities with light pollution and other pollution and an atmosphere and a full moon in the sky (none of which exist on the surface of the moon), there are still several stars and planets visible with the naked eye. So why doesn't a SINGLE star or planet (other than the Earth) appear in any of the official moon photos?

I made a typo in the first point, i meant to say the lunar surface would be brighter than the stars and not the reverse. NASAs random offhand trivia image is merely demonstrating the middle school fun fact that if the atmosphere didn't scatter light, you could see the stars by day. this isn't because the sky is interfering with star light in any appreciable manner (if that was the reason, we wouldn't be able to see the stars in the night either), but because it totally outshines the stars and we become unable to see them due to contrast. The moon has no atmosphere which does mean it does not scatter sunlight to blot out the stars, but sunlight still causes the environment to be so bright as to cause a camera or human eye to be unable to register it without burning out the lens/eye from the comparatively far brighter light source. none of this has anything to do with the properties of atmospheres and other physics/astronomy, it's simple photography.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I made a typo in the first point, i meant to say the lunar surface would be brighter than the stars and not the reverse.

Then why are there any photos from the moon at all? Shouldn't it all just be nothing but glare?

NASAs random offhand trivia image is merely demonstrating the middle school fun fact that if the atmosphere didn't scatter light, you could see the stars by day. this isn't because the sky is interfering with star light in any appreciable manner (if that was the reason, we wouldn't be able to see the stars in the night either), but because it totally outshines the stars and we become unable to see them due to contrast.

Except, there is absolutely nothing in the sky of the moon photos for them to contrast with. The sky itself is completely black.

The moon has no atmosphere which does mean it does not scatter sunlight to blot out the stars, but sunlight still causes the environment to be so bright as to cause a camera or human eye to be unable to register it without burning out the lens/eye from the comparatively far brighter light source.

Then, again, this calls all the "moon photos" into question. Why do we have such stunning photos of Buzz Aldrin and the Lunar Lander and the Rover in the first place?

none of this has anything to do with the properties of atmospheres and other physics/astronomy, it's simple photography.

Of course it has something to do with the atmosphere, since with no atmosphere, there is no scattered light. And your explanation only solves one problem (no stars in the sky) by bringing up another problem (the fact the photos should then be nothing but glare). Either way, it gets back to questioning the authenticity of the moon photos, which is the main point.

 

[PeskyPeater]

uhm I thought you cant see stars unless you increase the camera's exposure time and adjust the shutter speed. But if you do that on the moon, everything becomes over exposed and too bright too see the local surface well enough.

also one of the reasons the pictures are touched up afterwards

.edit.
Don't you know the moon is in vacuum but this is not absolute vacuum.
At certain times there is matter and anti-matter particles coming into existence and being annihilated creating all kinds of light phenomenon and funky UFO's seen on some videos, but you don't see those particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence on the footage.

 

[PeskyPeater]

Yeah, maybe, IF they took a direct picture of the sun. Not any other part of the sky.

How can I observe that by "looking outside?" I live on a planet with an atmosphere, which scatters light. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere.

There are plenty of pictures where the stars should have been the brightest objects in the photo. For example-

View attachment 34770

And here's one with no part of the surface of the moon at all, just a section of one of the most advanced and sophisticated spacecraft that man ever built-


..

HAHA Seems this picture is not really taken on the moon, it uses false perspective, the camera is focused towards the ground in some studio with props.

 

[aquila2009]

That's 100% correct. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were mortal enemies at the time. The Russians didn't have the money to get humans there, but they did get something to the moon before we did. And there were six manned landings on the moon by the U.S. So six times we faked it? Sputnik was up in 1957. Are satellites faked too?

Yes, space is fake.

 

[tankasnowgod]

This is a pretty incredible interview from CBS this morning with the Playtex Bra and Girdle seamstresses that went on to sew the Apollo Spacesuits-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIEMobU6Eg


Anna Lee Minner seems to suggest they gave her no special training, and it was directly from bras and girdles to spacesuits.

Also, they don't say how Playtex was able to solve the problems of expanding gases in the body, extreme heat, and micrometeorites (all which are mentioned in the video) with a suit made entirely of fabric, but I guess that's just a trade secret.

 

[Quelsatron]

Then why are there any photos from the moon at all? Shouldn't it all just be nothing but glare?

Except, there is absolutely nothing in the sky of the moon photos for them to contrast with. The sky itself is completely black.

Then, again, this calls all the "moon photos" into question. Why do we have such stunning photos of Buzz Aldrin and the Lunar Lander and the Rover in the first place?

Of course it has something to do with the atmosphere, since with no atmosphere, there is no scattered light. And your explanation only solves one problem (no stars in the sky) by bringing up another problem (the fact the photos should then be nothing but glare). Either way, it gets back to questioning the authenticity of the moon photos, which is the main point.

have you never held a camera in your life or are you just trolling me? The camera (or eye) adjusts the brightness to an appropriate level. this makes the lunar surface look normal but makes you unable to see the stars. the entire photo is adjusted at the same time, it doesn't matter if the stars are in the black sky, the presence of sunlit objects within the picture frame will blot them out.

 

[tankasnowgod]

have you never held a camera in your life or are you just trolling me?

Not on a planet with no atmosphere, I haven't. And neither have you.

On top of that, all of the camera's I have ever held were manufactured in the 1980s or later, so they wouldn't be relevant to photos allegedly taken on the moon in 1969-1972.

Then again, the Astronauts didn't hold a camera, either. It was strapped to their chest. And they had to operate it from inside a spacesuit, with bulky gloves and a helmet.

The camera (or eye) adjusts the brightness to an appropriate level. this makes the lunar surface look normal but makes you unable to see the stars.

Lol, are you seriously trying to claim that the Apollo Astronauts had self adjusting brightness cameras back in 1969?

Here is the model they used, please show me the auto brightness adjustment.

Hasselblad

the entire photo is adjusted at the same time, it doesn't matter if the stars are in the black sky, the presence of sunlit objects within the picture frame will blot them out.

Ridiculous. I posted a link to where both a star and planet were able to be photographed during daytime ON EARTH, where light is scattered all over the sky, thanks to our atmosphere. Certainly, at least some stars or planets should be visible in the sky on a planet with no atmosphere where the light doesn't scatter.

Anyway, forget the stars. Since you're a "photographic expert," maybe you can explain how a second light source was used on the moon with this official photo-

We know there are two different light sources because the shadows of the rocks and that gray stick thing and the little trench it dug in the foreground are at different angles than the objects in the background are casting. Plus, we can see the reflection on the gold mylar on the ground, and the reflection of the second light source in the mylar itself

Also, looking closely at the lander support, you have to wonder how sturdy that ball is. Even on the moon, the lander would weight about 6000 pounds, and with four of those legs, each one would have to support 1500 pounds, at least. Is that ball and socket assembly really that sturdy?

 

[Quelsatron]

Not on a planet with no atmosphere, I haven't. And neither have you.

On top of that, all of the camera's I have ever held were manufactured in the 1980s or later, so they wouldn't be relevant to photos allegedly taken on the moon in 1969-1972.

Then again, the Astronauts didn't hold a camera, either. It was strapped to their chest. And they had to operate it from inside a spacesuit, with bulky gloves and a helmet.

Lol, are you seriously trying to claim that the Apollo Astronauts had self adjusting brightness cameras back in 1969?

Here is the model they used, please show me the auto brightness adjustment.

Hasselblad

Ridiculous. I posted a link to where both a star and planet were able to be photographed during daytime ON EARTH, where light is scattered all over the sky, thanks to our atmosphere. Certainly, at least some stars or planets should be visible in the sky on a planet with no atmosphere where the light doesn't scatter.

Anyway, forget the stars. Since you're a "photographic expert," maybe you can explain how a second light source was used on the moon with this official photo-

View attachment 34937

We know there are two different light sources because the shadows of the rocks and that gray stick thing and the little trench it dug in the foreground are at different angles than the objects in the background are casting. Plus, we can see the reflection on the gold mylar on the ground, and the reflection of the second light source in the mylar itself

Also, looking closely at the lander support, you have to wonder how sturdy that ball is. Even on the moon, the lander would weight about 6000 pounds, and with four of those legs, each one would have to support 1500 pounds, at least. Is that ball and socket assembly really that sturdy?

It doesn't matter if it was auto brightness or manual brightness or if it was calibrated back on earth, bright objects will blot out dark objects, even the shadows in your picture are so dark as to completely remove all detail in the moon dust even though ambient reflected sunlight as a rule is generally pretty strong. As for sirius, it's the brightest star in the sky by far, only outshone by 4 planets at their maximum apparent magnitude, and 2.5 times as bright as the second brightest star. There are only 513 stars that are more than 1% as bright as sirius, and 48 that are more than 6.3%. It can be seen during the darkest hours of the day, but is it even in the lunar sky during the moon landings? 50% of the sky is hidden beneath the lunar ground, some portion of the remainder is occupied by the sun and its glare, then most of the photos were centered on the horizon leaving out the top of the sky. But this is all a side track to the fact of the very common phenomena that stars are not visible on photos of astronomical objects, whether they be probes or telescopical and not just the manned missions. It's a complex subject but the omission of stars is not at all suspicious.

As for your picture, those shadows border on paradoxical, but photographs can play tricks with angles, especially given irregular and bent objects, uneven surfaces and different regions in the picture frame. Your claim that there are two light sources requires some explanation as well:
1) where is the second shadow? If there are two light sources there should be two shadows, or blended shadows, but the shadows are very dark and crisp. Alternatively,
1b) where is the seam between the different light sources? If the shadows are intact due to localized lights, why is the region between the foreground objects and the background objects so evenly lit?
2) why would they be retarded enough to fake the moon landing with two light sources?

 

[tankasnowgod]

2) why would they be retarded enough to fake the moon landing with two light sources?

Same reason they decided to fake a pandemic with no actual virus discovered, no increase in all cause mortality, and not a single unique symptom. Because they think most people will just accept whatever authorities tell them, without any further question or examination. And clearly, a lot of people do just this.

Plus, in 1969, people didn't have internet (shocker, I know), nor high definition computer monitors (another shocker, but it's true), and the average person probably wouldn't even be able to examine "official" NASA photos, as they would only be shown on TV shows (which was still mostly black and white) and magazines (many of which also weren't in color). And in those mediums, they would be edited by necessity. Not necessarily something as sophisticated as photoshop, but they would still do basic cropping and changes in the tone, color, and such.

The bottom line is that you can come up with any explanation you want to avoid the obvious, but it's still obvious all of those photos could have been staged and taken right here on earth in the late 60s/early 70s, and that would be a lot easier to do than travelling 234,000 to a planet with no atmosphere, extreme temperatures, huge amounts of radiation, while landing in a tiny craft that looks like a cheap movie prop, that also didn't cause a blast crater or even move any dust when landing using reverse thrust engines to land.

 

[Quelsatron]

Same reason they decided to fake a pandemic with no actual virus discovered, no increase in all cause mortality, and not a single unique symptom. Because they think most people will just accept whatever authorities tell them, without any further question or examination. And clearly, a lot of people do just this.

Plus, in 1969, people didn't have internet (shocker, I know), nor high definition computer monitors (another shocker, but it's true), and the average person probably wouldn't even be able to examine "official" NASA photos, as they would only be shown on TV shows (which was still mostly black and white) and magazines (many of which also weren't in color).

The bottom line is that you can come up with any explanation you want to avoid the obvious, but it's still obvious all of those photos could have been staged and taken right here on earth in the late 60s/early 70s, and that would be a lot easier to do than travelling 234,000 to a planet with no atmosphere, extreme temperatures, huge amounts of radiation, while landing in a tiny craft that looks like a cheap movie prop, that also didn't cause a blast crater or even move any dust when landing using reverse thrust engines to land.

you're basing this a lot in motive and possibility, but then it makes no sense to use cheap movie props made of tin foil and styrofoam that you're snapping 18000 high res photos of. it makes no sense to film unabated for hours, it makes no sense to do blatant errors like using two light sources, it makes no sense to only take one single shitty photo of one of the astronauts. If you want to disprove the moon landing you need a solid tome of evidence and not just possibilities, hunches and cherrypicked vaguely suspect things.

 

[tankasnowgod]

you're basing this a lot in motive and possibility, but then it makes no sense to use cheap movie props made of tin foil and styrofoam that you're snapping 18000 high res photos of.

And yet, that's exactly what we have. Basically, you think it's real because it looks so fake! Funny, Elon Musk said the same basic thing.

If you want to disprove the moon landing you need a solid tome of evidence and not just possibilities, hunches and cherrypicked vaguely suspect things.

I'm not really trying to "disprove" anything. I just don't believe that the moon landing happened, for the reasons I stated above, and many more. You're the one who's only focusing on one issue, and really, I don't think any of your points on even that one issue are solid. It's not just vaguely "cherrypicked," there are all the issues with the photos, the fuel issue, the issue that no other nation has duplicated the moon landing or a moon flyby, or really, anything outside of low Earth Orbit, the timetable, the radiation, the fact that NASA claims to have lost pretty much everything as it relates to the Apollo missions, and so much more.

And really, I think Dave McGowan did a spectacular 14 part series showing the many, many issues with the moon landing. It's here, in case you are interested- Wagging the Moondoggie: Part I

Really, isn't more on NASA and the Federal Government to prove that the Moon Landing actually, you know, happened? The only reason most people believe it is because they saw it on TV. Well, I saw Independence Day on TV once too, and that doesn't mean I seriously believe that Aliens blew up the White House in 1994, and that Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum saved the planet. I'm guessing that the reasons you believe in the moon landing so much is that you just accept that the US Federal Government is telling you the truth here, and you never got into many of the details, nor think it's weird that we can't duplicate the effort 50 years later (!!!!) despite much better technology, and the fact that we supposedly landed on the moon "successfully" and came back 6 times, and have decades more space experience since then.

Seriously, you don't think the Space Shuttles looked more advanced that the Apollo vehicles? Why didn't any of the Shuttles just slingshot around the moon for at least a flyby? They never even left low earth orbit.

 

[PeskyPeater]

haha pls change to the russian and japan and china etc fake moon landings :P

A believer will have the idea stuck in the head that the camera settings is what explains that the stars are not visible. It justifies it enough. But the pictures are too good and the horizon is fake. Although the sky is black and seems oke, this cannot be the case in a vacuum, as I said, there are light and energy phenomenen all the time and piezo electric effects on the surface of moon that should affect the equipment that touches the surface. We dont see them. they cannot be faked.

They cannot believe that its in a studio and dont understand the technology. so they dont see it. Probably they have never been disillusioned badly enough to have higher skeptical thinking and experience with challenging their paradigm, well except for dr ray peats ideas of course, still they have a thick head and an untrained eye. But its nothing abnormal.

Tanka that shadow in the lower right corner, is correct it seems weird like it's off but it is actually the shadow of that rod, it's only that the angle is funky and its depth is deceptive,. shadows are correct in that studio setup and seems there was only one light source .

I find its useless to argue with a believer about this fake evidence b/c of the duality, that the pics can be false but the landing true, its all in their heads and impossible to change their paradigm until they themselves do the research and see it for themselves. edit. oh and vice versa its goes both ways

 

[PeskyPeater]

I have to admit im making one assumption. That is that the moon is in vacuum, but there is data that the moon is actually still in earth atmosphere but very thin one. This means that there is a probability that the sky seen at the moon is actually more blue and not black. also this means that the bible story about the luminaries being in the firmament is has more merit to be true and that is of course not acceptable b/c of the division of science and creationism.

 

[Richiebogie]

Did Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay reach the summit of Mt Everest on May 29 1953?

If they did, and they showed it was possible, has anyone returned in the years since and have they improved upon the methods used in 1953?

Has anyone replicated the first powered flight of the Wright brothers in December 17 1903? How was powered flight technology looking 53 years later in 1956?

No one has been to the moon since Project Apollo. However, there have been huge technological improvements in motion picture and still photo special effects.

What does it all mean?

 

[Donttreadonme]

Not on a planet with no atmosphere, I haven't. And neither have you.

On top of that, all of the camera's I have ever held were manufactured in the 1980s or later, so they wouldn't be relevant to photos allegedly taken on the moon in 1969-1972.

Then again, the Astronauts didn't hold a camera, either. It was strapped to their chest. And they had to operate it from inside a spacesuit, with bulky gloves and a helmet.

Lol, are you seriously trying to claim that the Apollo Astronauts had self adjusting brightness cameras back in 1969?

Here is the model they used, please show me the auto brightness adjustment.

Hasselblad

Ridiculous. I posted a link to where both a star and planet were able to be photographed during daytime ON EARTH, where light is scattered all over the sky, thanks to our atmosphere. Certainly, at least some stars or planets should be visible in the sky on a planet with no atmosphere where the light doesn't scatter.

Anyway, forget the stars. Since you're a "photographic expert," maybe you can explain how a second light source was used on the moon with this official photo-

View attachment 34937

We know there are two different light sources because the shadows of the rocks and that gray stick thing and the little trench it dug in the foreground are at different angles than the objects in the background are casting. Plus, we can see the reflection on the gold mylar on the ground, and the reflection of the second light source in the mylar itself

Also, looking closely at the lander support, you have to wonder how sturdy that ball is. Even on the moon, the lander would weight about 6000 pounds, and with four of those legs, each one would have to support 1500 pounds, at least. Is that ball and socket assembly really that sturdy?

I love how people without optics backgrounds try to analyze optics for things like sasquatch, UFO's, and in this case the mood landing.

There is no atmosphere on the moon and the light shines, and reflects and bounces around in ways totally unfamiliar to people on earth. The only hoax is the moderators on this website allowing this nonsense to continue

 

[tankasnowgod]

There is no atmosphere on the moon and the light shines, and reflects and bounces around in ways totally unfamiliar to people on earth.

Very true. Which is probably why the video and photos they faked in the 60s and 70s have a harder time standing up to scrutiny five decades later, when people can easily download the "official" photos and look at them in detail, thanks to the internet and high resolution computer monitors.

The only hoax is the moderators on this website allowing this nonsense to continue

Ah, classic. Mr. "Donttreadonme" trashing the very idea of free speech. Sooooo patriotic.

Look, if you don't like the topics that were being discussed on this forum for at least five years prior to signing up for an account, why are you here in the first place?

If you like platforms that censor these sort of topics, may I refer you to Youtube and Twitter? They have an excellent track record of squashing topics they don't like and that are critical of the government.

Also, the following statement is silly-

I love how people without optics backgrounds try to analyze optics for things like sasquatch, UFO's, and in this case the mood landing.

You have me "quoted" as saying this, but I didn't say this, so I assume this is your statement. But again, if you feel this way, why are you on this forum? We mostly talk about "health" related topics, but most of us here don't have a background in health or science. Does that mean that we are somehow unable to analyze studies that we found and read via pubmed and other sources? Shouldn't this same principle apply there?

If so, then I guess all of us would need to sit down and shut up in any criticisms of the so called "Pandemic," or measures like lockdown, masking, social distancing, and just believe exactly what we're told by the likes of the NIH, NIAID, CDC and FDA (executive agencies, just like NASA), and take our vaccines and however many boosters they decide are necessary (we're already on the 4th shot, and they have suggested boosters six months to a year for the rest of our lives).

 

[Summer]

Donttreadonme is definitely a redditor. He’d fit right in there.

On topic, I heard a guy a few months ago say the moon landing photos were faked but the moon landing was real LOL. Paraphrasing: “the picture quality wouldn’t have been good so they had to use fake pictures so the public would believe the landing happened, but it was real.”

???

 

[LA]

And yet, that's exactly what we have. Basically, you think it's real because it looks so fake! Funny, Elon Musk said the same basic thing.

View attachment 34954


I'm not really trying to "disprove" anything. I just don't believe that the moon landing happened, for the reasons I stated above, and many more. You're the one who's only focusing on one issue, and really, I don't think any of your points on even that one issue are solid. It's not just vaguely "cherrypicked," there are all the issues with the photos, the fuel issue, the issue that no other nation has duplicated the moon landing or a moon flyby, or really, anything outside of low Earth Orbit, the timetable, the radiation, the fact that NASA claims to have lost pretty much everything as it relates to the Apollo missions, and so much more.

And really, I think Dave McGowan did a spectacular 14 part series showing the many, many issues with the moon landing. It's here, in case you are interested- Wagging the Moondoggie: Part I

Really, isn't more on NASA and the Federal Government to prove that the Moon Landing actually, you know, happened? The only reason most people believe it is because they saw it on TV. Well, I saw Independence Day on TV once too, and that doesn't mean I seriously believe that Aliens blew up the White House in 1994, and that Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum saved the planet. I'm guessing that the reasons you believe in the moon landing so much is that you just accept that the US Federal Government is telling you the truth here, and you never got into many of the details, nor think it's weird that we can't duplicate the effort 50 years later (!!!!) despite much better technology, and the fact that we supposedly landed on the moon "successfully" and came back 6 times, and have decades more space experience since then.

Seriously, you don't think the Space Shuttles looked more advanced that the Apollo vehicles? Why didn't any of the Shuttles just slingshot around the moon for at least a flyby? They never even left low earth orbit.

always some good chuckles when I read your retorts, thanks!