Moon Landings

Antidisestablishmentarian

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
We have quite a few conspiracy threads, but not about this.

Did we or did we not go to the moon?

If we did not, what is your opinion as to why not?

I personally think we did.

It was a great event in the history of mankind.

We need more events like that.
 
TreesOfLife

TreesOfLife

Well-Known Member
I think we did. But... I also think the moon landing footage is a farce. I have not done much research on this, but in all the pictures I have seen there are no stars. I do believe we went to the moon long before the 60s.
 
J

jeebuscheebus

Active Member
We may have went, but not with the people/means that they say.

None of the people who say we went will ever debate about the glass in the camera lense. Simple math says the glass would be worthless as a lense with the tempeture changes on the moon.
 
Bud Frosty

Bud Frosty

Well-Known Member
TreesOfLife said:
I have not done much research on this, but in all the pictures I have seen there are no stars.
Click to expand...
Basic photography 101. Because the moon has no atmosphere and the soil is a light color, the surface of the moon is SUPER bright. Therefore, you have to close the aperature so small that the camera cannot 'see' the stars.

jeebuscheebus said:
We may have went, but not with the people/means that they say.

None of the people who say we went will ever debate about the glass in the camera lense. Simple math says the glass would be worthless as a lense with the tempeture changes on the moon.
Click to expand...
I doubt if they used glass. It was probably a type of 'crystal' lens.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I did study this about a decade ago and there is some interesting things that would point to it not being real. But who knows, I don't think it really matters too much. If they didn't it was a waste of soo much money.

But they were wasting it anyway, trying to get there so it would be a wash.

The one thing I used to wonder about is why have we not been able to photograph the moon car or the flag from a space satellite to prove we were there.

But then I just googled and found this: http://gizmodo.com/5317057/images-of-the-apollo-landing-sites-from-the-lunar-reconnaissance-orbiter/gallery/
 
what... huh?

what... huh?

Active Member
No stars... You do not understand fstop. That is all.

Light bouncing off of the white moon forces the aperature to shrink (like your pupils when it is bright), and the shutter speed to increase... reducing both the time, and amount of light which enters the camera.

Go out on your porch with the light on... take a picture of yourself in front of a starlit sky... the sky will be black.


Even easier... take a picture of yourself with the flash on and the moon in the background... you won't see the moon.
 
Bud Frosty

Bud Frosty

Well-Known Member
jeebuscheebus said:
It was basic model camera. I have read books on the moon landings that are mainstream and have nothing to do with conspiracies. They cronicle the cameras used.

You are 100% incorrect, no crystal just plain glass.

Here is the info from NASA themselves. No special crystal is mentioned.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
Click to expand...
Interesting.
I saw a program with Buzz Aldren where he was talking about the still cameras that the astronauts used. They were hard to operate because of the gear they wore and you could not look through it. They would practice pointing it in their spare time before they went. It was some kind of custom job with a big trigger.
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
what... huh? said:
No stars... You do not understand fstop. That is all.

Light bouncing off of the white moon forces the aperature to shrink (like your pupils when it is bright), and the shutter speed to increase... reducing both the time, and amount of light which enters the camera.

Go out on your porch with the light on... take a picture of yourself in front of a starlit sky... the sky will be black.


Even easier... take a picture of yourself with the flash on and the moon in the background... you won't see the moon.
Click to expand...
That"s always a big point in the moon landing talk. But what I always question is why didn't they get pics of the stars?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
mexiblunt said:
That"s always a big point in the moon landing talk. But what I always question is why didn't they get pics of the stars?
Click to expand...
Why would they be inclined to do so?

The stars aren't going anywhere, clearly it would be of more interest for them to capture videos of the moons landing, because the detail achieved by taking pictures of the stars would not have offered any real kind of improvement over what was available from the ground at that time.
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
Why would they be inclined to do so?

The stars aren't going anywhere, clearly it would be of more interest for them to capture videos of the moons landing, because the detail achieved by taking pictures of the stars would not have offered any real kind of improvement over what was available from the ground at that time.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that because the atmosphere distorts everything plus light pollution, hence Hubble. But your answer does make sense. As they probably have photos of the stars from other flights prior when they just orbited earth?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
mexiblunt said:
I don't believe that because the atmosphere distorts everything plus light pollution, hence Hubble. But your answer does make sense. As they probably have photos of the stars from other flights prior when they just orbited earth?
Click to expand...
I don't think they were focused on the advantages of being in space so much as beating the Russians to the moon. The space race wasn't about science, it was about getting to the moon and achieving a manned lunar landing.

Though, yes, I suppose that they would have had some satellites already taking pictures of the stars, as the Lunar Landing wasn't the entirety of the Apollo Mission but just the culmination of a decade of efforts.

But it actually looks like none of the Apollo missions were really focused on astrophysics, more just beating the Russians to the moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top