Please put my husband right once and for all

[Tadakun]

There's so much cheese in my fridge, if we didn't go to the moon were has it all come from?

is that a wallace and gromit reference? if so I <-heart-3 you:glasses1:

[Tadakun]

pretty fun link for those "hoax" photos

Apollo Moon Photos: a Hoax?

sorry if it's already been posted.

[4lefts]

That aldrin photo makes me wish I had a hasselblad (and a saturn 5, i guess).

[mindburner]

Yes - and I think most others understood it several posts ago. If I rephrase it, then perhaps you might too:

What my statement is saying - is that, should it materialise at a future date, that specific Apollo photos have been post-processed in some way, or that a given photo was not what it was purported to be due to some "mix-up" (sic) in the Press Department, then I personally wouldn't be the least bit surprised by such a revelation. I wasn't asserting that this has actually happened.

Apologies if this is still in any way unclear to you.

You have went from the word fake to post-processed now. Lets stick to fake. Sure photos can be mislabeled or mis categorised due to the sheer volume of images, but deliberate fake?

so you would agree would you that there has not been one single photograph up to this point in time that you know of that has been faked or "mixed-up" (sic) as you put it?

[SiriusB]

(slightly off-topic, but...)

That might be the aim, but it's a long way from reality. The history of science is littered with examples of people whose scientific proofs were rejected for no better reason than they challenged the accepted beliefs.

Acceptance in science has historically had much more to do with your social standing than any evidence-based data that you've produced.

Good Post Great Bear.

Much as i hate to admit it i actually read "Dark Moon- Apollo & the whistle-blowers".

Most of the book is total & utter rubbish.In fact i was questioning the authors' sanity by the time i reached the back cover.

That said, as a then keen amateur photographer( that's pre digital imaging to you youngsters ) there is something a bit odd about some of the Apollo photos.

That doesn't mean the landings were fake, there's many possible explainations.I mean maybe Buzz forgot to load film in camera, so they had to knock a few out in the studio when they got back to keep the press happy It happens- ask oldtime wedding photographers.

Oh, & to

[SiriusB]

... to the guy who keeps having a pop about Creationism- thats' way off topic, & probably on the wrong forum entirely IMO.

[great_bear]

Sure photos can be mislabeled or mis categorised due to the sheer volume of images, but deliberate fake?

The problem with "faked" is that it's a very loose term. It brings to mind comedic images of making a lunar landing out of corrugated cardboard and silver foil. But how about shortening some blank space in a wider photo in order to create a better composition - does that count as "fake"? (and note that I'm not asserting that's been done either). How about blending two similar shots with differing exposures in order to get those stars people complained were missing?

It comes up in astrophotography forums quite often - at what point during processing does something become "fake"? I'd say it's when you cross the boundary from informing to misleading.

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, if I rephrase your question as: "would you agree that there has not been one single photograph up to this point in time that you know of that has been used to deliberately and significantly mislead the public?" then the answer is that I know of no such material - but I should also add that I'm not an authority on the subject.

[sixela]

there is something a bit odd about some of the Apollo photos.

Not a lot of people take pictures in an environment without atmosphere, with as few obstacles on the ground, and a fairly uniform albedo on the surface but a top layer with some interesting scattering characteristics. It would actually be hard to take "correct" pictures on earth (though we'd probably take pictures which someone would probably find less odd, paradoxically).

Even seen from earth the moon's albedo features and subtle colours and shades in Maria and ejecta change with the phase, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that little green men (ate too much moon cheese, I guess) paint the ejecta every month or so around Tycho only to repaint them when the moon is no longer close to full.

[mindburner]

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, if I rephrase your question as: "would you agree that there has not been one single photograph up to this point in time that you know of that has been used to deliberately and significantly mislead the public?" then the answer is that I know of no such material - but I should also add that I'm not an authority on the subject.

totally agree, that's all I wanted to know thanks

[Earl]

Im going to ramble so be kind

Due to the change in Media Coverage of the entire world, especially from the Vietnam War onwards, the Media has been used and abused to say what ever the person wanting to say something wants it to be said.

Media is the key issue, like a set of accounts it can be presented in many ways, to a degree there is no truth, there is only a view from your perspective, a great example would be a car crash with witnesses and multiple cameras at different angles, Every camera and every person will give a story of which not one is the whole "truth" of the situation.

The problem this creates is no one trusts what any one view states to be the facts, as it is obvious that ones persons facts are not the whole picture, just a part.

The Media becomes a tool to present a story how this is interpreted is dependant on the viewer.

Then we have again from a similar time a distrust of Government / Official. These Governments use the media and are also exposed by the media.

What is Truth and what is not Truth blurs, "Can you handle the truth?" is your perception based upon fact or upon how the facts are presented to you?

After the last 40 years of the Media / Government / Trust combination, it is not suprising why everything is questioned? Does a toilet seat really cost the US government $50,000 dollars to replace or was that a line in a movie? But where did the line come from, what was it based upon? maybe its true?

There is much to be said about "Free your mind and your Behind will follow" but where from and where to?

I personally belive (isnt that faith?.... ooooo no ill stop)

a) Mankind Landed on the moon Multiple times, it proved to be a total waste of resources so got canned after it had achieved its political purpose of a) proving the economic/scientific/militristic might of the USA, and got the USSR wasting even more money on pointless things when they should of been feeding there people while the people of the US got fatter.

Governments Lie

c) The Media Lie

d) The Truth is out there... maybe if you look hard enough

[mindburner]

Media is the key issue, like a set of accounts it can be presented in many ways, to a degree there is no truth, there is only a view from your perspective, a great example would be a car crash with witnesses and multiple cameras at different angles, Every camera and every person will give a story of which not one is the whole "truth" of the situation.

Good post and thats a good example, but I would add one thing. There will be evidence of the crash, i.e. wrecked cars, skid marks, broken glass etc. Therefore some possible versions of the crash could be dismissed. I.e. the crash really didn't happen etc. we might call people who hold such views, crash deniers:D

Crash evidence can be checked and verified. So can Apollo evidence. This is why I think the Apollo case is so strong, because the same kind of evidence is available. The hoax believers have no such evidence. They work by chipping away and casting doubt without actually setting forth a testable alternative.

theres actually a great book which looks at how eye witnesses view the same event but report different versions of it. 'the invisible gorilla',worth a read

[MikeWilson]

... to the guy who keeps having a pop about Creationism- thats' way off topic, & probably on the wrong forum entirely IMO.

I assume that's me.

This thread is kinda long in the tooth now but the thread is about conspiracy theories and beliefs. This forum is about stargazing and astronomy and the whole overriding question behind the entire field of astronomical study is largely, "Where does all this come from?" and "How did we get here".

Existential questions that require study, debate and discussion and seem to me to be entirely within the subject of this particular thread.

Way off topic? I don't think so, unless you could explain to me why - I'd be happy to consider your view.

Clear skies,

Mike

theres actually a great book which looks at how eye witnesses view the same event but report different versions of it. 'the invisible gorilla',worth a read

Thanks for bringing this up, I had seen a video explaining some of the principals of the idea and totally forgot what it was called

For everyone else, there's a very, very interesting video on the "the invisible gorilla" website.

I suspect that sometimes these principles might apply to "averted imagination" at the eyepiece, too

[SlipperySquid]

... to the guy who keeps having a pop about Creationism- thats' way off topic, & probably on the wrong forum entirely IMO.

But at the end of the day that is just your opinion.

As to the moon landings, if we did go there...why didn't they bring back a "Clanger"? nuff said.

[mindburner]

As to the moon landings, if we did go there...why didn't they bring back a "Clanger"? nuff said.

Apollo did but the hoaxers got him put him into the washing machine and he shrunk

[sbooder]

But at the end of the day that is just your opinion.

As to the moon landings, if we did go there...why didn't they bring back a "Clanger"? nuff said.

They captured one but it fell out of the landing module...they dropped a clanger!

[sixela]

Media is the key issue, like a set of accounts it can be presented in many ways, to a degree there is no truth, there is only a view from your perspective, a great example would be a car crash with witnesses and multiple cameras at different angles, Every camera and every person will give a story of which not one is the whole "truth" of the situation.

That's why we have forensic experts, no, instead of "Media"? Even they can disagree, but there are a lot of hypotheses they can eliminate.

[yeti monster]

Don't go draggin' Clangers into this...

[starguest]

Heads up for some _fact_ in amongst all the dribble wrt the photographs and alleged fakery because of no stars.

If anyone siding with the conspiracy nutters actually knew anything about photographic technicalities they might have a different tune to whistle.

To get a properly exposed photo showing full detail of the full moon from here on earth using a telephoto lens and good ole kodachrome - 64iso sensitivity - or if you prefer, a canon 400d, you're talking about 5.6 at 1/125th second. Remember that shutter speed.

The moon is ~%$x]"*£@ bright!!!

If you're _on_ the moon taking pictures of harshly lit white spacesuit material - and note that these were intelligent guys who _knew_ how to use the hasselblad medium format film cameras - then a shutter speed higher than that (a shorter exposure time) will be the order of the day.

You go out at night here on a totally clear, excellent seeing, moonless night and point your camera at the star studded sky and shoot at 5.6 1/125th 100iso. Your frame will have SFA stars in it.

[SiriusB]

Heads up for some _fact_ in amongst all the dribble wrt the photographs and alleged fakery because of no stars.

If anyone siding with the conspiracy nutters actually knew anything about photographic technicalities they might have a different tune to whistle.

To get a properly exposed photo showing full detail of the full moon from here on earth using a telephoto lens and good ole kodachrome - 64iso sensitivity - or if you prefer, a canon 400d, you're talking about 5.6 at 1/125th second. Remember that shutter speed.

The moon is ~%$x]"*£@ bright!!!

If you're _on_ the moon taking pictures of harshly lit white spacesuit material - and note that these were intelligent guys who _knew_ how to use the hasselblad medium format film cameras - then a shutter speed higher than that (a shorter exposure time) will be the order of the day.

You go out at night here on a totally clear, excellent seeing, moonless night and point your camera at the star studded sky and shoot at 5.6 1/125th 100iso. Your frame will have SFA stars in it.

Good point,

i can't say the lack of stars was what i found especially odd about the photos.

For anyone sufficiently interested, read 1st 2 chapters(only) of "dark moon" consider carefully, & draw your own conclusions.

Credulity is hurtful, so for that matter is incredulity.

Test all things!

[MikeWilson]

...snip...To get a properly exposed photo showing full detail of the full moon from here on earth using a telephoto lens and good ole kodachrome - 64iso sensitivity - or if you prefer, a canon 400d, you're talking about 5.6 at 1/125th second. Remember that shutter speed.

...snip...

You go out at night here on a totally clear, excellent seeing, moonless night and point your camera at the star studded sky and shoot at 5.6 1/125th 100iso. Your frame will have SFA stars in it.

Thanks for mentioning that as a particularly good test for the phenomena. One for the memory banks

[mindburner]

Good point,

i can't say the lack of stars was what i found especially odd about the photos.

hi, would you have any links to these pics, as I am always on the look out for any maybe obsucre/less well know Apollo images. TA

[RogerTheDodger]

Here is an example that these nuts come up with...

...and the truth....

...just lens flare and the shape of the iris in a Hasseblad lens.

[AndyG63]

I have always wanted to get a horde of "Apollo deniers" into a room filled with "Apollo astronauts found alien evidence" believers - and lock the door.

Andy

[SlipperySquid]

Another great program to watch is the "Mythbusters" moon conspiracy episode! Really interesting and put across in an entertaining format to boot!

[Astro_Baby]

On the theme of people believing what they want did you hear the article on R4 this morning about UFOs.

Basically a guy writes to the MoD saying he was woken by a loud noise, looked out the window at 3am and finds that he can see a cigar shape. Goes back to bed and when he wakes up in the morning his larm clock is out of whack by one hour - aliens have abducted him and thats where the missing time has gone (or alien spaceship used some sort of warp drive that bent time-space).

Turns out it was the day the clocks went backward

But it well illustrates how a lot of conspiracy theorists minds work. Theres almost always a perfectly rational explanation but its lot more fun to believe you were abducted by aliens than to admit you were an idiot who forgot about the clocks going backwards.