Moon Dehoax: Identical backgrounds, shadows & dust

[pkrska]

There is a video of the moon craft taking off from the surface. The camera follows it up off the moon surface. In those days there were no such thing as an automatic guidance, gps, or anything else that would allow the camera to follow the craft off the surface. So does that mean they left a person behind to man the camera? How was that possible? Only way is that it was done in a studio type setting with a movie producer at hand. Stanley Kubrick comes to mind.

[Daltonist]

@pkrska you can't be serious. Yes, there was automatic guidance at the time. i don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Also, how would GPS help moving the camera?

[kaderoder]

Black. Theres your proof, black on the photos. Energetic particals (radiation) would leave white dots and streaks on the film emulsion. Black shadows and black sky should have these marks all over them. The Hasselblad cameras with kodaks 70mm standard film was not protected by anything. There is no reasonable explanation for this. If you have one, please give details.

[timrocket2008]

NASA claims they did take pictures of the stars and they have been proven by astronomers to have been taken on moon. How? I don't know. The stars are so far away that they should be exactly the same on the moon. Just another NASA USA government lie.

[eventcone]

@timrocket2008 "The stars are so far away that they should be exactly the same on the moon. Just another NASA USA government lie."

Nothing like making your mind up before you even consider the evidence, huh?

Apollo 16 took a long exposure photo in UV light from the lunar surface showing the Earth with background stars on 21 April 1972. The relative postions of Earth and stars were exactly as they should have been on that date, AS SEEN FROM THE MOON.

[timrocket2008]

@eventcone Yea "OK" Nice try buddy.

[timrocket2008]

I know for a fact that the Moon Landings were Faked but I never understood this argument about the stars and Non Parallel shadows. Frankly, I think it was made up to help discredit the actual proof that it was all Faked.

[Daltonist]

@timrocket2008 if you know it for a fact then why don't you prove it?

[timrocket2008]

@Daltonist Because it has been proven already more times than you breath in a year.

[Daltonist]

@timrocket2008 no it hasn't been proven. shouting random arguments, sticking fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalala nasa faked it lalalalalal is not scientific evidence

[timrocket2008]

@Daltonist It seems when it comes to the facts that prove it was all just typical propaganda, you kinda do the finger in the ear sticking. People have written books and had them published so that they are available to you in your local book store but have you read any of them? No you have not only because they do not support your view so then you lack understanding and knowledge of the evidence and proof all of which can be researched and verified.

[Daltonist]

@timrocket2008 books were written by people who are not real scientists, and have no practical experience with the space program. Ask any actual scientist (physics professors, engineers, etc) who know what they're talking about and they will call hoaxer arguments bullshit because that's what they are. all hoaxers do is shout crap they can't support with evidence.

[datzfast]

@Daltonism that a load of tripe, you cant get a physicist on television to say that and you havent done it either. NASA hired two TV idiots on an entertainment show and all their work was debunked as faker crap.i cant think of the dumb show or the dumb actors. Isnt that total NASA bullshit?

[timrocket2008]

@Daltonist Oh it has been proven over and over again. People like you act like it never has been and ignore the evidence or make excuses for them.

[pkrska]

@Daltonist The proof is in the fact that we did not go back. Infact the spacecraft of today are superior to those in the 60's and we can't get through the Van Allen belt with todays technology. The space shuttle usually flies at 250 miles above Earth. When they went recently to 300 miles, the astoNuts complained that they were seeing lights when their eyes were closed. Nasa told them that it is radiation bouncing around and told them to decend lower due to the danger. Now that's proof.

[damtachoa]

Have u ever seen a sun shine from left to right? Of course, no. The image that you show "his shadow" shows that light shining from left to right, not from the top to the ground. That's a first big mistake. The reason the sun must shine from top to the ground because the luna is round circle like the earth. The second big mistake is the light of the sun is completely different from light of the image. The light of the sun is a natural light, but the light in the image is not natural at all.

[RazerCommander]

One thing you need to remember is that light you are used to seeing is the remaining gamma rays that succeeded to make it threw our atmosphere. Reasons the light in this photo seems unnatural is because the lack of atmosphere. less atmosphere means less gamma is absorbed/reflected. In conclusion it will obviously look like unnatural light to your eyes because you are used to light that has been threw a thicker atmosphere.

[RazerCommander]

sorry i missread your message, i thaught you where stating that the light looked odd.

[xq914]

im a Hoaxer as you claim the undesputed proof that we landed on the moon would have to be the stars it would be pretty much impossable to get every star perfect in a fake studio landing as astronomers could tell this to be fake

isnt it strange tis key proof is missing from all vids and pics including the flying to the moon pics. we have sent many unmaned probes to the moon and there pics contain clear stars due to no atmosphere on the moon strange huh?

[Daltonist]

find another argument, "no stars" argument has been debunked already. use google

[TheJomogogo]

@xq914

uhmmm....OH HOLY SHIT THERE'S NO STARS IT MUST BE FAKE...LOLOL fucking idiot

[hddragracer1]

@xq914 "Air to slow their decent?" Wait a second, I thought GRAVITY made "their decent" happen QUICKER? On the "moon" they would take LONGER to "descend!"

[hunchbacked]

In the case of the photo referenced AS15-82-11057 vyou quote, you can't compare the lunar hills with high mountains, because they have nothing in common; they are just relatively small hills.

The disparition of the Lem is not an error, it's intentional, and I'll prove it.

But this photo contains a hidden proof extremely shrewd you don't know, and this proof is definitive.

I'll describe it in my next video.

[Daltonist]

let me know when your video is available on youtube

[hunchbacked]

I'll let you know.

This proof is so shrewd that it took me some time to guess it.

The guys who hid this proof were true geniuses.

For the moment I have to reorder all I have found, and next I'll build a web page I'll use to make my video.

The evidence I found is absolutely astounding, nobody seems to have cracked it still.

I wonder how much evidence still remains to be found in the Apollo Journal.

[hddragracer1]

The "stars" were deleted because they are "classified!"  ")

[Daltonist]

@hunchbacked still waiting

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

Oh I was not knowing that you were still expecting an answer.

For your knowledge, I don't agree with all the claims of the moon hoaxers, I have rejected some.

It is not true that the shadows are all parallel effectively, even on a flat ground (and an uneven ground can make them still less parallel).

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

It is especially true when the photographer's shadow can be seen on the photo; the shadows on the right of the photographer's shadow bend on the left, and the farther they are from the photographer's shadow, and the more they bend, and conversely, the shadows on the left on the photographer's shadow bend on the right, and the farther they are from the photographer's shadow, and the more they bend.

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

I have also rejected the problem of the disappearance of the lem on AS15-82-11082 because of parallax, and the fact that the LM seems to move on panoramas made with different Apollo photos can be explained by the angle of view under which it is taken.

Now, don't think that it removed my doubts, far from it, because I have found new incoherencies, which have no rational explanation, and there is no way you can explain them with real photos.

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

May be the fact that the LM seems to appear at different places on the photos can be explained by the change of angle of view, but, if you observe the relative position of the legs on the photos, and taking into account this change of angle of view, you come to the conclusion that the LM has been turned of a half turn; I have made a video to show it.

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

In particular you can't take a photo, the way the astronauts were taking them, i.e. with the camera attached to their breast, and have your shadow seen in profile when it appears on the middle of the photo; this is a true incoherency.

The orientation of the photographer's shadow also obeys rules which are changed in the Apollo photos.

And there are problems with reflections in the visor which can't be explained by the rotundity of the visor.

[hunchbacked]

@Daltonist

Concerning the flight of the LM, it makes no sense; it had really flown like what we see on some videos, then it would have crashed.

And the electronic interfaces are full of (intentional errors) and the onboard computer makes no sense.

[casio124478]

I've just paused this vdieo as 0.08 and the images are practicallt identical- they have the exaxt countours if you follow it.

They do not appear IDENTICAL because they are taken from different distances/angles, but no two areas could possibly provide such similarities by natural means!

I'm sorry, just gone over it again, the countours are almost exact- that kind of thing cannot be duplicated by nature and then have the coincidence of NASA finding these two identical spots.

[Daltonist]

the backgrounds are the same object, just viewed from a different angle. IT'S THE SAME AREA.

put your finger 10 cm (4 inches) in front of your nose and observe a distant object. close your left eye, then open it and close your right eye. it appears as if your finger is moving but the distant object is static.

[casio124478]

Well if you agree it is the same background then I fail to see how this debunks anything.

Using my eyes as an example is fruitless because they are so close together.

This is supposed to be miles apart, hence you would still see the background but it wouldn't appear to be from the same angle- as are the two photographs.

Don't get abusive (as most people do when someone disagrees with them), I'm generally interested in this.

[Daltonist]

the whole point of my demonstration is to show that the angles are different. i agree it's the same background. one image is taken with the LM in foreground and the other is taken just to the left of LM. the arrows are pointing to the same hills on the image that are now seen from a slightly different angle.

[kolaxanthe]

The background is large and distant.

Find a large hill, no more than 1km away, and take a picture of it with some object in the foreground (say 10m away). Then take 10 steps to the side (or until the foreground object will no longer be in the field of view of the camera) and take another picture of the same hill.

There will be very little or no difference in the shape of the hill, and the foreground has changed.

These images were taken only 30mins apart, so they hadn't travelled far.

[jcgmed]

Exactly, no atmosphere, 3d to 2d light behavior and the difference between similar and equal backgrounds.

Pretty good job, Daltonist, congrats.