Will a hoaxer please name one TV series or motion picture from the late 1960s that used backdrops and props that looked genuinely realistic.Not easy is it? No matter how hard they tried, film and TV producers could never achieve a true sense of realism. Even the FX from Kubrick's classic "2001" don't even come close to conveying the blatant realism evident in most of the Apollo films and stills
Hey Hawking, how do you explain how they lit up sq. miles of landscape so bright its almost blinding. It takes dozens of high powered stadium lights, positioned all around, just to light up a lousy one acre baseball field. If truly fake, they would have needed thousands of lights ALL AROUND that area to get that soil to reflect that much light. I have yet to see one light other than the one always behind the camera
LOL. Ok for a second just say you are right, why would NASA use multiple light sources? If it was a hoax that would have been the most simple things not to do...
Oh that's right, because it really did happen.
Also have you ever seen the moon at night? Notice how bright it is, imagine the brightness there, on the moon.
@DavoPhillips "If you study photography." LOL how about applying a little basic physics you bullshitter. In the footage where they are driving the rovers; the entire area is awash in very bright light. You going to tell us they got several sq miles of soil to glow that brightly with one man made light source? You'd make a lousy photographer. LOL
@nosajj12345 With regards to your "how many SQM" of light, and "you need 1 million lights!!1!1!!" comment, keep making up bull to confirm your belief. As you can see in this video, there isn't a lot of ground lit up, so can it mate.. Zzzzz
That's right Davo. I have walked through the desert at night with only the moonlight to guide me and could see just fine because the moon sun reflects a tremendous amount of sunlight from it's surface. If it can illuminate the earth at night, then it certain is going to be very bright on the lunar surface during it's daylight hours. Obviously this clown is so blinded by his delusions that he can't even understand this simple principle. There are idiots down under it would seem.
@Synthetrix Yes it would be very bright. The lums would actually over expose the film at any shutter speed of the cameras used which proves that all of the pictures of on the Moon were Not actually taken on the Moon.
@timrocket2008 At any shutter speed?...... Are you affiliated with anyone who is tied to the design or operation of the Hasselblad 500EL? Are you personally familiar enough with this camera to make such a claim?
@nosajj12345 Wow dude, you must love commenting my videos, you had some comment diarrhea going on here.... "blah blah blah"
As for all your hypothetical bullshit in your comments, I will reply with this, there are hot spots on parts of the astronaut that indicate a light source in the direction perpendicular to the light spot.
With regards to "special effects" of the day, I'm sure a campaign to con the public would have a very large budget, slightly larger than kubric
@nosajj12345 Yea my father was a professional photographer in the the early 1970's(retired now) and has three of them one of which is the exact same thing. Its a studio camera. It is the most inappropriate camera selection possible unless these pictures were taken in a studio. I strongly believe they were in fact taken in a studio.
With that camera you need a light meter for God Sakes.
@Synthetrix That's right Synthetric, the moon surface has an Albido, the question is, how much and how could you get such high light reflection off the astronauts, without washing out the background shot...
There are idiots called Victor Stapf in USA it would seem.
IMO, Mythbuster covers the lighting 'issue' rather well;
/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y
Besides, I'd like to see the high res photos first.
Also, I had a look at the website you got your videos from. Is that guy serious? His comment about a Halo around the Sun is just so ignorant, so too are ALL his comments regarding stars. :-(
@MTMind2 Greetings, I watched the Myth Buster video a while ago when it was released. If you rewatch it objectively, you will notice that they botched their "experiement" and just covered it up with a big "busted" at the end. What I am referring to is the over exposure of the background to get the same photographic look as the original. You will see in the Myth buster background, it's all washed out and white, much higher than the original photos. As for the source URL, I don't run it.
I have to disagree with you on that. However, regarding the original photos, I've found them, and just as you refer to differences, you will see that the contrast, brightness (and of course, clarity) of 'your' photos looks *nothing* like the original film. Here's the link to those Apollo 11 photos (click on the image then click on the HUGE high res version);
Hence focus on photos 5866 to 5869. It's clear from those photos that the soles of the boots are a grey rubber with a slight sheen to them, catching the light from the *bright* lunar surface behind the camera and from the surface in front of the camera! If this was produced by lights as suggested, then those lights would have multiple reflections in the metalic copper/gold foil material in shadow, but it's not!
Therefore I think if you look at those high resolution photos objectively, you can not come to the same conclusion. The fact is, this has nothing to do with being fake or real, because even if it was fake, there would have been enough lighting from the illuminated surface behind the camera to produce that effect, making additional lighting completely unnecessary!
If you're still not convinced, put your image of the reflected light of the boot on screen(1:31) and compare it to his boot in the original image (5866);
@MTMind2 Did you look at the print quality version? Very large image and there is a clear line or hot spot on the boot. Sure it's not as bright as this video but it is there.. Thanks for the URL, the images are interesting.
My pleasure, the print quality versions are the ones I'm referring too (hence the URL). With the material of the boot, and the fact that you have a sheet of grey/white luminous moon behind the camera, you would expect to see that 'hotspot'.
Have a look at photo 5867, the left boot reflects light from behind the camera, the back of the angled right boot reflects moon light from left/front of camera. There's also a noticeable lack of 'hotspots' in the foil on the craft.
Also, there's a lack of shadows. If those photos used a light as suggested, and a light strong enough to produce a so-called hotspot, then I would expect to see forward projected shadows somewhere in those photos, and yet there appears to be none (look at the area he holds onto the craft in 5866). Sorry, but as I mentioned before, even if those photos were fake, I don't see any evidence of a light being used, or even the need for one given the reflected light.
BTW, thanks to the joys of the internet (i.e. rapidshare), I downloaded and watched that episode of Mythbusters again, and found they hadn't botched the experiment as claimed, far from it. But, that's a side issue, hence I'll only go into details if asked (but do watch it again if you can).
Not to mention it would be incredibly stupid for the alleged producers of the alleged hoax to add a fill light when trying to fake a film of a body known to have only one primary light source.
@MTMind2 Thanks for the comments. Here's what really stands out, the Myth Busters photos background look nothing like the original, with regards to the background luminosity.
@Eriksz - Sorry about the multiple posts. Problem with youtube reporting an error when I tried to post, hence I kept retrying over and over again. :-)
But I stand by what I said, the Faked Apollo Landings link you got your videos from is so uninformed it's ridiculous.
I've looked at the Mythe buster evidence and it is flawed and is no proof at all."
No, you mean that you looked at the evidence and you can't accept it because that means you'd have to throw out your conspiracy beliefs and then what would you do?
Yea! Good thing they spent all that money to fake Apolo 13!! No there was no emergency it was all part of the lie!! You conspiracy nuts are just that. Man was on the moon. Get over it.
00:27 Aldrin is lit from below (ie from the surface). 00:30 even more so; the parts of the backpack angled away from the surface is more in shadow.00:40 more of the same. 00:56 boot is lit from below and from all sides;the little bright bit at exactly 90 degrees to the camera (as one would expects from a curved object). So, basically, this is proof that that the lunar surface reflects lots of light.
Shit looks like its only lighting up a cirtain area on the ground. And that the direction of the shadows moves in a circle. That's a LOT of concentrated lighting. Jesus. Are you people blind?
Don't sweat it. Most of these vids are put up by people that just hate the U.S. government so much they will believe anything that supports that hate. Mostly Generation Y punks that were not around for the actual event and think that YouTube and Google will give them a better education than college. Many of them are the same fools who think that 9/11 was an inside job. Those who lived the experience know that the Apollo program was one mankind's greatest achievements.
Hoax claims examined * 5.1 Missing data * 5.2 Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR * 5.3 Photographs and films * 5.4 Ionizing radiation and heat * 5.5 Transmissions * 5.6 Mechanical issues * 5.7 Moon rocks * 5.8 Deaths of key Apollo personnel * 5.9 Gravity on the Moon
At website Apollo Image Gallery Apollo 11 Photo AS11-40-5873 Aldrin beside solar wind experiment; as you zoom in to Aldrens visor you can see the shadows reflected from what he is staring at, that are totally wrong when their is only one sun light source. Meanwhile Aldrens shadow and all the rest outside of his visor are completely divergent to what is reflected in his visor, regardless of its curvature etc.
The bright spot on the heel of the boot is caused by Armstrong's spacesuit, from where he is taking the picture. You can actually see that Armstrong is standing in the sun in a bit of the B&W video. A white spacesuit in direct sunlight on the moon is very bright. Again, no real mystery.
The sun provides 13,000 footcandles at the surface of the moon. The moon is not very reflective at an albedo of .10, but that means that the surface of the moon is reflecting 1,300 footcandles into the shadow area of the LM. That is a lot of light. Far more than enough to take nice photographs. The B&W shot at the beginning is from a very early tube-type video camera that did not have good sensitivity to low light and high-contrast scenes. There is no real mystery here.
If that spacewalk image were to be exposed to show the stars, the image of earth would be blown out to complete white, likely bleed into space a bit or flare. Accd to the Black Cat exposure guide, starfields are 19 stops below a sunny day, and a stop doubles the amount of light, so we're talking around 1-4 hours a shot for apollo mission, taking into account a 5x film reciprocity failure.
Just for more data, you'll find I was pretty conservative and the correction would start to be MUCH larger for films of the day. (, a la home.earthlink(put DOT here)net/~kitathome/LunarLight/moonlight_gallery/technique/reciprocity.htm Even accounting for no atmosphere, you're talking hours for a single shot. By that point it's not a star but a streak anyway unless they had a tracking tripod!! (Best info I can find implies the apollo hassies were fixed at f/5.6)
You allready have the answer right infront of you, greenmagoos. The moon doesn't have any atmosphere, wich means nothing blocks out some of all the light the astronauts are pretecting their own eyes from. The light from our nearest star -the sun. I'm not sure but didn't they have grey filters on their lenses to capture anything at all?
"Even with the effects of heiligenschein there couldn't be that level of reflective light. Close ups show hot spots of lighting on the clothing, boots etc..." You say that but you have no reason to say it or any proof, you just think that addressing a valid description of what's going on and saying it's invalid counts as addressing what's wrong. the bible is made up, the moon landing was not.
There are many inconsistencies with the moon landing, this is just part of the evidence. Looking at this at face value you can see that is what appears to be an excessive amount of light in those still photos. The technology of the Camera, Hasslblat (spelling?) wouldn't allow for such clear images without additional lighting.
I use a camera very similar to the Hasselblad, and have used them in studio settings. The technology of those cameras and the film of the day was far better than you think. The high contrast and levels of detail are very much in line with what one would expect to achieve with the surface of the moon and sky features at the landing. My experience photographing shows that if a piece of foamcore can fill in shadows, the surface of the moon can do it pretty damn well too.
So tell me thinkfaster with a little bit of NASASCAM mission planning, could they have changed the exposure settings on the Hasselblad, set it down of a tripod stand and captured the 'STARS' those Apollo moonset Astro-nots never bothered mentioning?
They should have had an amazing view of the 'STARS'from the Moon without a atmosphere to scatter light like we have on Earth here!
Why, oh why green, do you go on about Stars? First you claim Kubrick directed it then you wonder why no stars? Take a long step back and look at yourself. So foolish.
Understanding yet? If Stanley did it, then it look just like 2001: A Space Odyssey. And THAT would look fake.
Why oh why are you so dumb to not realise all you have to do is make a simple exposure change to a Hassy camera to take photos of stars above overexposed lunar scenes.
And you seriously believe those Astro-nots were too busy taking photos of rocks and nobody at NASA ( A-S-T-R-O-N-O-M-E-R-S) might have been the slightest bit interested in those kinds of photos.
Get some common sense into your head you half wit!
Green, yes, you are correct! They could have re-set the Hasselblads, pointed at the sky and shot some star pics. Point is, there was no need to take 70mm pics of stars!! As I noted, telescopes here on Earth do a better job. What kinda zoom could they get with the Hassy's? What would be the science?
There is no telescopes on the lunar surface. Not then and not now.
There is no need to repeat taking pictures of Astro-nots saluting flags.
But they did it. Again and again and again.
And no NASA Astronomer ever asked " hey boys that must be some view of the stars you get from the lunar surface without the atmosphere we have that distorts. Why doesn't somebody change the exposure times next mission"!
waow u go o all the way to the moon @allegedly@ and u dont burn at least 300 dozens packs of film? sure we can do it again they say ..oh wait they never did cos NO BODY WAS ON THE DAMN MOON!
Besides, green, they didn't go there to look at stars! BTW, Earth-based telescopes get very good pictures. The best when they're located at high altitude. 10,000 above sea level makes a big difference.
Thanks for the response. However would the back fill of light be so High? The hot spot on the boot heel implies that there's a flash going off, or at least a light source to the right of the camera. It's hard to account for that light hot spot on the boot.
Why do you Earth shines to the Moon? Why do you think Venus and Mars shine to Earth? The Moon isn't bright for any other reason, except that it is close. Here are albedos of some surfaces and stellar objects. The higher percentage, the more it reflects light. See how badly Moon actually reflects light! Moon 7% Conifer forest 8% Worn asphalt 12% Mars 15% Green grass 25% Earth 30% Venus 65% Fresh snow 80-90% Saturn's moon Enceladus 99%
brilliant deduction.now prove that we evolved from apes.you no doubt have proof of the missing link.and pherhaps know the whereabouts of the holy grail.I bet you also have evidence that gw bush ordered planes to crash into the WTC.we all know he sent his clone to personally do it.PARANOID FREAK!
The "secondary light source" for the "hot spots" is the pure white suit of the astronaut standing in direct sunlight when he's taking the picture.
nesokretep 1 year ago 3
Will a hoaxer please name one TV series or motion picture from the late 1960s that used backdrops and props that looked genuinely realistic.Not easy is it? No matter how hard they tried, film and TV producers could never achieve a true sense of realism. Even the FX from Kubrick's classic "2001" don't even come close to conveying the blatant realism evident in most of the Apollo films and stills
nosajj12345 1 year ago
Hey Hawking, how do you explain how they lit up sq. miles of landscape so bright its almost blinding. It takes dozens of high powered stadium lights, positioned all around, just to light up a lousy one acre baseball field. If truly fake, they would have needed thousands of lights ALL AROUND that area to get that soil to reflect that much light. I have yet to see one light other than the one always behind the camera
nosajj12345 1 year ago
Lol another uneducated person.
The sunlight reflects off the soil of the moon and onto Buzz. Common sense, do some research next time before you embarrass yourself even more lol
DavoPhillips 2 years ago
How about you educate yourself, the Albido of the moon is NO WAY NEAR able to backlight these images.
Do some research next time before you embarrass yourself even more ROFL
Eriksz 2 years ago
LOL. Ok for a second just say you are right, why would NASA use multiple light sources? If it was a hoax that would have been the most simple things not to do...
Oh that's right, because it really did happen.
Also have you ever seen the moon at night? Notice how bright it is, imagine the brightness there, on the moon.
DavoPhillips 2 years ago
They would use multiple lights because it was a BIG PR JOB on the american public, of course you need lights for that mate.
Eriksz 2 years ago
Then why weren't there multiple shadows?
DavoPhillips 2 years ago
If you study photography, two lights sources can negate each other shadows depending on where they are and where the target casting the shadow is.
What's used in these shots are: 1 Pretend sun and 1 or more fill lights.
Eriksz 2 years ago
But why would they light up Aldrin in the shadow?
If it was fake it'd seem obvious to leave the figures in the shadow dark.
DavoPhillips 2 years ago
@DavoPhillips Because it was a PR shot.
Eriksz 1 year ago
@DavoPhillips "If you study photography." LOL how about applying a little basic physics you bullshitter. In the footage where they are driving the rovers; the entire area is awash in very bright light. You going to tell us they got several sq miles of soil to glow that brightly with one man made light source? You'd make a lousy photographer. LOL
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 With regards to your "how many SQM" of light, and "you need 1 million lights!!1!1!!" comment, keep making up bull to confirm your belief. As you can see in this video, there isn't a lot of ground lit up, so can it mate.. Zzzzz
Eriksz 1 year ago
That's right Davo. I have walked through the desert at night with only the moonlight to guide me and could see just fine because the moon sun reflects a tremendous amount of sunlight from it's surface. If it can illuminate the earth at night, then it certain is going to be very bright on the lunar surface during it's daylight hours. Obviously this clown is so blinded by his delusions that he can't even understand this simple principle. There are idiots down under it would seem.
Synthetrix 2 years ago
@Synthetrix Yes it would be very bright. The lums would actually over expose the film at any shutter speed of the cameras used which proves that all of the pictures of on the Moon were Not actually taken on the Moon.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 At any shutter speed?...... Are you affiliated with anyone who is tied to the design or operation of the Hasselblad 500EL? Are you personally familiar enough with this camera to make such a claim?
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 Wow dude, you must love commenting my videos, you had some comment diarrhea going on here.... "blah blah blah"
As for all your hypothetical bullshit in your comments, I will reply with this, there are hot spots on parts of the astronaut that indicate a light source in the direction perpendicular to the light spot.
With regards to "special effects" of the day, I'm sure a campaign to con the public would have a very large budget, slightly larger than kubric
Eriksz 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 Yea my father was a professional photographer in the the early 1970's(retired now) and has three of them one of which is the exact same thing. Its a studio camera. It is the most inappropriate camera selection possible unless these pictures were taken in a studio. I strongly believe they were in fact taken in a studio.
With that camera you need a light meter for God Sakes.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@Synthetrix That's right Synthetric, the moon surface has an Albido, the question is, how much and how could you get such high light reflection off the astronauts, without washing out the background shot...
There are idiots called Victor Stapf in USA it would seem.
Eriksz 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
Comment removed
MTMind2 1 year ago
IMO, Mythbuster covers the lighting 'issue' rather well;
/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y
Besides, I'd like to see the high res photos first.
Also, I had a look at the website you got your videos from. Is that guy serious? His comment about a Halo around the Sun is just so ignorant, so too are ALL his comments regarding stars. :-(
MTMind2 1 year ago
@MTMind2 Greetings, I watched the Myth Buster video a while ago when it was released. If you rewatch it objectively, you will notice that they botched their "experiement" and just covered it up with a big "busted" at the end. What I am referring to is the over exposure of the background to get the same photographic look as the original. You will see in the Myth buster background, it's all washed out and white, much higher than the original photos. As for the source URL, I don't run it.
Eriksz 1 year ago
I have to disagree with you on that. However, regarding the original photos, I've found them, and just as you refer to differences, you will see that the contrast, brightness (and of course, clarity) of 'your' photos looks *nothing* like the original film. Here's the link to those Apollo 11 photos (click on the image then click on the HUGE high res version);
(Delete any brackets and spaces)
lpi(.)usra(.)edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?40
MTMind2 1 year ago
Hence focus on photos 5866 to 5869. It's clear from those photos that the soles of the boots are a grey rubber with a slight sheen to them, catching the light from the *bright* lunar surface behind the camera and from the surface in front of the camera! If this was produced by lights as suggested, then those lights would have multiple reflections in the metalic copper/gold foil material in shadow, but it's not!
MTMind2 1 year ago
Therefore I think if you look at those high resolution photos objectively, you can not come to the same conclusion. The fact is, this has nothing to do with being fake or real, because even if it was fake, there would have been enough lighting from the illuminated surface behind the camera to produce that effect, making additional lighting completely unnecessary!
MTMind2 1 year ago
If you're still not convinced, put your image of the reflected light of the boot on screen(1:31) and compare it to his boot in the original image (5866);
lpi(.)usra(.)edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5866.jpg
Surely you can agree that what looks like a very bright reflection in your video is actually just a subtle reflection when seen in the original?
MTMind2 1 year ago
@MTMind2 Did you look at the print quality version? Very large image and there is a clear line or hot spot on the boot. Sure it's not as bright as this video but it is there.. Thanks for the URL, the images are interesting.
Eriksz 1 year ago
My pleasure, the print quality versions are the ones I'm referring too (hence the URL). With the material of the boot, and the fact that you have a sheet of grey/white luminous moon behind the camera, you would expect to see that 'hotspot'.
Have a look at photo 5867, the left boot reflects light from behind the camera, the back of the angled right boot reflects moon light from left/front of camera. There's also a noticeable lack of 'hotspots' in the foil on the craft.
MTMind2 1 year ago
Also, there's a lack of shadows. If those photos used a light as suggested, and a light strong enough to produce a so-called hotspot, then I would expect to see forward projected shadows somewhere in those photos, and yet there appears to be none (look at the area he holds onto the craft in 5866). Sorry, but as I mentioned before, even if those photos were fake, I don't see any evidence of a light being used, or even the need for one given the reflected light.
MTMind2 1 year ago
BTW, thanks to the joys of the internet (i.e. rapidshare), I downloaded and watched that episode of Mythbusters again, and found they hadn't botched the experiment as claimed, far from it. But, that's a side issue, hence I'll only go into details if asked (but do watch it again if you can).
MTMind2 1 year ago
@MTMind2
Not to mention it would be incredibly stupid for the alleged producers of the alleged hoax to add a fill light when trying to fake a film of a body known to have only one primary light source.
loperspest 1 year ago
@MTMind2 Thanks for the comments. Here's what really stands out, the Myth Busters photos background look nothing like the original, with regards to the background luminosity.
Eriksz 1 year ago
@Eriksz - Sorry about the multiple posts. Problem with youtube reporting an error when I tried to post, hence I kept retrying over and over again. :-)
But I stand by what I said, the Faked Apollo Landings link you got your videos from is so uninformed it's ridiculous.
MTMind2 1 year ago
According to your profile page you live in a whole world of conspiracy, don't you?
You see a conspiracy EVERYWHERE.
people like you need help.
zmart4ever 3 years ago 2
People like you are ignorant blind fools, who suffer cognitive dissonance. Now please fuck off.
Eriksz 3 years ago
pretty big words.
Are you sure you know what they mean?
You are one of those conspiracy people, aren't you?
hey, i tell you what. I do believe there are some conspiracies out there. There are definetly things happening in the world that give me pause.
The moon landing just isn't one of them.
Now, you should be able to handle my opinion like a grown up but i see that you can't.
Maybe that conspiracy stuff is the least of your issues.
zmart4ever 3 years ago 2
When your opinion is based around insulting me, you can get fucked.
Can your little mind get around that concept??
Eriksz 3 years ago
here's another easy one. The astronaut is lit up even though he is in a dark shadow because of the reflective nature of the Moon dust.
The sun's light is bouncing off the moon dust unto the Astronaut. They proofed this in an experiment already.
zmart4ever 3 years ago 4
I've looked at the Mythe buster evidence and it is flawed and is no proof at all.
Eriksz 3 years ago
I've looked at the Mythe buster evidence and it is flawed and is no proof at all."
No, you mean that you looked at the evidence and you can't accept it because that means you'd have to throw out your conspiracy beliefs and then what would you do?
zmart4ever 3 years ago
You know what dude, suck my dick.
Eriksz 3 years ago
No thanks. I'd rather not.
Do i not have a right to comment on your video? Did i use obscene language with you?
Was i mean?
All i said was that the Astronaut is lit up from the sun's light bouncing off the dust. And this earns me such a nasty remark?
Seems to me like you can't deal with reality and you don't like it when it's shown that you're a Fool.
I am sure you run around believing in secret societies and cropcircles and all that shit, too...don't you?
Lololol....get a grip.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
Comment removed
DavoPhillips 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yea! Good thing they spent all that money to fake Apolo 13!! No there was no emergency it was all part of the lie!! You conspiracy nuts are just that. Man was on the moon. Get over it.
dds504 3 years ago
this kinda reminds me of the suicidal munchkin conspiracy in wizard of OZ,
Arvak777 3 years ago 3
00:27 Aldrin is lit from below (ie from the surface). 00:30 even more so; the parts of the backpack angled away from the surface is more in shadow.00:40 more of the same. 00:56 boot is lit from below and from all sides;the little bright bit at exactly 90 degrees to the camera (as one would expects from a curved object). So, basically, this is proof that that the lunar surface reflects lots of light.
davewatcher 3 years ago
Dude, there no way the lunar surface has that much luminosity, and the light source is coming from the WRONG PLACE.
Thanks for the second by second commentary.
Eriksz 3 years ago
So where is the light coming from, then?
davewatcher 3 years ago
Shit looks like its only lighting up a cirtain area on the ground. And that the direction of the shadows moves in a circle. That's a LOT of concentrated lighting. Jesus. Are you people blind?
MasonTheG 3 years ago
A failing of the vidicon tube tv system.
davewatcher 3 years ago
When was the last time you were on the surface of the moon to verify that?
shanejensen 3 years ago
Just last week. ;)
Eriksz 3 years ago
Don't sweat it. Most of these vids are put up by people that just hate the U.S. government so much they will believe anything that supports that hate. Mostly Generation Y punks that were not around for the actual event and think that YouTube and Google will give them a better education than college. Many of them are the same fools who think that 9/11 was an inside job. Those who lived the experience know that the Apollo program was one mankind's greatest achievements.
Synthetrix 3 years ago 2
Ye whatever nub cakes.
Eriksz 3 years ago
Hoax claims examined * 5.1 Missing data * 5.2 Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR * 5.3 Photographs and films * 5.4 Ionizing radiation and heat * 5.5 Transmissions * 5.6 Mechanical issues * 5.7 Moon rocks * 5.8 Deaths of key Apollo personnel * 5.9 Gravity on the Moon
* 5.10 Involvement of the Soviet Union
EGMAG 4 years ago
At website Apollo Image Gallery Apollo 11 Photo AS11-40-5873 Aldrin beside solar wind experiment; as you zoom in to Aldrens visor you can see the shadows reflected from what he is staring at, that are totally wrong when their is only one sun light source. Meanwhile Aldrens shadow and all the rest outside of his visor are completely divergent to what is reflected in his visor, regardless of its curvature etc.
EGMAG 4 years ago
I'll have to check it out, thanks.
Eriksz 4 years ago
One more thing, kiddo! It's 'Apollo', not 'appollo'.
767Captain 4 years ago
767Captain One more thing, kiddo! It's 'Apollo', not 'appollo'.<< No it's a polio; because it is a crippled damn mission.
EGMAG 4 years ago
The bright spot on the heel of the boot is caused by Armstrong's spacesuit, from where he is taking the picture. You can actually see that Armstrong is standing in the sun in a bit of the B&W video. A white spacesuit in direct sunlight on the moon is very bright. Again, no real mystery.
wdmundt 4 years ago
The sun provides 13,000 footcandles at the surface of the moon. The moon is not very reflective at an albedo of .10, but that means that the surface of the moon is reflecting 1,300 footcandles into the shadow area of the LM. That is a lot of light. Far more than enough to take nice photographs. The B&W shot at the beginning is from a very early tube-type video camera that did not have good sensitivity to low light and high-contrast scenes. There is no real mystery here.
wdmundt 4 years ago
yeah it seems stars are hard to capture with something in the foreground.
Eriksz 4 years ago
No atmosphere would mean a clearer shot of the stars? Maybe not, let's look at a Nasa Space walk shot on the Hubble.
astronomy dot com/asy/objects/images/asy-20040119-03987-500.jpg
No stars there either. Hmm need more research on the stars option.
Eriksz 4 years ago
If that spacewalk image were to be exposed to show the stars, the image of earth would be blown out to complete white, likely bleed into space a bit or flare. Accd to the Black Cat exposure guide, starfields are 19 stops below a sunny day, and a stop doubles the amount of light, so we're talking around 1-4 hours a shot for apollo mission, taking into account a 5x film reciprocity failure.
thinkfaster 4 years ago
Just for more data, you'll find I was pretty conservative and the correction would start to be MUCH larger for films of the day. (, a la home.earthlink(put DOT here)net/~kitathome/LunarLight/moonlight_gallery/technique/reciprocity.htm Even accounting for no atmosphere, you're talking hours for a single shot. By that point it's not a star but a streak anyway unless they had a tracking tripod!! (Best info I can find implies the apollo hassies were fixed at f/5.6)
thinkfaster 4 years ago
You allready have the answer right infront of you, greenmagoos. The moon doesn't have any atmosphere, wich means nothing blocks out some of all the light the astronauts are pretecting their own eyes from. The light from our nearest star -the sun. I'm not sure but didn't they have grey filters on their lenses to capture anything at all?
Velodynamic 4 years ago
"Even with the effects of heiligenschein there couldn't be that level of reflective light. Close ups show hot spots of lighting on the clothing, boots etc..." You say that but you have no reason to say it or any proof, you just think that addressing a valid description of what's going on and saying it's invalid counts as addressing what's wrong. the bible is made up, the moon landing was not.
thinkfaster 4 years ago
There are many inconsistencies with the moon landing, this is just part of the evidence. Looking at this at face value you can see that is what appears to be an excessive amount of light in those still photos. The technology of the Camera, Hasslblat (spelling?) wouldn't allow for such clear images without additional lighting.
The bible was made up and so is the moon landing.
Eriksz 4 years ago
I use a camera very similar to the Hasselblad, and have used them in studio settings. The technology of those cameras and the film of the day was far better than you think. The high contrast and levels of detail are very much in line with what one would expect to achieve with the surface of the moon and sky features at the landing. My experience photographing shows that if a piece of foamcore can fill in shadows, the surface of the moon can do it pretty damn well too.
thinkfaster 4 years ago
So tell me thinkfaster with a little bit of NASASCAM mission planning, could they have changed the exposure settings on the Hasselblad, set it down of a tripod stand and captured the 'STARS' those Apollo moonset Astro-nots never bothered mentioning?
They should have had an amazing view of the 'STARS'from the Moon without a atmosphere to scatter light like we have on Earth here!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
Why, oh why green, do you go on about Stars? First you claim Kubrick directed it then you wonder why no stars? Take a long step back and look at yourself. So foolish.
Understanding yet? If Stanley did it, then it look just like 2001: A Space Odyssey. And THAT would look fake.
767Captain 4 years ago
Why oh why are you so dumb to not realise all you have to do is make a simple exposure change to a Hassy camera to take photos of stars above overexposed lunar scenes.
And you seriously believe those Astro-nots were too busy taking photos of rocks and nobody at NASA ( A-S-T-R-O-N-O-M-E-R-S) might have been the slightest bit interested in those kinds of photos.
Get some common sense into your head you half wit!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
'Why oh why are you so dumb to not realise...'
Green, yes, you are correct! They could have re-set the Hasselblads, pointed at the sky and shot some star pics. Point is, there was no need to take 70mm pics of stars!! As I noted, telescopes here on Earth do a better job. What kinda zoom could they get with the Hassy's? What would be the science?
767Captain 4 years ago
There is no telescopes on the lunar surface. Not then and not now.
There is no need to repeat taking pictures of Astro-nots saluting flags.
But they did it. Again and again and again.
And no NASA Astronomer ever asked " hey boys that must be some view of the stars you get from the lunar surface without the atmosphere we have that distorts. Why doesn't somebody change the exposure times next mission"!
greenmagoos 4 years ago
waow u go o all the way to the moon @allegedly@ and u dont burn at least 300 dozens packs of film? sure we can do it again they say ..oh wait they never did cos NO BODY WAS ON THE DAMN MOON!
2young2die2drunk2liV 4 years ago
Besides, green, they didn't go there to look at stars! BTW, Earth-based telescopes get very good pictures. The best when they're located at high altitude. 10,000 above sea level makes a big difference.
767Captain 4 years ago
Thanks for the response. However would the back fill of light be so High? The hot spot on the boot heel implies that there's a flash going off, or at least a light source to the right of the camera. It's hard to account for that light hot spot on the boot.
Eriksz 4 years ago
Why do you think the moon is shining back at us on a clear night sky?
Velodynamic 4 years ago
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
STFU YOU NUT JOB LOSER.
eddstack 4 years ago
Oh yes yes.. you've got me beat now. Go back to reading the bible dumbass.
Eriksz 4 years ago
GLEEEEP!
eddstack 4 years ago
Oh your intelligence is astounding, keep it up.
Eriksz 4 years ago
brilliant deduction.now prove that we evolved from apes.you no doubt have proof of the missing link.and pherhaps know the whereabouts of the holy grail.I bet you also have evidence that gw bush ordered planes to crash into the WTC.we all know he sent his clone to personally do it.PARANOID FREAK!
eddstack 4 years ago
Wow , you're such a dumbass. Thanks for the constructive explanation of the backlighting.
Eriksz 4 years ago