The problem of "dynamic range" which leads to overexposed/underexposed photographs has been addressed in the digital age with the use of software and exposure "bracketing".

Basically you take the same shot six or seven times - each at a different f/stop. That way you record all the detail in the shadows and highlights spread across the series.

You then stack the series, one image on top of the other, in software such as Adobe Photoshop and blend them into a single file which is perfectly exposed.

This is called "High Dynamic Range" photography. Personally I think it looks too fantastic. But this is purely an aesthetic judgement.

A better example of HDR stacking using only three source images to provide a single photograph in which every pixel is perfectly exposed.



My point here is that this technology was not available during the Apollo program.

You could approximate the process in the darkroom using multiple exposures. But it wasn't easy.

That is my point you say man went to the moon FACT? But were you there yourself and see it with your own two eyes to conclude that it is FACT to yourself?
You are saying it is FACT because you have been told it is FACT. Now that is a FACT

The weight of evidence is only a factor when it is indisputable.

How much of it can you HONESTLY say you'd be willing to bet your life on?

Given what I've said about tonal range - what is VERY WRONG with this photograph?

I blame much of what we see in this thread on the school system. From the outset kids are taught obedience to authority with individuality discouraged at each and every opportunity.

Time and time again we see people deferring to the opinions of "experts" without ever so much as questioning whether the reasons for doing so are justified.

If NASA says the lunar photographs are correct then they are correct. It doesn't matter that by saying so they have completely ignored some fundamental discrepancies with the Laws of Physics as we understand them. In such cases NASA is right and the Laws of Physics are wrong.

And if you want a reason why NASA might be used as a "front" behind which a covert space program is operating (for many years out of Vandenberg AFB?) perhaps we should take a look at photographs returned by Lunar Orbiter V in 1965.



According to NASA - this "boulder" was dislodged by "moonquakes" which sent it tumbling down into one of many lunar canyons. The only problem is that it then started tumbling UPHILL.

I think it's important people look at this from the perspective of those charged with interpreting such photographs. Remember, NASA is a MILITARY outfit. The people at the top of the tree don't gaze down on these pictures like everyday space enthusiasts. They look at them much in the same fashion as those people who when browsing aerial reconnaissance photographs of Cuba in the mid-sixties suddenly caught site of some very suspicious long, rectangular boxes offloaded from Russian freighters.

To an everyday person a 70ft+ "rock" rolling uphill is a curiosity. To a military man it's an alarm bell which just won't stop blaring in the back of his skull.

Stop flattering yourself.





So. Yes.



You don't see the RELEVANCE of knowing how far away the light source is when it effectively settles the question of whether this photograph is bogus or not - which is the VERY THING we are debating?

Moving on from the Apollo question - bearing in mind what has been said about the electro-gravitic drive which is alleged to have been installed in the Nazi "Glocke" and the TR-3B - can anyone else think of an experimental electro-magnetic device based upon CONTRA-ROTATING FIELDS which was also pushed by a former Nazi?

Clue - it's very BIG and twice as EXPENSIVE.

On the subject of life on Mars I encourage everyone to watch this very short [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUzYpaan0xkfive-minute clip[/url made by Ron Bennett in which, if NASA is to be believed, zombie beasties are roaming about the surface of Mars.

It also discusses the two tests which were conducted by the Viking probes that - according to NASA's own criteria laid down BEFORE launch - positively confirmed the first extra-terrestrial life.

What's the point in showing reality deniers facts and evidence?

It doesn't matter how many facts and how much evidence I put here, moon truthers will always dismiss it regardless. So I wont waste my time. There's always some reason or other, often dipping into the ludicrous. Truthers seem to have a lax idea about burden of proof. It's not really up to me to try and convince you of something that clearly happened, was witnessed by an entire planet, monitored by every Nation and expert that could. If you make the claim then you have to show how it's correct. There isn't one bit of evidence from truthers that can't be shown to have an alternate explanation.

You can't really use that 'were you there? you can't prove it then' fallacy as it surely applies to yourself to. Making anything you conclude equally invalid. Better to just think of a better argument.

It's fact because it's been proven to be a fact. Not because I've been told. You choose not to accept reality on this subject.

Again, that's a weak argument. Reality isn't majority rules. A person can deny reality for good reasons and bad reasons. Isaac Newton, Ignaz Semmelweiz, Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and a host of other luminous intellects too numerous to mention were, at some point, labelled "reality deniers".

They denied "reality" precisely because they weren't satisfied with "facts" deemed indisputable.

Throughout this debate we see those who aren't satisfied with the official explanation tarred as intransigent. This is a classic example of projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto others and damning them for it.

So far the Apollo adherents haven't budged so much as an inch. This is despite the fact that there are very good reasons to doubt at the VERY LEAST some of the evidence.

I can't speak for anyone else but when I've seen arguments supporting the fake-moon landing theory which I don't agree with I have said so (such as the oxygen-rebreather system or questions relating to shadow directions). How many examples of such have we seen from supporters?

And whenever the debate ventures into potentially hazardous territory which side uniformly switches from attacking the EVIDENCE to attacking the INDIVIDUAL?

I mean, that kind of stuff might put off other people but it certainly doesn't bother me.

The difference between the examples of Newton, Einstein, Copernicus etc and Conspiracy theorists today is that when they changed peoples perception of reality they could prove it with evidence and tangible results. It was tested and put under scrutiny and their ideas and breakthroughs changed the world. Plus, they didn't deny reality. They were attempting to further the knowledge of what was already known. Newton is a good example. Hailed as one of the greatest scientists ever, which he undoubtedly was, and his contribution to modern science is not in dispute. He also tried to do the same thing with Alchemy, with no success. The reason? It was obviously not real.

Conspiracy theorists think they're like scientific Newton, but they're actually Alchemy Newton.

You're right in so much as those who have doubts haven't budged their stance on these threads, but that says more about conspiracy theorists than the rest of us. I'm quite willing to change my mind with proper evidence. It doesn't matter what the subject. Moon truthers will never budge, and that's why there's no point in debating.

People like Newton were CURIOUS about the world they lived in BEFORE they were ever scientists. As for evidence and results - given that you aren't interested in hearing their side of the story you really have no idea whether they have provided either. And yes, Galileo denied "reality" as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. As did a host of other scientists who butted heads with organised religion.

Newton is a particularly good example of someone who at first denied reality and then once he rose to a position of power and influence attempted to IMPOSE IT upon others - going so far as to ruin the reputations of many of his peers. If Isaac Newton wasn't beyond CONSPIRING to undermine the scientific achievements of his colleagues why should we think something similar isn't possible today?

Very little is widely known about Newton's time spent dabbling in alchemy and it's difficult to comment. However, given some of the recent cryptic comments made about so-called "red mercury" - not to mention the ongoing rumpus about "Cold Fusion" I wouldn't be so quick to close the door. Like most people I figured the experiments carried out by Pons & Fleischmann were a royal bust. But a string of extremely suspicious deaths of scientists working independently yet within the same field (such as Eugene Mallove) lead me to suspect that there's something more to this than meets the eye. After all, if you are the chairman of a major energy infrastructure provider with operating costs running into the billions (say oil or nuclear) how enthusiastic are you likely to be about a bunch of scientists who claim to be able to deliver low-energy nuclear reactions in a beaker - for a few dollars?



This is a one-size-fits-all (and consequently - UNSCIENTIFIC) definition you've basically pulled out of thin air. Given the mundane criteria which constitutes a "conspiracy" as defined by the dictionary I very much doubt you fail to qualify also.



There you go again - setting up this "them" and "us" dichotomy which has about as much basis in fact as half the guff spouted in this thread.



Go on then TELL US what criteria would make you first DOUBT the Apollo story and then DENY it? And don't say something daft like "NASA admits it was all a hoax" because I think you are smart enough to realise that if NASA really did fake those landings they aren't likely to own up to it.

Most "moon truthers" I know budged quite significantly from believing in the Apollo program lock, stock and barrel so that statement is ridiculous from the start. You think people give up their beliefs lightly? You think people WANT TO admit that things they derived an immense amount of pleasure and intellectual stimulation from for years - decades even are a fabrication? If so this is the most ridiculous thing you've added to this debate. Just look at the outrage two or three posters have managed to attract in this thread.

Aren't you the one who called FA a pompous prat or something like that?
When he was irritating you with his Science vs your philosophical speculation?

I will tell you this, in my estimation FA is a credit to logical thought and evidence-based Science and you are a lightweight in comparison?
Nay ...a disgrace!
Go and bore your mates down the pub about how you are the smartest guy on the planet ... and so misunderstood.
Was that good enough?

If you wish to strap yourself into FA's understanding of light and sound that's your business. But for your own sake - carry a spare parachute for when his doesn't open.

I have to tell you that you went up a notch in reply to my provocation.
Brownie points there.
Measured, it suits you (no tailoring pun intended)... carry on in that vein.
We may become buddies yet!

Well, at least you have a sense of humour. Which is more than can be said of most these days ...

Your debating style is rubbish. I reject your claim that your cryptic question "settles everything", and unless you are able to articulate a point from your strange cryptic question style, I have no clue what your point is. I suspect neither do you. Oh, and your trademark triple lol smileys comes over a bit hysterical.

It was about as cryptic as a punch in the face. I couldn't make the point any more obvious without GIVING you the answer on a plate (thus freeing you of any obligation to think).

You can reject the fact that by the time light has traveled 150 million kilometers any falloff in intensity SHOULD be so minuscule it cannot be detected by the human eye anywhere on the moon. But bear in mind that the night sky is what it is precisely because of this phenomenon.

What? The night sky "is what it is" because of what? You're making no sense!

As for the rest - sorry, riddles just don't cut it. If you could reveal to the world what fall off in intensity on the images you are presumably talking about, and how this supports whatever point it is you want to make, then I could indeed think about it. Humour me - make your actual point. You know you want to.


But then you're the one who said there was air on the moon, so you're perhaps not the go-to man for parachute advice.

A classic case of saying 'you're missing the point' when what should be said is 'perhaps I am not explaining myself enough?'
Give the chap a chance Mugwump.
You know what you are trying to say, but FA doesn't.
Neither do I at the moment.
Be specific and deal in particulars would be my advice ...
Not that you'd want it of course.

Facts.

Having reliable and tested evidence that doesn't fall down. Pretty simple really. All that Moon truthers have is ideas and assumptions. They apply psuedo-scientific thinking to various arguments while ignoring counter-arguments that provide evidence against their own ideas. Like I said before, truthers don't have a particular interest in the actual truth, just their version of it. It doesn't help that your fellow truthers have a varied scale of wild ideas rather than a focused point.

A sad aspect of this stupid, cynical and baseless attack on NASA over the moon landings is the sweeping aside of the geuine efforts of a team of thousands of workers.
The achievenent was stupendous. A moment never to be forgotten in the ascent of man.
Monumental!
One of THE greatest moments of all time and in my lifetime. Lucky me and lucky us!
Hang your heads in shame you lamebrains who denigrate that effort.
You don't deserve it!

.

I don't know what more you want me to say which isn't saying what I've already said countless times.

Take a regular torch. It's not the sun. But it doesn't need to be because light behaves in exactly the same fashion (with one or two exceptions which really only apply in theoretical environments).

The Inverse Square Law states that [ilight intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the source[/i. Roughly translated this means that you lose the MOST of your light CLOSEST to where it originates and as the distance increases this falloff diminishes toward zero [iat an ever diminishing rate without ever reaching zero[/i.



In the illustration above HALF of the total output will be lost in the first few inches. Double the distance and it is reduced to a quarter and so on etc. But the important point in relation to this discussion is what's taking place at the other end of the scale. The reason we see starlight across vast distances is because even though its intensity is ALWAYS falling - the further light travels from the source the longer it takes to do so. Plug the numbers into any calculator and you can immediately verify this.

If the Apollo photographs are genuine then the single light source illuminating the subject (the sun) is 150 million km away. At that distance most of its intensity has been diluted and the rate of falloff drops to negligible levels. Sure, it's still higher than what it would be if we were viewing the sun from the other side of the galaxy. But we aren't seeing the kind of colossal bites taken out of luminosity that we witnessed early on.

Consequently we should see [ino appreciable difference[/i in the luminosity of any part of the moon exposed to direct sunlight and not interfered with by shadow. Now, there are some complicating factors relating to a variety of issues which can result in the distant background looking slightly duller and/or desaturated (especially on the earth where this question is further complicated by our atmosphere which scatters light and can function as an enormous softbox).

But if you are looking at an Apollo photograph in which there are significant differences in luminosity that would require you to alter your camera's shutter speed and/or f/stop to correctly expose each area - and these discrepancies cannot be explained by the sun's light being obscured by some object - it has either been [itampered with in post-production[/i or it was [iphotographed in a studio environment[/i.

The reason I say the latter is because we ALREADY KNOW that light intensity can fall-off in pretty dramatic fashion - provided the source of light is CLOSE TO the subject (compare position 1 to position 4 in the illustration).

I'm clueless as to how pointing out this simple and obvious truth has morphed into wild accusations about the moon being a hologram and such. This argument is strictly confined to the validity of the Apollo photographs - although I do think it has wider implications insofar as NASA's trustworthiness is concerned.

Take a look at the original NASA stock. We see this issue cropping up time and time again (notice I DO NOT say ALL). Just as we see other problems such as harshly backlit subjects which - despite the astronauts carrying NO SECONDARY SOURCES OF ILLUMINATION - are perfectly illuminated from the front.

Bear in mind that in order to achieve the above you have to supply CLOSE TO the same amount of light in the opposite direction in order bring the subject within the tonal range of the camera. Which means you either have to set up a portable flash-unit to fill in the shadow areas - or (maybe) use a very efficient reflector (neither of which the astronauts carried). Without it the subject MUST BE reduced to a pitch-black silhouette. [uThere's simply no room for debate on this question. [/u

Don't believe me? Try it yourself. It isn't a difficult experiment to set up.

This is why I draw the distinction between natural light and theatrical (make-believe) light.

Now, if you don't mind I'm calling it quits on repeating the SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Quite frankly, I'm bored rigid with the whole issue and there's only so much stupidity I can take.

I mean, if you have any genuine interest in this question you'll spend five minutes setting up two or three simple experiments which will tell you more about photography and light than NASA seems willing to divulge. It really is THAT SIMPLE.