|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2008 3:24:30 GMT -4
Most of Hawaii is black. It's the volcanic nature of the soil. At least, that's my understanding, and I've got a friend from there. Anyway, it doesn't look like the Moon; she would've said. This is the friend who humoured me enough to snag that National Geographic collection for me--and bought me a light-up Moon for my bedroom wall.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 1, 2008 6:21:53 GMT -4
I lived in Hawaii for eight years and spent time on five of the islands. As the volcanic rock gets ground down, oxidized and turned into soil it takes on a vivid orange color. Here are plowed field on Oahu. You can see the same thing on a larger scale.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2008 13:20:11 GMT -4
Thanks for the correction. Either way, not exactly like the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 1, 2008 20:36:34 GMT -4
It wasn't a correction, it was an amplification & clarification. The black lava flows (visible in the satellite view) first break down to coarse, black regolith ( link). As it gets finer and oxidizes, it turns red.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2008 21:57:43 GMT -4
Thanks--lovely pictures. My best friend keeps trying to convince me that I should go home with her one of these days, but finances have prevented it.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 2, 2008 17:28:51 GMT -4
Well, you could always shoot in black and white. But then there's this H.B. who's been pestering me over at Godlike Productions about how the _colors_ were "too perfect" to be from other than a staged shot.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Apr 3, 2008 20:34:30 GMT -4
I think Mauna Loa, Hawaii looks like the moon. Around Saddle Road. In between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The observatory on Mauna Kea would be a good place to shine a fake (sun)light down on the lava blanketed pass. Pretty isolated place also. Might work.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 3, 2008 20:54:43 GMT -4
Based on a 30-second scan of Google Images, I agree that some areas near Saddle Road are closer in colour to the Moon than many other areas that have been proposed as hoax sets. But just closer, not close enough. I wouldn't describe it as "like" the Moon so much as "less unlike". And that's just for the colour, it doesn't resemble regolith very much. Too many rocks, not enough dust.
Lordy, here's hoping DaveC doesn't turn up to claim that "they" sifted an entire Hawaiian valley in order to deal with the billowing dust issue...
Are you serious about the "shining a light from the Mauna Kea observatory" line? How big a light do you think they would have to use? Would this impossibly powerful light at the observatory provide the right illumination angle to match with those in the Apollo photographs? How would they stop anyone else on the island noticing this bizarre phenomenon?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 3, 2008 22:41:07 GMT -4
Well.... There is pleanty of Orange Soil for Harrison to get excited about Though obviously this phot is a fake itself because the photograph's shadow doesn't point towards the centre of the photo!!!11!!!1111! Edit - And the shadows aren't parallel!!!!!!!111eleventy one!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 3, 2008 23:10:57 GMT -4
I think Mauna Loa, Hawaii looks like the moon. Around Saddle Road. In between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The observatory on Mauna Kea would be a good place to shine a fake (sun)light down on the lava blanketed pass. Pretty isolated place also. Might work. How? How could they make an Earth location in any way usable for the surface of the Moon, overcoming all other nature of difficulties? Also, what would it take to make you believe you're wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 4, 2008 6:42:27 GMT -4
I think Mauna Loa, Hawaii looks like the moon. Around Saddle Road. In between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The observatory on Mauna Kea would be a good place to shine a fake (sun)light down on the lava blanketed pass. Pretty isolated place also. Might work. How big is this area? How prominently do Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa appear in the background? Which bit of the Apollo record, in your view, looks like that area? Can you point it out in the video? Does that area allow for the many different locations seen in the Apollo footage, including especially the whacking great canyon (yes, I know it's a rille not a canyon, but everyone knows what a canyon is and it's near enough!) that is very prominent in Apollo 15, the huge craters in several locations, and the mountains in the background, none of which look like terrestrail mountains? Do they allow for full 360 degree panoramic TV and photography without getting a single identifiable terrestrial object in there? All this appears on the Apollo footage. Somehow you give the distinct impression of having seen very little of it. I can find a few places that look vaguely like the lunar surface, and could be used, say, to shoot something resembling the static shots from Apollo 11, but none that are so isolated as to provide the necessary views seen in the hours of film and video from the other Apollo missions.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 4, 2008 10:10:47 GMT -4
The observatory on Mauna Kea would be a good place to shine a fake (sun)light down on the lava blanketed pass.
Describe the kind of light you would use. I've worked with some of the largest lighting instruments in the business. I'm interested to hear what you believe would be required.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Apr 4, 2008 15:28:55 GMT -4
My dad has an old Piggly Wiggly sign that he uses to light up his shop in the barn. It has three banks of fluorescent tubes with 5 lamps in each bank. Surely something like that would do.
|
|
|
Post by dinsmore on Apr 18, 2008 11:24:46 GMT -4
Apologies if this has already been said, but if Apollo was a hoax, when would NASA have ended the programme? Kennedy's goal of landing someone on the Moon was achieved by Apollo 11, so why not stop after that? If not then, the near disaster of Apollo 13 would have been an ideal excuse for cancelling any further missions, before any astronauts got killed in space. The Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, and maybe 14, should have been far easier to fake than driving round the big landscape features of 15, 16 and 17.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 18, 2008 11:58:25 GMT -4
Hi, Dinsmore.
Yes, your point has been covered; but it's always good to refresh the topics in a format like this.
In general I agree it doesn't make sense to attempt a deception multiple times, according to the argument that each attempt increases the probability of discovery.
The conspiracy theorists argue that the Apollo 13 accident was staged in order to trump up drama for a program that had apparently seen its zenith and was waning in popularity. Apollo 11 was big, but Apollo 12 was not. So Apollo 13 had to give the public something to care about again. The motivation is alleged to be continued funding. That is, if the public stopped caring about Apollo, they'd cut off the funding and the government agencies and contractors who were allegedly growing fat off the deception would come away with less money.
The actual effect was as you have said, and as many could have predicted. Apollo 13 was material in getting the rest of the program canceled: Apollo 18 through 20. Questions of Apollo's safety were raised, and former allies -- including even people at NASA -- became critics, hoping to curtail the program before it suffered another fatal accident. This was foreseeable because of the reaction of Congress to the Apollo 1 fire in 1967. NASA was raked over the coals for that: put on probation, in a sense. Not the kind of position from which you want to try to attract attention by staging an accident.
|
|