|
Post by cos on Jul 24, 2009 17:59:42 GMT -4
It doesn't take long to get pretty good at judging exposures. They made damn sure that using the equipment was second nature. There were effectively professional photographers by the time they got there. Why would this be so hard to believe? It ain't rocket science. When I was a kid and my light meter packed up I could always guess the exposure to within a stop.
This has echoes of an earlier thread involving John Lear (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Apart from alien artefacts on the moon didn't he also subscribe to the idea that the moon's gravity was half the earth's gravity? Got my vote for the wackiest HB belief.
If the technology wasn't up to filming it care to explain the TV transmissions from the spacecraft, Apollo 8 onwards? Those transmissions travelled a quarter of a million miles so I don't see a problem with broadcasting from the surface of the moon. Now if you say that the TV transmissions from the spacecraft were faked then surely the whole thing must of been faked because we can clearly see the astronauts and perhaps you can enlighten us with how you film a continuous 15 minute weightless sequence on the earth? Would you care to furnish us with the technical details? Thought not...
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 24, 2009 21:43:38 GMT -4
Simple. Most HBers, as I understand it, believe that the hoaxing began from Apollo 8 on.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 25, 2009 10:18:19 GMT -4
Simple. Most HBers, as I understand it, believe that the hoaxing began from Apollo 8 on. So 9 was faked? And if 8 was faked, why wouldn't Nixon have blown the whistle on Johnson and the Democrats, canned Apollo all together, rather then just cancelling 3 missions, and have gotten the funding for his shuttle program 3 years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by lazarusty on Jul 25, 2009 13:15:57 GMT -4
Because this was beyond mere politics. In some matters, they are both in bed together. Both sides wanted to give the impression that America had suceeded in the space race, and the loss of crediblity to the US around the world would have been too much to risk exposure for polticial point scoring. I think the watergate scandal would be a mere patch on this.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 25, 2009 13:39:18 GMT -4
Because this was beyond mere politics. In some matters, they are both in bed together. Both sides wanted to give the impression that America had suceeded in the space race, and the loss of crediblity to the US around the world would have been too much to risk exposure for polticial point scoring. I think the watergate scandal would be a mere patch on this. Perhaps it would have superceded politics but why would anyone concoct a conspiracy that counted on the co-operation of political enemies? It's just one more absurdity in the sheer mass of them that makes up the Hoax theory.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 25, 2009 14:17:54 GMT -4
The idea that Nixon wouldn't blow the whistle on Kennedy and Johnson is full of crap and shows the usual HB ignorance of history. Why should I be surprised? It matches their ignorance in everything else.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 25, 2009 14:37:55 GMT -4
This is another of those "it must be a secret conspiracy because there's no evidence" things isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jul 25, 2009 19:28:25 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 27, 2009 13:29:02 GMT -4
Yes, I especially love how Nixon, the most spectacularly failed conspiracist in history - a man who couldn't even keep a couple of tapes out of the hands of the press despite theoretically having the entire Secret Service at his disposal, is supposed to have not only successfully managed to keep the largest conspiracy in history an absolute secret but also completely failed to expose it himself despite unlimited opportunity and motivation, such as, say, in the middle of Watergate...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 14:07:46 GMT -4
Yes, I especially love how Nixon, the most spectacularly failed conspiracist in history - a man who couldn't even keep a couple of tapes out of the hands of the press despite theoretically having the entire Secret Service at his disposal, is supposed to have not only successfully managed to keep the largest conspiracy in history an absolute secret but also completely failed to expose it himself despite unlimited opportunity and motivation, such as, say, in the middle of Watergate... Indeed, hard to imagine Nixon not at least threatening to blow the secret, and surely the people who 'faked the moon landing' could have fixed a few audio tapes and a couple of nosey journalists to keep him quiet?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 27, 2009 15:26:34 GMT -4
I'd put money on someone, somewhere, believing that.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 16:34:26 GMT -4
I'd put money on someone, somewhere, believing that. Actually I meant he could have blackmailed 'them' into saving him but rereading what I wrote I realize it works either way, what have I done???
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Jul 28, 2009 14:29:57 GMT -4
This article states that we landed on the moon but that the footage was faked through a technique called Front Screen Projection. It includes a number of examples. Very interesting. jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.htmlHe he. Jay's web site was an interesting read. The problem with his projection theory is that it would be extraordinarily difficult to get an exact match for not only brightness and contrast, but more importantly for the exact hue and saturation of the projected image. And that is one area where Jay's theory falls flat on its face. The other area where his theory falls completely flat on its face is that close examination of the original photos shows consistently increasing blurring (depth of field) for objects which are progressively closer or further away from the lens's focus setting. Jay claims that the distant mountains are perfectly sharp. They are not quite sharp since the "far" focus setting of the Biogen lens was set for a distance closer than infinity since the depth of field at the max F/5.6 aperture and smaller apertures would make extremely distant objects such as mountains appear to be sufficiently sharp.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 29, 2009 3:23:11 GMT -4
Ah, that's good to know. I glanced over some numbers and it looked like they could have been using a hyperfocal distance as close as four meters away. But I am not a camera lens expert.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 29, 2009 15:00:56 GMT -4
Because this was beyond mere politics. In some matters, they are both in bed together.So you have to change history and create entirely new characters out of Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson in order to get your theory to work. Sorry, you're just pretending the facts are other than what we see them to be. Delusion. Both sides wanted to give the impression that America had suceeded in the space race...No, Nixon didn't care about that. Nixon's foreign policy was based on entirely different principles such as detente.
|
|