Me too. Spot on Tigerman.

You do know that what you conclude yourself doesn't constitute a fact?

I would describe that as your conclusion.

The thing to remember about Apollo is that from the moment the Saturn V rocket left the launch pad right up to "splash down" - the flow of information was controlled solely by NASA. Which is a military organisation in all but name.



Now, if you are an adherent of Science and you DON'T hear alarm bells reading the above statement there is a very serious disconnect somewhere.



Philosophically speaking, "Science" & "Authority" are about as far apart on the spectrum as you can get. Yet today the two words have all but become synonymous. I propose that this is a VERY BAD thing. It always has been. It always will be.



Returning to the issue of the photographs - I tend not to spend too much time on the question of shadows. Whilst it is true that there are some clearly ludicrous examples which can only be fakes - in many cases the question can become mired in complexity and ultimately nonproductive.



IMO, there are far more vulnerable regions where the photographic evidence can be attacked - such as visible light-intensity falloff which simply cannot be explained by anything other than a close light source.



Then there is the issue of image DETAIL. Our eyes are keyed to sensing and interpreting minute changes in light and shadow. The interaction of both in ways our brains are hard-coded to be more or less receptive to is what makes a good or bad photograph.



We intuitively understand what takes place at both ends of the process of sensing and interpreting. But the precise mechanism of transformation is still a bit of a mystery.



It's the reason for arguably the most common mistake all photographers make - including pros. Anyone who has ever picked up a camera will recall seeing some absolutely stunning interplay of light and shadow, grabbing the camera and pressing the shutter.



Breathless with anticipation they download the image into Adobe RAW/Capture One only to notice that either they've blown out the highlights (overexposed) or the shadows (underexposed) and the image looks nothing like what they remember.



They have just run into the problem of "tonal" or "dynamic range". You see, whilst the human eye can (in certain circumstances) differentiate up to fifteen stops of light intensity - cameras are less able to cope with variation.



Imagine a scale of 1-20 with complete darkness at 1 and unbearable brightness sitting at the other end. Any sensor (whether it be biological or machine) which could differentiate all 20 levels at the same time could be said to see EVERYTHING.



A sensor which can detect 15 consecutive levels is still pretty effective - but given that it will still miss five a decision must be made on which end of the scale you plan to cover. If you are expecting a bright photograph then you would logically position the low end of the range at the 5th level so that you capture everything up to twenty. Providing light intensity stays between 5 and 20 you will record everything in perfect clarity. But should ANY part of the scene fall below 5 (and thus outside your 15-stop recording range) it will appear completely black. Underexposed. A silhouette. Conversely, should you be expecting a dark image and you begin at position 1 right up to 15 - anything which is brighter than 15 will appear completely white. Overexposed.



Digital/film cameras are almost always far worse at coping with varying light intensity than the human eye. Many digital cameras struggle coping with a mere SIX STOPS difference. Film cameras (such as the Hasselblad) are better. But they are by no means perfect.



Which is a MAJOR PROBLEM when you are in an ultra-high contrast environment such as the moon where there is no atmosphere to soften direct sunlight and fill in the shadows.



Indeed, as environments go the Moon must ultimately be rated as a NIGHTMARE by even the most experienced of photographers.



How can you take a photograph in direct sunlight without blowing out the highlights and/or underexposing the shadow regions? The answer is - YOU CAN'T without the use of supplementary light sources (fill flash) and/or reflectors. Yet time and time again we see Apollo photos in which BOTH regions are perfectly exposed.



It's hard enough doing this is direct sunlight on EARTH where you have an atmosphere scattering light which can be pulled in as fill and highly reflective surfaces which can also serve this purpose.



And bear in mind that this film was rated 160ASA. That's PITIFUL by today's high ISO standards.



Now remember that these guys were not pro photographers. They were using arguably one of the most difficult cameras in the world to operate (even though it delivers superb optical results) - made even more so by the removal of the viewfinder and the astronauts limited field of vision.

Facts are things that are proven or known to be true. You don't conclude a fact, a fact is something that is true and proven to be so. The moon landing hoax people have never proven anything that they say. Every single argument put forward has a counter argument based on fact. If moon truthers 'facts' are truly facts, then they'd stand up to scrutiny and be accepted. They don't stand up to scrutiny, unfortunately. As for people believing what they are told, moon truthers are the worst culprits for this. They read books and articles online written by like-minded individuals, and rather than be honest about 'researching' a topic and sticking to a rigorous method of evaluation that would cut out any potential bias. They just read and formulate ideas that conform or seem to strengthen their own position. What they should be doing is trying to prove themselves wrong. Once they get to the stage of being unable to do that they should pass it onto all and sundry to try and do so. If it stands up after that, then you will probably have an actual fact.



Saying something is true doesn't make it so. The weight of evidence is heavily against Moon truthers.

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.