Moon hoax; from a photography/camera angle

Mylo.X.

We are all visitors just passing through.
Dec 30, 2012
1,051
127
63
#1
Being a film & digitial photographer myself, a lot of what Marcus Allen claims (concerning photography on the moon, with the Hasselblad camera) kinda makes sense to me. Watch the entire video and tell me what you think.

 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#2
I watched the whole thing only because it was at your request, Milo.X. and I wanted to be fair in my answer to you. I don't give that much time in most other cases. Here's what I think of it, for what that might be worth.

5:30-5:45 He shows his first mistake in scientific understanding. The Van Allen Radiation Belts DO NOT protect us here on earth from radiation. They are the high energy electrons and protons that the "magnetic field", which does protect us, traps.

5:50 the host references that they , NASA. must have done tests to determine the radiation levels on the moon and Allen states he can't find evidence that tests were done.
Let's see;
Surveyor 1, 1966... Explorer 33, July 1966 - EOM - September 1971, Surveyor 3 April - May 1967, Explorer 35, July 1967 - EOM June 1973. Surveyor 5, September-December 1967, Surveyor 6, November - December 1967, Surveyor 7, Jan-Feb. 1968. That's a list of the successful probes sent prior to the Moon Landing in 1969.
An interesting aside, Astronaut Alan Bean, of Apollo 12, took pictures of the Surveyor 3 spacecraft... on the moon... in 1969... two years after Surveyor 3 landed. They also brought back several pieces of the craft.

6:23 Question...Why would they fake the moon landing?
Answer... the cold war, space race competition between the US and USSR, Vietnam, student protests,...
Or more simply, they didn't... but, some people just can't believe anything they don't understand.

10:00 They discuss "dead" Russian "astronauts", (around 8?) as evidence "we" have been lied to from the start.
By Russia... maybe... if his claim is actually true but, there is still no credible evidence that any Russian Cosmonauts were lost in space.

12:10 They begin to discuss engineering aspects of the space craft.

I thought at the beginning of this video Allen claimed to be a photographic expert. I guess he advanced to engineering expert too... except he got it all wrong.

12:26 "No rocket could be powerful enough to launch..."

I guess all the launches... I WATCHED... during the 60's and 70's were "faked"?

Well, I'm at the break and the commercials must be over by now so... back to the video.

Ah... finally... the camera.

23:35 They discuss the photo of the close up of Aldrin's foot.

OMG... how can both feet not be in contact at the same time???
... on the moon... 1/6th gravity... Aldrin's spacesuit weighted 200 lbs. I don't know his weight at that time but let's guess around 180. So 380 total, that's 63 lbs in moon gravity. If you watch them going in or out on "film" which actually depicts "motion" you would see them kinda jumping down the ladder as well as on the moon's surface. No big deal to have both feet in the air. (so to speak, since there is no air on the moon)
Consider it this way; Have you ever climbed a ladder to exit a swimming pool? Do you normally climb each step from neck deep in the water or "pull" yourself up and out to a step further up? In this picture, you're seeing that action... in reverse.

This guy also gets the camera details wrong. Unless, of course, you think all NASA does is lie. Look here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/photography/

Just for kicks, take a look at the pictures taken during the "actual simulation" the astronauts participated in.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69-32233.html
You may notice the foot prints look nothing like the foot prints made on the moon's surface.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11-40-5964.html
But, I suppose the medium could have been changed...

25:00 They discuss a moon rock. He claims is was tested and determined to be "petrified wood".

His story is totally wrong. He shows the wrong "moon rock sample" while saying it was in Holland. The specimen given by Armstrong and Aldrin were 4 small pieces weighing 0.05 grams total and were encased in plastic. In fact, "Tricky Dick" Nixon, gave out 135 displays just like it, with a small flag that was on the trip as well, to Countries, 50 to the States and 1 to the UN. Unfortunately, many of these have been "lost". Their second specimen from Apollo 17 was a 1 gram piece of lunar basalt, again, encased in plastic. The "moon rock" he is actually referring to may or may not have been an actual moon rock but the size of it, at 89 grams, makes it very unlikely and, having been in a private collection, if it ever had been real, could have been replaced with a fake and the real piece, along with the lost displays, is one of the "alleged" moon rocks on the black market.

Whew... second break time is now over... and again... back to the show.

28:50 Allen talks about seeing the cameras on the moon now. Well a camera IS too small to see but, as I pointed out before, the pictures sent back by the LRO, if you can believe they are real, show several landing sites very well.

Yep, 29:15 Here's the LRO discussed.
Nope, he doesn't believe in them either. Who'd a thunk, huh.

32:16 Why is it so difficult to get back to the moon?
He says it's not about the money.... It's ALL about the money. That's why they cut the last three scheduled missions. That's why NASA hems and haws about Mars or another moon landing. The moon, NASA feels, is not worth the expense. We've been there... there's not much of value that we could easily get. It's a classic cost/ benefit analysis. We went in 69, to hell with the cost, to one up the Russians and say, "See, we did it." No one seriously denies that.

33:30 How could they know about a short circuit on a craft that was left in space?
Duuhmm... Telemetry? Maybe? More proof he knows nothing about space programs.

36:05 Question, "Do you think you might be wrong?"
Answer, " Of course I might be wrong. To be honest, I hope I am wrong. I really do hope I am wrong."
Well, lucky you then... since you are... absolutely wrong.

36:40 "This is a legitimate subject for investigation."
I agree. It has been. The proof is overwhelming. We went. We landed, 6 times. We came back. End of story.

Just another "Moon Landing was a Hoax" disciple that "might" know a bit about photography but knows absolutely nothing about the space program or science in general.
The telemetry of the signals from the astronauts originated from the moon. He says no one else knows what went on... only NASA. Wrong... Russia knows, China knows, Japan knows, Australia knows, The UK knows, (I guess they forgot to tell him), and if any one of them could deny the US went to the Moon... They absolutely would... they have no reason to participate in any cover up or hoax... none.
Thanks Milo.X. It was fun reliving the Apollo program again. I was a big fan of the space program back then. I even wrote to Scott Carpenter because we had the same first name. I still have the letter he sent back thanking me for the drawings I included with my letter. Well..., of course I had to share the space craft I designed.:cool:
 

Mylo.X.

We are all visitors just passing through.
Dec 30, 2012
1,051
127
63
#3
Wow. This is quite the comphrensive response. when I have a bit more time, I'll reply to it.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#5
As long as no one calls it the "dark side of the moon" then I shall not lash out. :)

Pink Floyd may have made some great music, but they sure did not do any favors to space science with that silly (incorrect) name.
RMT
 
Likes: Mylo.X.

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#6
As long as no one calls it the "dark side of the moon" then I shall not lash out.
Agreed, the first paragraph does say, "The series of test images shows the fully illuminated "“dark side"” of the moon that is never visible from Earth" but, I give them a break since dark side is within parenthesis and it says, "fully illuminated" before that. It is NASA after all. You would think "they" know better, right?
 

Mylo.X.

We are all visitors just passing through.
Dec 30, 2012
1,051
127
63
#7
Mylo.X.
I came across this today and I thought you might find it interesting, as well as some others.:)
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
Thanks for sharing Scott. There is something not quite right (in-my-opinion) with the image. The perspective seems all wrong to me. If I've understood this correctly, a camera has captured the far-side-of-the-moon as it passes the earth? Shouldn't the moon be bigger in comparison to the earth (in regard to perspective etc)?
 

Cosmo

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 13, 2012
1,034
349
83
#8
Thanks for sharing Scott. There is something not quite right (in-my-opinion) with the image. The perspective seems all wrong to me. If I've understood this correctly, a camera has captured the far-side-of-the-moon as it passes the earth? Shouldn't the moon be bigger in comparison to the earth (in regard to perspective etc)?
The perspective seems right to me. The moon is 238,000 miles from Earth and the camera is 1,000,000 miles away.
 
Likes: Gpa

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#9
Thanks for sharing Scott. There is something not quite right (in-my-opinion) with the image. The perspective seems all wrong to me. If I've understood this correctly, a camera has captured the far-side-of-the-moon as it passes the earth? Shouldn't the moon be bigger in comparison to the earth (in regard to perspective etc)?
In order to be able to assess whether the perspective seems right or wrong, one would need to understand where the photo was taken from. This photo was taken from what is called "L1", which is the on-axis Lagrange Point between the Earth and the Sun where the gravitational forces essentially nullify each other. There are several Lagrange Points for any two bodies. Here is a map of all the Lagrange Points where the Earth and Sun's gravitational pulls are nullified:



The benefit of Lagrange Points is that they are quasi-stable orbital points which require a minimum of expended energy to maintain the spacecraft in that general location. In other words, whereas most objects are actually orbiting around one body or another, the Lagrange Points allow the body to remain relatively motionless with respect to the two bodies the Lagrange Point is defined by.

Theoretically, you could place an object at any Lagrange Point and it should stay there. But that is the theoretical result. The practical result is that you still need some small station-keeping corrections every so often to keep the spacecraft at the L-point. But the amount of energy for these small corrections is VERY VERY small compared to normal orbital maintenance burns, such as the International Space Station must perform. In practice, orbital engineers will often specify that their spacecraft flies a fairly tight "halo orbit" around the L-point, rather than trying to maintain perfect positioning right at the L-point.

BTW: The relative sizes of the earth and moon, and their distances, are just about correct in the above photo. Hence, when you consider the spacecraft that took the video was parked at L1, then the relative view seen on that video does appear correct.
RMT
 
Likes: Mylo.X.

Mylo.X.

We are all visitors just passing through.
Dec 30, 2012
1,051
127
63
#10
In order to be able to assess whether the perspective seems right or wrong, one would need to understand where the photo was taken from. This photo was taken from what is called "L1", which is the on-axis Lagrange Point between the Earth and the Sun where the gravitational forces essentially nullify each other. There are several Lagrange Points for any two bodies. Here is a map of all the Lagrange Points where the Earth and Sun's gravitational pulls are nullified:



The benefit of Lagrange Points is that they are quasi-stable orbital points which require a minimum of expended energy to maintain the spacecraft in that general location. In other words, whereas most objects are actually orbiting around one body or another, the Lagrange Points allow the body to remain relatively motionless with respect to the two bodies the Lagrange Point is defined by.

Theoretically, you could place an object at any Lagrange Point and it should stay there. But that is the theoretical result. The practical result is that you still need some small station-keeping corrections every so often to keep the spacecraft at the L-point. But the amount of energy for these small corrections is VERY VERY small compared to normal orbital maintenance burns, such as the International Space Station must perform. In practice, orbital engineers will often specify that their spacecraft flies a fairly tight "halo orbit" around the L-point, rather than trying to maintain perfect positioning right at the L-point.

BTW: The relative sizes of the earth and moon, and their distances, are just about correct in the above photo. Hence, when you consider the spacecraft that took the video was parked at L1, then the relative view seen on that video does appear correct.
RMT
Thanks for the interesting info about L points. For some reason I thought the moon would be bigger than what it is in the video. Also, is that a "ufo" I spotted on the top centre of the video.. :p
 
Likes: RainmanTime

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#11
Milo.X.
When I first looked at the video I thought it looked odd. I figured it was CGI but the caption said it is actual images from the DSCOVR satellite.
You can try a simple hands on experiment to show the relationship between the Earth and Moon in your backyard.
Get two balls roughly a 1 to 4 ratio, perhaps a soccer ball and a cricket ball since you are on the other side of the big lake. Place the larger one on a platform a few feet high so you can look easily at it without having to bend down or anything. Place the smaller ball 5 feet away on a platform of equivalent height. Walk an additional 15 feet away, in line with both balls, and look back and you can see the approximate relationship between the Earth and Moon from 1 million miles away. People often confuse the way things change in perspective relative to their position. Actually, the closer you are to some object that lies "between" you and the object you wish to view, the more the farther object is obscured. That's why an Eclipse can be noticed. The moon, being closer to us than the Sun, is able to fully obscure the Sun from view. It's interesting to know, the position of the Moon, "now", is perfect for viewing a total eclipse of the Sun. It won't always be that way as it continually moves away from the Earth. Some day, millions of years from now, only partial eclipses will be observed.
 
Likes: Mylo.X.

timecore

New member
Aug 9, 2015
58
5
0
45
#12
What i think this is a plot to sabotage the space program.And it will be failed attempt.I wish they would leave nasa alone.