“seethruart”. Hmm. Why do I get the feeling that this guy’s site, pictures, explanations, and vociferous defense of them is some kind of cutting edge performance art?
I found a great image to demonstrate more clearly what I’m talking about:
http://www.moon-watch.com/images/10074967.jpg
Nobody could possibly argue that this photo is a fake, because you can see the same view yourself through a telescope.
This Apollo 8 photo was taken at a very oblique angle, it is slightly blurry due to the high speed of the capsule. But notice that every object is equally in focus. This is how a “long range” photo looks, it has almost infinte depth of field. However the bootprint photos show objects only a few centimeters apart that have different levels of focus. This short of a depth of field is only possible at ranges under 2 meters. This is proof that seethruart’s alleged fake photos were taken at under two meters. The photos were taken on the lunar surface.
I know the Apollo landings really happened. Why? If they were a hoax, would a fine upstanding organization like MTV use an Apollo image as its logo? I think not!
Wow!!
From the reading I did here, I can only say I am not capable of arguing about photography, resolution, or fake images. Some of you people seem to know your stuff.
What I can’t quite figure out is why you are wasting your time with this thread. To actually argue with someone about if there was a moon landing is so funny, I just sit there with my mouth open. I can assure any non believers we were there. Next these people will tell you that the space shuttle is not really visiting the space station. That big fuel tank and orbiter really just fly down wind and land in Cuba. That’s why we left Castro alone all these years. He is in on it.
Here is one for the guy who is a non believer. Aliens have not visited this planet. Former societies were not enlightened by aliens, who then left for other worlds. It is estimated that the probability of intelligent life existing in the universe is on an order of 500 light years away on average. (Intelligent life almost certainly exists) This make traveling between civilizations, at our present technological level, a trip of some kazillion years. But even at light speed (close to) how many beings are out there planet jumping. My guess is zero. Beings may move to other worlds, but by designing generation ships, and never going back to where they came from. They do not “stop off” for a quick visit like Kirk and Spock
Geeesh
Fighting ignorance is neither pretty nor easy.
To provide further debunking of the “long-range shot” theory…
First off, the best (the friggin’ BEST!) telescopes today can only resolve distinct objects on the Moon that are about 280 feet across. That’s around 90 meters, for people keeping count. That would require an object move than twice as long as the Space Shuttle Endeavor, and even then it would show up as a mere pixel. If the objects in Mr. Art’s photos really are “shuttles”, they’d have to be many, many times larger (remember, the resolution technology of 30 years ago wasn’t anywhere as high-quality as it is today).
Basically, Mr. Art, for your theory to be accurate, it requires the presence of hundreds, if not thousands, of 500-meter-long “shuttles” to dot the face of the Moon. And where are the landing pads for these shuttles? Where are the roads? Where are the massive cities? We have far more starships than structures in your images… why is that? Are you suggesting that the Moon is one, big intergalactic trailer park?
There are two possibilities here:
-
Mr. Art’s scenario: Thousands of spacecraft randomly dot the lunar surface, with absolutely no reason for being there, with no visible infrastructure, and no explaination forthcoming from Mr. Art as to their existence.
-
We have a bunch of weird-looking pebbles on the Moon. And dirt forms weird shadows.
Paging Mr. Occam… Mr. Occam, please come to the front desk…
Mr. Occam has left the building. 
Hmmm, I tried to go to the site today to show a friend but it’s gone. maybe he knew too much and was shut down by the Men in Black.
Damn you Will Smith, now I’ll never learn the truth.
Please, Jay; let’s not give Piper any ideas about creating sockpuppets, okay?
I have a few questions for you:
I can accept that you have reached personal conclusions from studying some photos. But other posters don’t agree with you. How do we reconcile these two viewpoints?
If we did actually land on the Moon, why would NASA fake any pictures? (Is it your contention that they forgot to put film in the camera, and felt silly, so went in for fakes instead?)
Why won’t you answer this question, repeatedly asked by Chas.E:
‘How can you take a long range photo showing a depth of field effect that only occurs at distances under 2 meters?’
Under the circumstances, my sig is especially appropriate…
Now do you guys see why we at the BABB are so tired of Seethruart/Piper? 
This nonsense has been going on for months!
I think the low point was when he claimed that M16 was a giant construct… http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000924.html
I can’t decide if he’s really this nuts or if this is a put on. It’s hard to see how somebody who thinks this crap can function in society.
The recently-deceased astronomer Fred Hoyle was convinced that HIV originated in outer space. Even geniuses can have wacky beliefs.
jab1, you have badly mischaracterized F. Hoyle’s position on this subject:
In this instance, I’m afraid that is it you, jab1, senior poster of nearly 4,000 posts, who are propagating ignorance. 
So how did he mischaracterize it?
Chas.E wrote:
Much as I hate to admit it, I can imagine a way to “fake” a short depth of field in an image taken at long range.
You could smear vaseline at strategic points on your camera lens, or on the lens of your negative-to-positive transfer projector. You could load the picture into Adobe Photoshop (which, admittedly, did not exist in the late 1960s) and deliberately “blur” various regions of it. Chas.E, are there any other ways to make a picture look like it has short depth-of-field, when the original picture has an infinite depth-of-field?
I confess, I admit, (mea culpa) that I know little about F. Hoyle’s scientific theories. However: That there are almost certainly (encysted) microbes in space (via the mechanism of asteroidal impacts blasting planetary surface material past excape velocity) would seem to be a not-arguable thing.
So, (unless you DO want to argue that logic), there are “space microbes”. Even if those (encysted) microbes are of Earthly origin (say a billion or so years ago), if they are still viable, they would be almost as “alien” organisms to us, here a billion (or so) years forward. COULD BE almost like an newly-arrived “alien space microbe”. COULD BE.
I think that it’s unfair to make fun of a Senior Scientist just because you disagree with the distilled version of his theories propagated by a muckraking, populist “yellow-journalist”, seeking readership and, presumably, a rate-increase/pay-raise.
So jab1 is saying that Hoyle thought it did happen, while you’re saying that Hoyle thought it could have happened. While that is an important difference, it’s not that bad.
Oh, and if you’ll admit to knowing little about a theory, you shouldn’t accuse others of “badly mischaracterizing” it.
Sea Sorbust: What are you talking about? Jab’s comment seems perfectly reasonable given the facts
This is good thinking, which is more than I can say of s.t.art, but it still would not yield the effect in question. The blurs show a distinct effect called “circles of confusion” which cannot be duplicated outside of a lens.
My question was a loaded question, there is an answer. There is a way to shorten the depth of field. Alas, it could not have been used on these pictures in dispute for certain technical reasons. Let’s see if s.t.art figures it out and then I’ll shoot him down. It really is a most basic thing.
Sea Sorbust: I did not know that Hoyle had propagated such a wacko theory till I read this thread. You ought to remember that thread because you posted on it.