None of you posted any opinions in my guest book. I don’t believe any of you are capable of anything but denial, insults and character assassination, and I don’t tolerate that from people with such small and closed minds.
As I thought, not one of you questioned NASA about this, you only attacked the messenger. Not many of you even looked at the images. You simply denied it without even taking a peak. Because you are afraid of the truth.
My sole purpose for posting a link here was to show that very thing. I have already successfully shown that to many honest people across the net, because honest people have no reason to deny everything at my site, because they personally have nothing to hide, and they have nothing to fear from the Apollo missions being proven as faked.
The same can not be said of the participants on this message board.
Seethruart, the anti-BS factor here is pretty strong. When someone comes here with extraordinary claims, the expectation is that they can back it up with extraordinary evidence. I’ve looked at the pictures. I’m agreement with the others in this thread. Your evidence has been found woefully wanting.
People who act like idiots on this message board are going to get called “idiots.” People who bring reasoned agruments about topics are (usually) going to find reasoned replies.
Ever since Fox TV aired their contemptible “Moon Landing Hoax” special, I sort of expected folks like this to come out of the woodwork. However, the claims of the hoaxers have been thoroughly debunked. I’d start here for a good debunking.
No one here has an agenda or ulterior motive in “protecting” NASA. The goal of this message is the fighting of ignorance. The “moon landing hoax” claims have been definitively shown to be ignorant in their foundations, so forgive us if we are skeptical of persons making claims from that position.
Now, be a good chap and shove off. There’s a good fellow.
Come back when you have retired your tinfoil hat.
For penance, repeat to yourself three times before bedtime every night, “Art Bell’s show is entertainment, not informational.”
No kidding. At least the “Face on Mars”–the original photo, I mean–does undeniably look like a face, even if it is just a trick of light and shadow. But these “anomalies” are just…just dirt. Look! Dirt! And here are some rocks! Wow–more dirt! Wait–here’s a color-reversed image of dirt, which looks like–like a color-reversed image of dirt. And here’s a blurry enlarged close-up shot of a rock, which looks uncannily like a blurry enlarged close-up shot of a rock.
My, God! Clearly, NASA has been engaged in a massive cover-up for all these years. The so-called “scientific community” has been going around telling everyone the Moon is made of green cheese, while NASA brazenly suppresses the evidence that the Moon is, in fact, made of dirt. And rocks.
Maybe you can tell me how they focused the cameras without viewfinders. I know that Apollo really went to the Moon, I’m just not clear on a few of the minor details.
Well, first of all, you don’t need to look through the lens to focus. All cameras have the focal distance printed on the lens barrel. If you can estimate the object is 10 meters away, you just dial the focus to 10 meters on the lens. But there is a better way, and I can tell from the photos that they used this technique extensively.
One of the techniques they used to teach at Hasselblad seminars was the use of “hyperfocal distance.” For each fStop, the lens has a certain depth of field. If you stop way down to f22, you get more depth of field, at f2.8, much less. Most of the lunar scenes were very brightly lit so they could stop down quite a bit and get wide ranges of focus. There are little markings on the lens barrel so you know the minimum and maximum distances that will be in focus. All you have to do is put your infinity focus marker on the maximum distance, and everything from infinity to the minimum possible distance will be in perfect focus. Most amateurs focus through the lens and put their subject in the middle of the zone, which usually wastes your depth of field going way out beyond infinity. When I used my Hassie, I would just set the hyperfocal distance at infinity, and never focus again, and everything came out perfect. Of course if you want to focus on something close up, you have to temporarily refocus, but it’s easy to estimate short distances (i.e. 1 to 10 meters) and just set that distance manually on the dial.
With a little practice, you can memorize the hyperfocal distances for each lens and fstop. And the Apollo astronauts had LOTS of practice, they all had personal Hasselblads with extra lenses, with all the free developing they wanted, just to get in extra practice.
But still, there are plenty of badly exposed, poorly framed, and blurry Apollo photos. You just don’t see them very often.
You’re a fucking liar, SeethruBS. I posted a dissenting opinion of your crap in your guestbook under a shortened version of my real first name, clicked back on it to make sure it took. Also, 1K BR Kid, under his real name, had a dissenting opinion. An hour or so later, after many Dopers had replied to your thread, I went back to your guestbook to see if more had signed it. Mine and 1K BR Kid’s posts were gone, though 1K BR Kid had reposted another critique of your site, obviously after you had removed his first one. The only post to remain from when I first looked was a complimentary one from Starjim (I kidded 1K BR Kid about it being him, of course I knew it wasn’t) requesting permission to add your site to his list of anomalie seekers links.
Not only are you a nut, but, I repeat, you are a fucking liar, you lousy excuse for a skeptic.
