Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Don't bother trying to convince the people that don't believe in the Moon landings. If they don't believe now, they never will whatever you say.
And those who don't believe will same the same about those that do!
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: If they don't believe now, they never will whatever you say.
I'm just always impressed by the amount of cognitive dissonance people will apply to something like this, every single strange thing in photos is jumped on but any holes in alternative theories are quickly ignored.
If we faked the first trip to the moon because we couldn’t do it, why compound the risk of discovery by faking several more moon landings in quick succession? why not quit while they’re ahead? why fake the apollo 13 crisis?
Sci-fi will probably have encouraged people to think that, if we could land on the moon 43 years ago, such landings should by now be an everyday event and, maybe, we'd even have a lunar base on there.
The complete lack of moon-landing activity since 1972 very likely encourages the 'moon hoax' theories.
Quote: The complete lack of moon-landing activity since 1972 very likely encourages the 'moon hoax' theories.
Yup and the echo chamber of the internet means that any conspiracy theory, however wacky finds a ready audience of believers who add extra "evidence" and the cycle continues till we sink deep in to a sea of b*llsh*t.
If you managed to climb up everest, CB, would you do it every year ad infinitum just to prove you really did it the first time? And would be really necessary make such proof?
I think not!
Quote: If you managed to climb up everest, CB, would you do it every year ad infinitum
Bad analogy Jas - climbing Everest is routine now!
Quote: climbing Everest is routine now!
We look forward to seeing some pics at the top posted by you, then CB!
Just as a matter of routine, of course!
You know perfectly well what I mean, Jas! Over 3000 people have climbed Everest since it was first climbed in 1953.
However, thousands have not been to the moon. I guess if there was any eveidence of oil on there, it may have been a different story. Lol!
Quote: However, thousands have not been to the moon
I guess that you would have to save up your pocket money for a long time, CB, to make the trip.
Which is probably why thousands have not made the trip.
Could change in the not too distant future, though, as climbing Everest did - once Hilary (allegedly ) had climbed it..!
Quote: I guess that you would have to save up your pocket money for a long time, CB, to make the trip.
Which is probably why thousands have not made the trip.
Er no. If big business thought it was in their interests they would happily fund expeditions to the moon. Unfortunately there's no oil/gold/diamonds.
Quote: In what ways was the technology "very primitive"?
Primitive in comparison to today's technology, but ground-breaking in terms of what was already developed.
That said, by the time it was used the technology was already out of date due to the long development timescales.
Not that long ago, NASA were appealing for anyone who happened to have the odd pallet-load of (by then) obsolete computer components so they could keep the Shuttles flying. It sounded ridiculous at the time but when you think that the shuttle development started in the early to mid-70s it wasn't all that surprising that some of the technology by the end of the programme was approaching 30 years old.
Granted, a lot had been upgraded but the harsh environment of space precludes just bunging in a quad-core processor. As I understand it, the latest processors probably wouldn't survive long up there - the gaps between the tracks in the latest standard PC processors are now smaller than some of the solar wind particles so there's a high risk of tracks being cut by the particles (which will pass through just about anything). Older processors with larger gaps are preferable because there's more chance of the particles missing the tracks themselves.
I refer back the the link to National Geographic link in which there are various claims made about the photographs which are actually very compelling and the answers by the Astronauts rather less so , if people have other views about the shadows the wind and the lighting would be great to here them as the photos for me just dont stack up at all ? But then having never done a shoot on the moon dont know wether there would be any good technical reasons that havent been explained to do with light sources from planets etc ..
If Armstrong wasn't first, who was?
Seems an awfully big secret to keep and so far no death bed claims by ex-NASA personnel. Probably easier to go to the moon?
10...9...8...7...6... (counting down the seconds until someone mentions conspiricy theories and 9/11)
Quote: I refer back the the link to National Geographic link in which there are various claims made about the photographs which are actually very compelling and the answers by the Astronauts rather less so
Whether something is compelling or not is not a measure of it's truth. Ghost stories are compelling but often the truth is rather a set of mundane explanations around pareidolia and features of the buildings..but no one wants to hear that because it doesn't make a great story.
Quote: if people have other views about the shadows the wind and the lighting would be great to here them as the photos for me just dont stack up at all ?
Well the wind is easy, if you ever watch the actual video of them panting the flag it is clearly just the wobble from them planting it.
As for all the rest, why would they bother with all the effort involved in faking the images, and the space flight and the radio transmissions and the moon rocks and maintaining strict secrecy yet not bother getting the photos right when they had plenty of time to do that? Seriously how likely do you think it is that someone could produce a conspiracy involving 100,000s of people around the world and yet it could all be spotted by someone sitting behind a PC on the internet.
Quote: But then having never done a shoot on the moon don't know whether there would be any good technical reasons that haven't been explained to do with light sources from planets etc .
It has been explained but you choose not to believe it:
there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface."
Of course if you are going to be sceptical, you have to be just a sceptical of the alternative explanations and they usually just crumble when examined. All the hoaxers have to fall back on is "hey, I'm just asking questions", which is not in and of itself evidence of anything.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar