Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

Would be fun to do a photo-experiment for all of those who claims the missing stars in the photo is proof of a fake Lunar landing.

Take your brand new mega-pixel camera out door on a really black and clear night, preferably for greater effect you hang a white piece of paper on a branch or similar to illustrate Neil Armstrong.

Take the picture with the flash enabled with the view of the stars and with the white paper in the picture.

Report back how many stars you get in the picture or post the picture !

PS - Although cameras has evolved a tad since the late 60`s you should still get the effect i`m looking for !

PSS - For your own reference take the picture with and without the white paper !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
LT.Victim
Member
+1,175|5687|British Columbia, Canada
To save you all the Trouble of actually doing this.. I'm willing to bet no Stars Show up at all...
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

The idea here is for people to get their mind going, doing a little research themselves and not only buy whatever the other guy says !

Get things in perspective and check your sources for credibility !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Adams_BJ
Turns out you were cucked
+2,044|5747|Little Bentcock
LOL did you just do this experiment is science, j/k, but I am willing to gamble that you get _______ stars
beerface702
Member
+65|5817|las vegas
just for  you good sir

https://ochremedia.com/blog/media/mindHat.gif
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5670|Doncaster, UK

Varegg wrote:

Take the picture with the flash enabled with the view of the stars and with the white paper in the picture.
This would not prove anything. The astronauts had no secondary lighting sources with them. The camera they had did not have a flash.

From what I have seen the evidence to support that the lunar landings were faked far outweighs that which supports NASA's stance. The evidence of secondary lighting in the shots taken by Neil Armstrong, the anomolous directions of shadows, the classic shot of Armstrong on the moon with "fall off" visible in the shot from the spotlight which must have been used to illuminate him, the shots which show things in front of the reticules (the little crosses in the pics) which is a total impossibility, all these things point towards a hoax.

I would love to believe that the lunar landings had taken place as a triumph of human ingenuity but based on this evidence I can only conclude that NASA are perpetuating one of the biggest cover-ups of the 20th century.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

I`m well aware of the fact they did not have flash on their camera, the use of the flash in this case since you probably will not have any other light-source is to illustrate the sun.

Note : This is not a uni-controlled-experiment, it`s just a simple task anyone can do - and the effects work !

Edit : Besides you are entitled to believe whatever you want, i`m not trying to gather votes for the one over the other !

Last edited by Varegg (2006-09-04 02:03:22)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5670|Doncaster, UK
So you want to recreate an experiment, with several variables completely different to the original test conditions, and cite your results as proof that the first results were genuine?

Don't you actually see that what you are doing is in fact reinforcing the whole "hoax" argument. You are saying that you can reproduce the effects seen "on the moon" right here on the earth. This, in conjunction with the other evidence, just strengthens the theory that the shots were in fact taken on earth.

EDIT: Cos I can't type today for some reason

Last edited by DoctorFruitloop (2006-09-04 02:06:49)

Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

DoctorFruitloop wrote:

So you want to recreate an experiment, with several variables completely different to the original test conditions, and cite your results as proof that the first results were genuine?

Don't you actually see that what you are doing is in fact reinforcing the whole "hoax" argument. You are saying that you can reproduce the effects seen "on the moon" right here on the earth. This, in conjunction with the other evidence, just strengthens the theory that the shots were in fact taken on earth.

EDIT: Cos I can't type today for some reason
I never said it would prove anything, but you`ll get much the same effect !

But if this simple task is such a big issue i can just delete the hole thread if anybody thinks it will jeopardize their narrow point of view !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Kenthar
Resident Dragon Fanatic
+21|5671
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5670|Doncaster, UK
You're right, you didn't say it would prove anything, but you did imply that this simple experiment would debunk the evidence of those who "claims the missing stars in the photo is proof of a fake Lunar landing."

Why am I being narrow-minded? I already stated that I would love to believe that the lunar landings were real, but unfortunately I'm a scientist and given the evidence to the contrary I cannot honestly believe that anyone has stood on the moon.

And if I'm being narrow-minded then you are infinitely moreso in believing that something happened despite the wealth of evidence that it did not.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

Varegg wrote:

Besides you are entitled to believe whatever you want, i`m not trying to gather votes for the one over the other !
Think i made myself objective to the matter with above statement, my point was if you feel this thread as a threat because of a simple fun experiment i rest my case !

My intention was not to shatter the whole evidence for this or against that, it was just to make people weigh the one for the other before making their mind up not believing blindly whatever someone else tells them. Do the research !

And for trying to block such an innocent little thing is what i call being narrow minded !

Last edited by Varegg (2006-09-04 02:53:29)

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|5778
I don't think the lack of stars matter.  Even if they faked it they would have pierced holes in a board and shone light through.  Whether the film had the dynamic range to capture them is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned.  It's not one of the elements that make me undecided on whether they've been or not.
PRiMACORD
Member
+190|5749|Home of the Escalade Herds

DoctorFruitloop wrote:

I'm a scientist
Wait a sec. You're a scientist and you don't know about how exposure works in cameras?

The surface of the moon under direct sunlight is extremely bright and way higher then the light intensity output of distance stars. I doubt the human eye could see stars standing on the Moons surface let alone some 40 year old camera.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

Okay - to set things in perspective here since my mission with this experiment is all ready ruined

If you do the experiment and the following occur :

1. You see stars in the picture ! - It does not prove the Lunar landing to be fake or real, but it got your mind going and you have learned a little bit about camera exposure !

2. You do not see stars in the picture ! - It does not prove the Lunar landing to be fake or real, but it got your mind going and you have learned a little bit about camera exposure !


And if it`s such a bad thing getting a few to shoot the night sky with a camera learning something new and maybe trigger an new interest i`m deeply sorry for the inconvenience
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|5778

Varegg wrote:

Okay - to set things in perspective here since my mission with this experiment is all ready ruined

If you do the experiment and the following occur :

1. You see stars in the picture ! - It does not prove the Lunar landing to be fake or real, but it got your mind going and you have learned a little bit about camera exposure !

2. You do not see stars in the picture ! - It does not prove the Lunar landing to be fake or real, but it got your mind going and you have learned a little bit about camera exposure !


And if it`s such a bad thing getting a few to shoot the night sky with a camera learning something new and maybe trigger an new interest i`m deeply sorry for the inconvenience
Don't get me wrong, it's a cool idea.  I'd like to try but heavy light pollution in the city I live means I don't see stars with the naked eye anyway
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5670|Doncaster, UK
I do know how the exposure mechanism on a camera works, but the original post was to use a camera with a flash to act the part of the sun, but in the majority of the famous shots of the lunar landings the sun is either visible or is supposedly coming in from the side, not from the front.

Using flash photography for this is going to precondition the camera to be receiving a picture from a distance at which the flash will have an affect, a few feet at most and so it wouldn't see the stars regardless.

I don't feel threatened by this post, I just don't see the point of an experiment which bears no resemblance to the original conditions being used to prove a point. I understand that due to the fact that the lunar camera would have been overwhelmed by the light from the sun that it wouldn't have picked up the stars, but there is a whole host of other anomolies that are present which can't be explained in this manner.

The film emulsion used in the camera was no differrent to those in general use at the time of the lunar landings and Kodak experts have stated that the pictures taken "on the moon" don't add up. Experts in image analysis have gone on record and said that the most famous shots could not have been taken by the camera if it was in the chest position as it would have been. And there are many instances of photos taken with secondary light sources being used to enhance the shot, but no secondary light sources were taken "to the moon".

If you post something in the "Debate and Serious Talk" section, don't be surprised if someone comes along and "debates" your statement.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|5934|Nårvei

Its okay to debate it, was just that i thought the actual debate would come after the pictures was posted and we could all learn something.

And i honestly thought that some of those with a higher education would see the point of the experiment not trash it before it was conceived.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
DoctorFruitloop
Level 13 Wrongdoer
+515|5670|Doncaster, UK
I do see what you are getting at, I just don't see the relevance.

The conditions are different so any results are only applicable to taking a phota on the earth, at night, with a flash. From a higher education and scientific point of view the results would be pointless as too many things are different. You could just as well use these results for proof of the existence of a higher being. No offense.
^*AlphA*^
F*ckers
+3,135|5862|The Hague, Netherlands

closed
https://bf3s.com/sigs/36eac2cb6af70a43508fd8d1c93d3201f4e23435.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard