BF2S Forums Fake Lunar landing experiment !

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 !

just for  you good sir

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)

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 !

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.

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.

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

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.

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.