At sceptimatic's request...

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

Too easy.  A misrepresentation of what we're actually seeing.  That's why it says "Comments are disabled for this video".

Seriously?  This is typical of these silly sorts of allegedly "bogus" videos.  At any rate, I'd say any/all of those optical aberrations are simply lens flare caused by out of field bright light sources.  Bear in mind too that in any dusty environment—such as the moon where much of its surface is like talcum powder—any dust particles on the rearmost element of the camera lens will appear on the image itself. 
 
No surprises here.

Quote from: Kebab on February 28, 2014, 06:32:04 AM

I still don't follow what you mean with spotlight vs. sun. Are you talking intensity of the light? The size of the moon is irrelevant, if it was the size of earth or even bigger the light per surface area would still be the same.

Sceptimatic has absolutely no idea at all about the propagation, reflection or refraction of light.  His knowledge of photonics could be engraved on the head of a pin.  If you attempt to "follow" what he means by any of his bizarre, self-perpetuated pseudo-theories you'll risk losing your sanity.

If you held up a ping-pong ball and a basketball in full sunlight here on earth, sceptimatic would try and convince you (because he believes so) that each would receive a differing amount of photons per cm² of their respective surfaces.

Nope, not photons.  Light and sound are the same thing, just different frequencies according to Scepti.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 08:55:27 AM

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

Too easy.  A misrepresentation of what we're actually seeing.  That's why it says "Comments are disabled for this video".

Seriously?  This is typical of these silly sorts of allegedly "bogus" videos.  At any rate, I'd say any/all of those optical aberrations are simply lens flare caused by out of field bright light sources.  Bear in mind too that in any dusty environment—such as the moon where much of its surface is like talcum powder—any dust particles on the rearmost element of the camera lens will appear on the image itself. 
 
No surprises here.

So the stage hand edging into focus is just lens flare?

So the stage hand edging into focus is just lens flare?

You're simply "seeing" what you've been led to believe is a human hand.  It's known technically as confirmation bias.

This can also be a common effect of pareidolia.

—Still no surprises.  Sorry.
 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 09:12:41 AM

So the stage hand edging into focus is just lens flare?

You're simply "seeing" what you've been led to believe is a human hand.  It's known technically as confirmation bias.

This can also be a common effect of pareidolia.

—Still no surprises.  Sorry.

Oh, ok, let me have another good look at it. I'll get right back to you.

Ok I've looked at it again and there's definitely two stage hands in the picture. there's no lens flare that can write that off.

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

So you are gullible enough to fall for a fake video even after the guy that created it has admitted it? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 08:55:27 AM

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

So you are gullible enough to fall for a fake video even after the guy that created it has admitted it? 

Nah! We can say that any video can be faked, which puts all of the videos you lot put out. It's up to people to decide that.
You lot are just a small handful of people jumping right on it to say it's fake. The rest of the people viewing it can make up their own mind.
Personally I don't think it's faked, no matter what was said.

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 08:55:27 AM

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

So you are gullible enough to fall for a fake video even after the guy that created it has admitted it? 

Nah! We can say that any video can be faked, which puts all of the videos you lot put out. It's up to people to decide that.
You lot are just a small handful of people jumping right on it to say it's fake. The rest of the people viewing it can make up their own mind.
Personally I don't think it's faked, no matter what was said.

OK I will try again. I'm going to write a sentence now and would like you to, as you have a fondness for saying, have a good look at it. The guy that created the video admitted he faked it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 09:39:41 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 08:55:27 AM

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

So you are gullible enough to fall for a fake video even after the guy that created it has admitted it? 

Nah! We can say that any video can be faked, which puts all of the videos you lot put out. It's up to people to decide that.
You lot are just a small handful of people jumping right on it to say it's fake. The rest of the people viewing it can make up their own mind.
Personally I don't think it's faked, no matter what was said.

OK I will try again. I'm going to write a sentence now and would like you to, as you have a fondness for saying, have a good look at it. The guy that created the video admitted he faked it.

I don't care about the guy saying he faked it. He didn't say he faked it for a long long time, I wonder why?
I think someone has told him to say he faked it or else.
The Apollo missions from start to finsih are riddled in holes and absolute cretinous bull crap. This is some of the stuff that was caught before they had a chance to do their full homework, just like the many pictures they doctored, after people were ripping them to bits, time and time again.

You carry on with what you believe, I have no issues with it. You're your own person with your own thoughts, you are entitled to go along with all the bull crap for as long as you wish.
I won't be following that route, because it's as plain as the nose on my face that it's all a big hoax.
It fooled the masses in the days of the old TV sets with no playback facilities but it doesn't fool all of the people today.

Scepti, the moon goes through phases.  A 5 year old with a tennis ball and a flashlight can figure this out.  If it's a new moon, no one sees it.  If it it's in any crescent phase, that's what everyone sees.  When it's a full moon, that's what everyone sees.

It looks so bright at night because everything around you is dark.  Look at the moon for a moment and your eyes will adjust slightly.  Look at it through a telescope and it will become less intense as your eyes adjust further.

The astronauts landed on its day side, but instead of landing where the sun was directly overhead (equivalent of noon here on Earth), they landed where the sun was lower and angled (equivalent of later afternoon)

It fooled the masses in the days of the old TV sets with no playback facilities but it doesn't fool all of the people today.

I'm taking a guess here and saying you weren't even born when Apollo 11 landed men on the moon.  Right?

Okay.  So videotaping was in use in 1956, or 13 years before the first moon landing.  Prior to that (and well after), we all used a method known as "kinescope" (a 16mm or 35mm movie film camera mounted in front of a video monitor, and synchronised to the monitor's scanning rate).  Even in Australia, we were using kinescopes in 1957 when commercial TV started broadcasting here.  And I'm not really sure as to why you're making such a big deal out of the playback facilities from a TV set?

So... this shoots down another of your "theories", that is, that we had no TV playback facility.  Sorry.

And yes; I have personally viewed the kinescope process, and seen the results with my own eyes.

Scepti, the moon goes through phases.  A 5 year old with a tennis ball and a flashlight can figure this out.  If it's a new moon, no one sees it.  If it it's in any crescent phase, that's what everyone sees.  When it's a full moon, that's what everyone sees.

It looks so bright at night because everything around you is dark.  Look at the moon for a moment and your eyes will adjust slightly.  Look at it through a telescope and it will become less intense as your eyes adjust further.

The astronauts landed on its day side, but instead of landing where the sun was directly overhead (equivalent of noon here on Earth), they landed where the sun was lower and angled (equivalent of later afternoon)

Well, I'm sure the young kids at school will buy into that. I certainly aren't.
Moon phases from our position on Earth I accept. I do not accept the moon landing explanations, because I'm 100% certain they were faked.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 09:52:24 AM

It fooled the masses in the days of the old TV sets with no playback facilities but it doesn't fool all of the people today.

I'm taking a guess here and saying you weren't even born when Apollo 11 landed men on the moon.  Right?

Okay.  So videotaping was in use in 1956, or 13 years before the first moon landing.  Prior to that (and well after), we all used a method known as "kinescope" (a 16mm or 35mm movie film camera mounted in front of a video monitor, and synchronised to the monitor's scanning rate).  Even in Australia, we were using kinescopes in 1957 when commercial TV started broadcasting here.  And I'm not really sure as to why you're making such a big deal out of the playback facilities from a TV set?

So... this shoots down another of your "theories", that is, that we had no TV playback facility.  Sorry.

And yes; I have personally viewed the kinescope process, and seen the results with my own eyes.

You're entitled to make guesses about me. Just don't assume they're correct.
As for playback facilities in those days. Many people were lucky to own just  TV so don't be coming it with playback. Maybe the odd well of person may have had it...but I'm not talking about a handful, am I.

You're entitled to make guesses about me. Just don't assume they're correct.
As for playback facilities in those days. Many people were lucky to own just  TV so don't be coming it with playback. Maybe the odd well of person may have had it...but I'm not talking about a handful, am I.

No worries;  I'll stop guessing.  So were you even born when Apollo 11 landed Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon?  A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

And I take it you are admitting we did have TV playback facilities in 1969?  Yes?

I'm not interested in what N.A.S.A says they landed on, I'm interested in what people would see of the moon from Earth as these cretins were supposedly on it.

Based on the dates of the moon landings, it would have looked like this:
Apollo 11 and 17: Apollo 12 and 14:

Apollo 15: Apollo 16:

And a quick check on landing sites shows that each one was either in or very close to the poorly lit strip between the light and dark portions of the moon. The following image shows the Apollo landing sites as green triangles:



I'm not expecting you to take any of this seriously, that's entirely up to you, but it would be appreciated if you gave it as much consideration as you ask us to give each image and video you put up. Approach it with an open mind, and just pretend for a moment that it may have been possible, if you can.

This is a very interesting video. Have a good look at it and tell me what you think.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

Here is a photo of the of Gene Cernan just after he spoke on the carrier.

there appears to have been some bleeding under the nail on the little finger and, possibly, near the base of the middle finger
 

Remember this photo was taken 3 days after the moon walk.

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 08:55:27 AM

Here's a video for you all to have a good think over. Can anyone think what this could be?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 16 : Two Stagehands Are Seen in The Fake Moon Bay Next To An Astronaut

So you are gullible enough to fall for a fake video even after the guy that created it has admitted it? 

Nah! We can say that any video can be faked, which puts all of the videos you lot put out. It's up to people to decide that.
You lot are just a small handful of people jumping right on it to say it's fake. The rest of the people viewing it can make up their own mind.
Personally I don't think it's faked, no matter what was said.

Video's can be faked.. therefor all videos are faked.

-Skepti 'logic'.

Remember this photo was taken 3 days after the moon walk.

It was 6 days from the third eva to splashdown

Some videos are proven to be faked, yet, the rest are absolutely real.  RE logic. 

RE Logic, some are real, some are fake? 

Yes, that's called a rational viewpoint.

Look it up.

Some videos are proven to be faked, yet, the rest are absolutely real.  RE logic.

As far as I know, there have been no NASA moon program videos that have been proved unequivocally to be fake.  I know a lot of people have posted lots of these videos on YouTube, and provided their detailed descriptions of the allegedly phony bits and pieces, but none of them are all that convincing.

And as each allegedly bogus video is posted, another video is posted rebutting the first and proving it's not a phony.

I'm actually surprised that even after more than 40 years, there's conspiracy theorists out there still desperately trying to prove all the Apollo missions were filmed in an aircraft hanger in Area 51.

Why would you bother?

Quote from: jroa on February 28, 2014, 03:08:10 PM

Some videos are proven to be faked, yet, the rest are absolutely real.  RE logic.

As far as I know, there have been no NASA moon program videos that have been proved unequivocally to be fake.  I know a lot of people have posted lots of these videos on YouTube, and provided their detailed descriptions of the allegedly phony bits and pieces, but none of them are all that convincing.

And as each allegedly bogus video is posted, another video is posted rebutting the first and proving it's not a phony.

I'm actually surprised that even after more than 40 years, there's conspiracy theorists out there still desperately trying to prove all the Apollo missions were filmed in an aircraft hanger in Area 51.

Why would you bother?

It gives the conspiracy theorist lots of attention. They love attention. It is their way to make themselves believe that are smart.

Let me ask you this, why did we make such a big deal about going to the moon for 2 or 3 years, and then stop when things were going so well, never to do it again?  40 years ago, we could do it with the computing power of a pocket calculator, yet, today, we don't do it anymore.  Makes you wonder why, does it not?

Let me ask you this, why did we make such a big deal about going to the moon for 2 or 3 years, and then stop when things were going so well, never to do it again?  40 years ago, we could do it with the computing power of a pocket calculator, yet, today, we don't do it anymore.  Makes you wonder why, does it not?

Solar storms and the escalation of the Vietnam war I believe.. but I'm not 100% sure.. others might know..

Let me ask you this, why did we make such a big deal about going to the moon for 2 or 3 years, and then stop when things were going so well, never to do it again? 

Too easy. 

Two things:  The cold war was grinding to a halt.  And the Russians curtailed their space exploration program.

There you go..

Huge pity I think.

Correction, the cold war was in full motion at the time of the Apollo missions.  Yet, everyone just gave up and stopped even trying to go to the moon.