Why do people believe in conspiracy theories, or why does Tom exist...

[sgreger1]

The more I am thinking about this, I really would like to see the under/over exposed pictures. There is no-way with that camera to come out with a perfect picture each time unless it was done in a studio with extra lighting. The focus really does not matter because with those lenses you can set to feet how far a object is away from you but the proper exposure on a "Moon" of all places is tricky even if they had a hand held light meter. Did they have strobes and flash units with them??

Not sure about temperature and camera function, fog in the lense etc... and how the actual film was protected contained from any radioactivity.

Yes, they had strobes and flashes. This was not done overnight, we had the best and brightest figuring this out. They knew exactly what to expect and prepared for it. No need for light meters. It is easy to calculate on the moon because the lack of atmosphere makes it less complicated. Lots of hard shadows but the flash took care of that.

If there were any under/overexposed pictures they were likely tossed. But I doubt there were many.

[tom502]

It's all lies.

[sgreger1]

It's all lies.

Tom, with all due respect, it's okay to be critical of things and ask questions, but to just blindly believe whatever you want and call everyone elses side "lies" isn't reasonable. Your question was "how could they have taken so many pictures?", the answer was, simply, that they had multiple automatic cameras and two cameramen, and most of those pictures were panorama shots so 1 complete picture was made up of 2 or more smaller pictures (which get counted as individual ones in the archive) etc. The cameras they had available could have easily taken these pictures in a matter of minutes.

This is a reasonable explanation.


It's the same thing for all the people who try to spread the myth that the van allen radiation belt would have fried the astronauts. It doesn't even matter that VAN ALLEN HIMSELF said it would give a human no more radiation than an xray if you were to pass through it, you guys still won't believe it. You would actually trust some poorly assembled website over the guy who discovered it in your analysis of whether or not a human could pass through it.


It's okay to ask questions, but when reasonable answers are given, you can't just claim they're lies based on nothing. The simple fact remains that going to the moon is not that hard, and we had the tech, money, and national will to do it, and we did it. Not actually that hard to believe.

[MGX]

Lol you guys are great.

This thread is a winner.

Also, why would all these scientists etc. lie about science? Are they on the take from the government to 'cover up' things like Van Allen belts?

[tom502]

Of course, I do question the "Moon Landings". I have heard all the rebuttals. "Could" they have taken so many photos? I guess, but to have so many, and so many expertly positioned great photos? I find it immprobable. Especially with so many pictures showing mulitple light sources, areas that are magically bright, even in shadow. And many other things.

Another question raised on that site, I have always wondered about, is when the LEM "blasts" off(obviously being pulled up on a wire), the camera even pans up, filming the whole event. Now, who was taking this? And when Armstrong was taking his "historic" first step, he was being filmed, near the ground even, doing it, and so who was "already" there, taking this footage? Just seems very odd to me.

[GENERAL BILLY]

"The Solution: It took five years, hundreds of people, and over a million dollars to develop the seven-pound SEC vidicon camera. But it was ready on July 20, 1969, a pioneering example of solid state and integrated circuit technology. All Neil Armstrong had to do was point and shoot. The signal was beamed to a receiving dish in Australia, converted to standard commercial broadcast format and shown to more than 50http://www.newseum.org/exhibits-and-...oon/index.html0 million people."

[Roo]

Stop giving Tom such a hard time. If we had *really* gone to the moon in '69, we would have naturally found it crawling with Nazis and their advanced moon civilization. Which we didn't. Ergo, it was faked.

[CoderGuy]

stop giving tom such a hard time. If we had *really* gone to the moon in '69, we would have naturally found it crawling with nazis and their advanced moon civilization. Which we didn't. Ergo, it was faked.

rofl

[jamesstew]

Stop giving Tom such a hard time. If we had *really* gone to the moon in '69, we would have naturally found it crawling with Nazis and their advanced moon civilization. Which we didn't. Ergo, it was faked.

Bwahahahahahahahahh. Besides, none of you will be laughing today when first contact is made.

[tom502]

So far nothing yet. of course the ex-Norad officer says from now till the end of the year. I am hopeful, wishful, yearning, begging. etc..... but I have no idea if it will happen. But it really seems "it" must happen someday... someday. The issue I have with this time frame, is it comes from a channeler. Now, I am not totally closed minded to this practice, but in my reading, it doesn't seem to usually be accurate. But that aside, non-Earth, or non-Government flying craft must be real, there is years and years, centuries, of records, reports, photos, film, video, paintings, etchings, carvings. I mean, it can't be all a mass hysteria, that doesn't hold up. I mean, old paintings, with a metallic craft in the sky, why would they even paint that? Is it the "spirit of the Lord"? Why would it be a mechanical, metallic, "thing"? Something just has to be going on.

[truthwolf1]

Found this site last night. I like his humorous spin on this topic. He goes back and forth between the debunkers and his own theories on this topic.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html

The ‘debunkers’ will also tell you that it is not true that all the Moon landing images were keepers, and that NASA only released the best of the photos. The ‘debunkers,’ however, don’t know what they are talking about. The reality is that NASA has released all of the alleged photos taken during the Apollo missions, including indecipherable ones that are labeled “inadvertent shutter release” (which, I have to admit, is a nice touch). With the exception of what are most likely deliberate mistakes, the clear majority of the shots are pretty well composed, exposed and focused.

For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots.

You should probably use a digital camera, by the way, so that you don’t waste a lot of film, because you’re not going to have a lot of keepers. Of course, part of the fun of this challenge is changing the film with the gloves and helmet on, and you’ll miss out on that by going digital. Anyway, after you fill up your memory card, head back home and download all your newly captured images. While looking through your collection of unimpressive photos, marvel at the incredible awesomeness of our Apollo astronauts, who not only risked life and limb to expand man’s frontiers, but who were also amazingly talented photographers. I’m more than a little surprised that none of them went on to lucrative careers as professional shutterbugs.

Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.

[jamesstew]

I'm not a debunker, I'm a NWO agent.

[truthwolf1]

So far nothing yet. of course the ex-Norad officer says from now till the end of the year. I am hopeful, wishful, yearning, begging. etc..... but I have no idea if it will happen. But it really seems "it" must happen someday... someday. The issue I have with this time frame, is it comes from a channeler. Now, I am not totally closed minded to this practice, but in my reading, it doesn't seem to usually be accurate. But that aside, non-Earth, or non-Government flying craft must be real, there is years and years, centuries, of records, reports, photos, film, video, paintings, etchings, carvings. I mean, it can't be all a mass hysteria, that doesn't hold up. I mean, old paintings, with a metallic craft in the sky, why would they even paint that? Is it the "spirit of the Lord"? Why would it be a mechanical, metallic, "thing"? Something just has to be going on.

NOw, are the "Pleiadians" the one's channeling to this guy?
I would be down for the next evolution of consciousness.

[sgreger1]

Man, it's only 8:17 and i'm already ready for this day to be over. I hope to God Tom is right because I am guessing an alien invasion would probably get me the day off work.

*crosses fingers*

[devilock76]

Of course, I do question the "Moon Landings". I have heard all the rebuttals. "Could" they have taken so many photos? I guess, but to have so many, and so many expertly positioned great photos? I find it immprobable. Especially with so many pictures showing mulitple light sources, areas that are magically bright, even in shadow. And many other things.

Another question raised on that site, I have always wondered about, is when the LEM "blasts" off(obviously being pulled up on a wire), the camera even pans up, filming the whole event. Now, who was taking this? And when Armstrong was taking his "historic" first step, he was being filmed, near the ground even, doing it, and so who was "already" there, taking this footage? Just seems very odd to me.

Armstrongs first steps were filmed by a camera on an arm attached to the lander. It was a slowscan camera that if memory serves was mounted to the lander leg.

As for multiple light sources, the entire moon is very bright, all surfaces but a perfect mirror radiate reflected light at all angles, similar to the difference between how surfaces reflect sound as an echo vs reverberation. In short there were no multiple light source pictures except the camera flash when used.

But let's put it this way, if you seriously believe they engineered this major hoax, would all these scientists really add studio lights to a shot knowing the only four light surfaces they would potentially have on the moon would be, in order of magnitude:

1. The Sun
2. The moon's own reflected light from the surface
3. portable camera flash
4. Light reflected from the earth

I mean would they really make a mistake like using obvious studio lighting after everything else to pull of such an elaborate hoax. Take an Occam's Razor approach to this please.

Ken