Why do so many doubt the moon landing?

You have the actual film? Then you don't know what happened between film and print. I also have prints from the missions, collected by my grandfather and given to me. I wouldn't swear to each of them being a pristine print.

Do the math. Stars fall so far outside of the possible exposure latitude to expect any in the background of otherwise ordinary surface activity photographs would be like taking a voice memo on an iPhone in Detroit and hoping that in the background you might hear the hour being struck by "Big Ben" in London.

The actual point made was in reference to the seemingly impossible range of black/white/gray/colour detail revealed in the photo of Aldrin descending from the LM. All with a camera that was apparently pointed in the direction of the sun with afixed shutter speed of 1/250 sec, and a limited aperture range of f/5.6 to f/11.
I'm no expert in photography, but I've taken enough pics to sense that something isn't quite right here.

Regarding Neil Armstrong's speech where he says: "There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

What is truth's protective layer? A LIE. There is no other answer. Neil Armstrong, while remaining loyal to his oath and to his fellow Apollo astronauts, tells us it was a lie.

By the way, Neil got very emotional at the end of the speech, getting choked up and tearing up.

Follow the breadcrumbs.

"Truth's protective layers" are simply undiscovered facts of the universe, clearly referencing the preceding phrase. You quote part of the sentence, totally out of out of context from the rest.

"There are places to go beyond belief..." ie: things yet envisioned or top secret missions by NASA and DOD, like the possible moon bases. Maybe the coverup goes the other way.

Maybe Armstrong was emotionally in awe of the human potential and the vastness of the undiscovered. Something I doubt you would understand.

You really don't want to ponder the overall possibilities, just your narrow minded shallow jaundiced view.

Cherry picking "evidence" and myopic logic does not a good argument make.

The NASA shills can spin it all they want, the fact is Aldrin, coming down the ladder, should be in darkness.

The NASA shills can spin it all they want, the fact is Aldrin, coming down the ladder, should be in darkness.

Armstrong used the word TRUTH; not science. It's very simple: TRUTH'S protective layer is non-truth. The engineers never were the better philosophy students. :-)

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Apparently it's "impossible" to film background stars from a lit lunar surface? So what are these in the background... fireflies?

Who said it was impossible? No one did except you. Stars can and have been photographed from the surface as has been demonstrated on this thread many times. But you have to know what you are doing. Your statement is a red herring.


Scan back a few posts and see the AC apolloshill statement that YOU endorsed:

"Film latitude (light to dark ratio) is way too narrow to encompass the wide range needed to record a bright sunlit moonscape and include any stars whatsoever. It's simply impossible."

Only in shill-land does the meaning of "impossible" get confused with "already demonstrated".

*edit* The apollo 11 crew said they saw no stars. Uh huh.

Were there ever any shots taken on the moon that had the sun or the earth in the sky?

Clear and present fakery, sad but true. I you wade through all of the evidence presented on this thread, that is the obvious conclusion.

Without evidence....hoaxers have been proven wrong a hundred time in this thread. But they are to thick to know it.

too thick

[link to www.lpi.usra.edu]

This iconic pic of Aldrin descending a ladder onto the moon's surface is perfectly exposed even though it's shot towards the sun and features very dark and very light surfaces complete with a moving astronaut all in perfect focus.

All this from a primitive 1969 camera that had no viewfinder or light meter. Imagine that.

Were there ever any shots taken on the moon that had the sun or the earth in the sky?

[link to www.treehugger.com]

There's one with the earth, just Google it.

Thanks but I was looking for one taken a person while on the surface.

The actual point made was in reference to the seemingly impossible range of black/white/gray/colour detail revealed in the photo of Aldrin descending from the LM. All with a camera that was apparently pointed in the direction of the sun with afixed shutter speed of 1/250 sec, and a limited aperture range of f/5.6 to f/11.
I'm no expert in photography, but I've taken enough pics to sense that something isn't quite right here.
__
The Hasselblad cameras that they used were versions of the 500EL/M [link to www.hasselbladhistorical.eu] (PDF) with Zeiss Biogen f/5.6-60 mm lenses [link to www.zeiss.com] (PDF).

If you look at the specs for the 500EL/M, they had shutter speeds from 1 to 1/500th of a second. The Biogen f/5.6-60 mm lenses had f-stop scales of 5.6 to 45. Not anywhere near as limited as you try to make them seem.

You're way off on the specs.

"For the surface shots...a special version of the 500 EL was designed – the 500 EL Data Camera.

The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun."

You're claiming they had a range of 1/500th of a second? f5.6 to 45? where? In fantasy land?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

You're way off on the specs.

"For the surface shots...a special version of the 500 EL was designed – the 500 EL Data Camera.

The cameras did not have any light metering or automatic exposure. Based on experimentation on earlier Apollo missions, exposure settings for the different kinds of expected lighting conditions were worked out in advance. The guidelines were printed for the astronauts on the top of the Hasselblad film magazines (shown below). The shutter speed was set to 1/250, and the f-stop recommendations were ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun."

You're claiming they had a range of 1/500th of a second? f5.6 to 45? where? In fantasy land?

Do you have no reading comprehension? Just because those were the recommended settings so that they didn't have to use a light meter, THE SPECS OF THE CAMERA OR LENS DIDN'T CHANGE!

Damn, you hoax believers are as ignorant as a box of rocks! The fantasy land is in your mind.

What part of "the shutter speed was set to 1/250" is difficult for you to understand?

What part of "the shutter speed was set to 1/250" is difficult for you to understand?

Which part of recommended setting is so difficult for you people to understand? Just because it was recommended, that doesn't mean that that was the only shutter speed that the camera was capable of shooting at. But if that's all you morons have to use for your arguments that it was a hoax, you are in sorry-assed shape! Have any of you ever actually used a camera that wasn't automatic, or wasn't a cheap point and click camera?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]


Awesome, thanks ........ do the shadows line up properly in this one? Thew sun would seem to be behind the astronaut (verified by the shadow direction of the cameraman in reflection in the visor also) by the highlight in his visor, that would make the earth in full sunlight would it not?

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]


Awesome, thanks ........ do the shadows line up properly in this one? Thew sun would seem to be behind the astronaut (verified by the shadow direction of the cameraman in reflection in the visor also) by the highlight in his visor, that would make the earth in full sunlight would it not?


If the Earth were full from the Moon, then the Moon would be new (completely dark on the side visible from the Earth). Better to look at the Apollo 17 landing site and realize that the Sun has just risen there - the Earth would have the same phase on the side away from the Moon and the complementary phase on the side facing the Moon.

Who said that any background stars could/should/would be seen or photographed near an astronaut's reflective space suit? Only you and your straw moran.

The actual point made was in reference to the seemingly impossible range of black/white/gray/colour detail revealed in the photo of Aldrin descending from the LM. All with a camera that was apparently pointed in the direction of the sun with afixed shutter speed of 1/250 sec, and a limited aperture range of f/5.6 to f/11.
I'm no expert in photography, but I've taken enough pics to sense that something isn't quite right here.

Your attempt to discredit the images of background stars seen on some of the lunar photographs as being nothing more than examples of light anomalies is more of an example of shill-tardism at it's finest. Cue the applause.

At least this lunar pic looks real, with the overexposed light areas contrasting (as expected) with the dark:
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

However the pic does raise the question: why is this astronaut obscured in shadow if the lunar surface is so reflective? He should be lit up like a Christmas tree with the sunlight reflecting from both the moon and the LM in front.

The NASA shills can spin it all they want, the fact is Aldrin, coming down the ladder, should be in darkness.

Clear and present fakery, sad but true. I you wade through all of the evidence presented on this thread, that is the obvious conclusion.