Re: OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World Trade
Centre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq
Danny T wrote:
Have you seen the photos? There is no way they were not fake photos
It's always rather hilarious to read conspiracy theories about the
photographs taken on the Moon.
The problem with people who believe the conspiracy theory is that they
are told "this thing you see in this photo is a clear sign of the photo
being fake", and when they can't think of any explanation in 10 seconds,
they believe the claim, believe that the photograph is fake, never even
consider that there just might be a rational physical explanation, and
then get completely convinced by the conspiracy theory and will never be
convinced otherwise. Then you hear them say things like "the is NO WAY
this is a real photo taken on the Moon".
The thing is, all the "problems" the conspiracy theorists claim in the
photos are completely normal and to be expected, but when presented to a
layman who doesn't have all the information, it can sound pretty convincing.
Example: "There are no stars visible on the photos, thus the photos
were clearly not taken on the Moon." This might sound pretty convincing
to a layman who doesn't do his research. Heck, it can even sound
convincing to a person who has some experience with photography, if he
doesn't bother to think about it a bit or perform a bit of research on
The answer, of course, has to do with the camera shutter aperture and
exposition time. Any person with the most basic understanding of
photography will understand this. The exposure of the cameras was set to
photograph the brightly-lit lunar surface, and the stars were simply too
dim to be captured on film. The exposure time was simply too short, and
the stars got underexposed.
It's actually the opposite: If there had been stars on the
photographs, *that* would have been suspicious. It would need to be
explained how you can photograph both the lunar surface and the stars at
the same time with the same camera settings, without badly overexposing
the lunar surface.
What else? You shouldn't be able to see things in shadows because of
the vacuum, and everything in shadows should be pitch black? Exactly on
which laws of physics is this claim based on? Can you give me a textbook
reference on this subject?
Let me ask you a question: When the sunlight hits the ground, what
happens to that light after that?
Hint: Why is it that you can *see* the ground in the first place?
Heck, why can you see the Moon from Earth?
Answer: The light reflects from the ground to all directions (not
completely evenly, but almost).
So second question: What happens to the light after it has reflected
from the ground?
Oh, you might have the objection that the lunar surface doesn't
reflect but something like 10% of the light? However, the Sun is
*really* bright, and 10% of *really* bright is still very bright, and
the cameras were tuned to photograph this 10% reflected light clearly.
The cameras were tuned to pick up this 10% of reflected light. Also, the
lunar surface is a HUGE reflector, so there's light reflecting from a
very large area, which sums up. Things like the spacesuits were very
white, and reflected a lot of that 10% of light back. It's to be
completely expected for them to be very visible in the photographs.
Vacuum has nothing to do with this. That's just a myth which the
conspiracy theorists want to spread because it suits their theories.
It's all about light reflecting from surfaces.
In fact, most of the photos corroborate that. Shadows *on the ground*
are pitch black, while eg. astronauts in a shadow are illuminated by
light reflecting from the ground. At the same time, in the same photo.
How can this be possible if atmosphere was the explanation for things
being visible in shadows? Shouldn't the ground in shadow also be
visible? No, because there's nothing reflecting light to the shadowed
parts of the ground. There's only a black sky.
The "shadows in vacuum are always pitch black" is just false physics
which is based on absolutely nothing but hearsay. The main source of
illumination is light reflected from other surfaces.
What else? Shadows which don't look parallel? Every single photo with
apparently non-parallel shadows has been replicated with scale models,
and even single shadow can be perfectly and very simply explained by the
shape of the terrain and perspective. It's not even that hard to see it
from the photos themselves.
What else? A waving flag? How can you see the flag waving in a still
photo? And how do you explain that the wrinkles of the flag are
*identical* in different photos, if the flag was waving in the wind?
And so on. "There's no way they were not fake photos" is pure and
complete bullshit. I have yet to see even one single photo which is not
easily and completely explainable with basic physics.
Moreover, believing what the conspiracy theorists claim about the
photos would require me to forget about what I know about basic laws of
physics and start believing in odd fairytales which are based on nothing
more than the odd ramblings of some lunatics.
But nothing will convince the conspiracy theorists. They cannot
concede even on one single point. They will keep onto every single claim
they make, no matter how ridiculous. The "no visible stars" is the
perfect example: It has an extremely simple explanation which anyone can
corroborate by experimentation, and any person with photographic
experience can corroborate, and it just doesn't have anything to it, but
no, conspiracy theorists just can't let even that one go. They have to
keep it. They have to keep every single tiny bit of "evidence" they have
come up with. They just can't let go. They can't admit they are wrong in
any of the examples. Not a single one.