b*******y
发帖数: 4304 | 1 摘自 WIKI：
Conspiracists devote much of their efforts to examining NASA photos.
They point to oddities in photographs and films purportedly taken on
the Moon. Photography experts (even those unrelated to NASA) answer
that the oddities are what one would expect from a real Moon landing,
and not what would happen with tweaked or studio imagery.
Conspiracists also argue that whistleblowers may have knowingly
tweaked photos in hope of uncovering NASA. Some of the main arguments
and counter-arguments are listed below.
1. In some photos, crosshairs appear to be behind objects. The
cameras were fitted with a reseau plate (a clear glass plate with
crosshairs etched on), making it impossible for any photographed
object to appear "in front" of the grid. This suggests that objects
have been "pasted" over them.
This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals. It
is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion
"bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about
0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about
half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many
photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest
is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one
crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair
are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no
reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.
2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.
This is a result of popular photos being cropped and/or rotated for
aesthetic impact.[53]
3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
There are many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo
astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.[54][55]
The Apollo astronauts used high resolution Hasselblad 500 EL/M Data
cameras with Carl Zeiss optics and a 70-mm film magazine.[56]
4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts
also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember
seeing any stars.
The astronauts were talking about naked-eye sightings of stars during
the lunar daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the
spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference
platforms.
All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the
stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the
moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit
landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint
stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not
detect the stars.[57] Camera settings can turn a well-lit background
into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing
the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the
foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of
this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see
stars from a brightly lit car park at night—the stars only become
visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see
stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the
Moon.[58]
An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16
and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. It captured pictures
of Earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light
but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched
with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes.
Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to Earth are
correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs.
Pictures of the solar corona that included the planet Mercury and
some background stars were taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 15
Command Module Pilot Al Worden.[59]
Pictures of the planet Venus (which is much brighter than any of the
stars) were taken from the Moon's surface by astronaut Alan Shepard
during the Apollo 14 mission.
The International Space Station photographed from Space Shuttle
Atlantis in February 2008 – one of many photographs taken in space
where no stars are visible
Earth and Mir in June 1995 – an example of how sunlight can outshine
the stars, making them invisible
Long-exposure photo taken from the Moon's surface by Apollo 16
astronauts using a special ultraviolet camera. It shows the Earth
with the correct background of stars
5. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent. This suggests
that artificial lights were used.
Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven
ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several
light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight
reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the
astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is
scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into
shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer,
shorter and distorted.[60] Furthermore, shadows display the
properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge
to a point on the horizon.
This theory was shown to be untrue on the MythBusters episode "NASA
Moon Landing".
6. There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to
their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted
background was used.
Shots were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills
in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth,
objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed.
On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure distant
objects, thus they appear clearer and closer.[61] Furthermore, there
are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance. One case
is debunked in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.[62]
7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one
photo per 50 seconds.[63]
Simplified gear with fixed settings allowed two photos a second. Many
were taken immediately after each-other as stereo pairs or panorama
sequences. The calculation (one per 50 seconds) was based on a single
astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there
were two astronauts sharing the workload during EVA.
8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's
on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.
The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do
not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been
suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.[64][65]
9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald",
said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame while watching one of
the manned landings.
No such newspaper reports or recordings have been found. Una Ronald's
existence is claimed by only one source. There are also flaws in the
story, i.e. the statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily
discounted by many witnesses in Australia who watched the event in
the middle of their daytime.[66]
10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photograph of
Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.
It was used instead of the only existing real images, from the TV
monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too
grainy for their book. The book publishers did not work for NASA.
11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like
a huge spotlight was used.
Pits in Moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to tiny
glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on
wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer's own shadow
when it appears in a photograph (see Heiligenschein).
If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into
shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit produces a similar
effect to a spotlight.[67]
Some widely published Apollo photos were high contrast copies. Scans
of the original transparencies are generally much more evenly lit. An
example is shown below:
Original photo of Buzz Aldrin during Apollo 11
The more famous edited version. The contrast has been tweaked
(yielding the "spotlight effect") and a black band has been pasted at
the top | r****t
发帖数: 10904 | 2 你摘的这些大家都看过，但是这些不能回答关键问题，比如辅助光源，鞋底反光，太阳
反射点大小问题。平行影子问题的解释也很靠不住。
【在 b*******y 的大作中提到】
: 摘自 WIKI：
: Conspiracists devote much of their efforts to examining NASA photos.
: They point to oddities in photographs and films purportedly taken on
: the Moon. Photography experts (even those unrelated to NASA) answer
: that the oddities are what one would expect from a real Moon landing,
: and not what would happen with tweaked or studio imagery.
: Conspiracists also argue that whistleblowers may have knowingly
: tweaked photos in hope of uncovering NASA. Some of the main arguments
: and counter-arguments are listed below.
: 1. In some photos, crosshairs appear to be behind objects. The
| r****t
发帖数: 10904 | 3 The mentioning of MythBuster 完全让人很鄙视，参见昨天讨论的帖子。
【在 b*******y 的大作中提到】
: 摘自 WIKI：
: Conspiracists devote much of their efforts to examining NASA photos.
: They point to oddities in photographs and films purportedly taken on
: the Moon. Photography experts (even those unrelated to NASA) answer
: that the oddities are what one would expect from a real Moon landing,
: and not what would happen with tweaked or studio imagery.
: Conspiracists also argue that whistleblowers may have knowingly
: tweaked photos in hope of uncovering NASA. Some of the main arguments
: and counter-arguments are listed below.
: 1. In some photos, crosshairs appear to be behind objects. The
| l***j
发帖数: 3977 | 4 你咋又来了 还不够丢人嘛？
【在 r****t 的大作中提到】
: 你摘的这些大家都看过，但是这些不能回答关键问题，比如辅助光源，鞋底反光，太阳
: 反射点大小问题。平行影子问题的解释也很靠不住。
| r****t
发帖数: 10904 | 5 啥地方丢人了？
【在 l***j 的大作中提到】
: 你咋又来了 还不够丢人嘛？
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 6 没法攻击你了，所以开始说你无耻下流。
【在 r****t 的大作中提到】
: 啥地方丢人了？
| b*******8
发帖数: 37364 | 7 莫悲愤。按这样解释，周老虎也是真的，世上就不可能有假照片。 | d********r
发帖数: 2 | | x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 9
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
【在 r****t 的大作中提到】
: 你摘的这些大家都看过，但是这些不能回答关键问题，比如辅助光源，鞋底反光，太阳
: 反射点大小问题。平行影子问题的解释也很靠不住。
| r****t
发帖数: 10904 | 10 这个 link 对我那个问题列表里面的前两个问题就没有任何解释。对于很多照片疑似
taken under 单一有限远点光源的问题也没有任何解释。
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
| x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 11
视觉角度加地面不平，这已经充分解释了这个问题。别的帖子里面别人也发出多个地球
上拍的照片显示太阳下的影子可以看着不平行。你不要说我们没登陆地球。
【在 r****t 的大作中提到】
: 这个 link 对我那个问题列表里面的前两个问题就没有任何解释。对于很多照片疑似
: taken under 单一有限远点光源的问题也没有任何解释。
| r****t
发帖数: 10904 | 12 No. 靠地面不平还可能，视线问题我昨天已经回答了，别的帖子里面别人也发出多个看
着不平行的影子，视线和影子之间的关系都很正常，但是这个照片这个关系里面不正常。
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
:
: 视觉角度加地面不平，这已经充分解释了这个问题。别的帖子里面别人也发出多个地球
: 上拍的照片显示太阳下的影子可以看着不平行。你不要说我们没登陆地球。
|
|
