It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
1. Backscatter from what, when your in a long shadow?
The LMs shadow doesn't cover the entire lunar surface. There is still a lot of light being reflected back on the shaded side of the LM. Here's the reverse angle. AS12-46-6718. You can clearly see that there is a lot of illuminated terrain right behind the astronaut as he goes down the ladder.
Also, if that was the case why are the ground shadows so black? You cant have both, pitch a black ground shadow but light shadow on the object creating it.
Sure you can. There isn't much around that could reflect enough light into the shadows on the ground to be picked up by the camera. Were there some studio reflectors or softboxes around, they'd be reflecting light into the shadows on the ground as well.
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?
Originally posted by torch2k
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?
How nice, yerself! How be you show us a photo in which the lighting is a dead giveaway of a fake. While you're at it, explain why your evidence is compelling, and please refrain from referencing some $19.99/CD huckster.
Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus.
Make yourself useful and explain why in that photo the lunar terrain is unevenly lit instead of writing vague comments.
Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus.
Make yourself useful and explain why in that photo the lunar terrain is unevenly lit instead of writing vague comments.
Originally posted by FoosM
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?
Originally posted by Anti-Evil
for the first time I watched "Capricorn One" the manned mission to Mars.
video.google.com...
and yea, the moon was a Hoax. you got to see this 1970's movie. awesome...
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. The Lunar surface in the photo I linked to in my previous post is unevenly lit? Could you explain in more detail? I don't see anything wrong with how the surface is lit in that photo. [/quote
Take a look at the astronauts helmet. Zoom in if you have to.
You will see that the left side of the reflection shows a brighter lunar surface than the right side. Its very clear. Yet the red side is the side where you see more light bounce. Where is that coming from? ANd what is causing the light bounce on the antenna?
His suit, the LM should be fully blocking the sun.
Originally posted by torch2k
Originally posted by FoosM
Sorry I dont understand language of Doofus.
Make yourself useful and explain why in that photo the lunar terrain is unevenly lit instead of writing vague comments.
From what I've read throughout this thread, you speak Doofus quite fluently.
Now how 'bout your best example of a fake, in your own words, without merely linking a Jarrah White YT Video? Try being original for a change.
Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by FoosM
Problem with the cameras is they didn't have EXPOSURE CONTROLS OR LIGHTING CONTROLS!!!
How can Aldrin say such a thing?
Ijust think that gear ought to be available earlier.
It's one of the things you can get done or at least get
started on 3 or 4 months before the flight, and yet it's
not available. It's another one of those late-arrival
categories. I'm not sure whether it has to do with the
quantity of the training equipment or the fact that we
have to get one flight down before we can get around to
providing for the next one, I think the familiarization
with the cameras (taking them home and taking pictures
while you're flying around the country in T38's) should be done early and not the last couple of weeks. Fr\om the flights that I have been associated with, it seems to me that it's always been the last month when that stuff magically appears and they want t o t a l k t o you about it and all that; it should be done earlier, I think....
I think it's ridiculous that we don't have some sort of
automatic exposure control or automatic light control,
or whatever you call it. Commercial cameras are available
where all you do is point and click and the thing is in the right exposure value. And there are even camera? available that have switches where you can have either a wide field or an average exposure value to giveyoua broad coverage. For example, i f you took black sky against a white booster, it would average out the black sky and
the white booster. It would give you the average value that might not be optimum for either one,
Then if you wanted to be specific
and throw a l i t t l e switch, which zonks a lightmeter down to a spotmeter kind of thing, you can either point it at
the dark sky or point it at the booster. These things
exist. It's easy to say, well, you can't qualify them,
or this right company doesn't make them, or they're not
rugged enough, or they won't pass the salt spray, and
otherwise raise barriers. If that had been aggressively
pursued, we would have right now in our hands an automatic
camera that would take a hell of lot better pictures than
we are capable of taking, and we could have qualified the
thing by now. I think that should be done, I really do.
I think they are pursuing it with Hasselblads, but, my Lord, they have been pursuing it with Hasselblads for years, ever since the subject first came up, and I just
don't see any results et we do carry great huge spot-
meters whose utility is questionable, and we manage to develop and carry those frapping things. That Minolta
t spotmeter was not used during the flight. I don't know what flights have used it but I'd gladly swap it for an automatic light control in a camera. That 2-pound battery
is nothing moreorless than a handle crank; I'd gladly swap it for an automatic lightmeter built into the camera.
I just think that gear ought to be available earlier ...and not the last couple of weeks.
I think it's ridiculous that we don't have some sort of
automatic exposure control or automatic light control,
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by PsykoOps
I agree. They did have automatic exposure in those days, but it would be useless for their purposes. This latest turn in the thread actually got me wondering if Kodak developed the "Instamatic" camera in the hopes that it would be used in space. Those clunky film cassettes were perfect for clumsy space gloves.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by cushycrux
AND AGAIN.....
www.universetoday.com...
It's 100% clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon
on the left: selene/jaxa Hight Data - right: Nasa Photo
accept or deny....proof.
Now tell me how that proves anything when the moon was previously mapped prior to Apollo?
Jarrah offered a challenge to have the following answered
lets see how well you do:
One September morning in 2002, I was in Beverly Hills at the Luxe Hotel, filming a television interview for a Far Eastern TV network, when the interview began going in a direction that I knew was out of bounds. At first I tried to be cordial, adroitly answering the question, assuming that the interviewer would recognize my reluctance to talk about inanity, and bring the focus back to a bona fide space subject. Instead the interviewer began playing a television segment that had aired in the United States on the subject of hoaxes, including a section suggesting that the Apollo 11 moon landing never happened. I was aware of the piece and had been livid when it originally aired. I did not appreciate the interviewer's attempts to lure me into commenting on it. Lisa had accompanied me to the interview following her early morning triathlon training in the Santa Monica Bay, and she immediately recognized that this was a flagrant violation of our willingness to conduct the interview in good faith, so she called a halt to the production. We weren't belligerent, but we did not linger long over our good-byes, either.
'We just paid to rent out the penthouse to shoot up there.'
How nice, you show me photo where the lunar surface is unevenly lit.
So how do you explain that?