The Lies In Your Visors

This will be my first thread proper and I welcome a polite discussion of the simple topic posted. I added a link to a month old thread but don't expect it to receive much attention, hence I decided to make a separate thread for it.

OK. The subject is quite simple and hopefully the posted youtube video will represent the possible smoking gun of many NASA photos. Before anyone mentions the search, I used it and did not find it posted already.

The premise is simple. The reflection of the sun is not consistent with what we see in much NASA material which would seem to indicate that the photo's are faked. That's it. The video has no sound, just a few images so don't be scared your speakers will explode or some corny/techno music will start pumping out.



Thoughts?

I must admit I didn't watch the video as I had already went down that road years ago, but to address the whole "multiple light source" angle, the show Mythbusters already slammed that one by showing that due to the angle of reflection and the main active "ingredient" in the Lunar dust which adds to it's reflectiveness (for lack of a better description), they showed that they could cast multiple light sourced shadows from a single light source (as in the case of the Sun). Good luck with your quest for knowledge on the topic. I too felt at one time that perhaps the whole Moon Landing was faked/hoaxed until I began uncovering examples/scientific proof that showed otherwise in that YES we DID go and land on the moon.

(the biggest one being that right now something like the UCLA Berkely has a laser that they can fire off from their observatory that hits a special reflector that was....yup you guessed it, left up on the moon by one of the Apollo moon missions at a certain degree in which it reflects the laser back to Earth giving us exact distance to the moon from Earth anytime we want it pretty much. Once I stumbled across that one, I was done in my quest to find out whether the moon landings were faked)

reply to post by Newbomb Turk

Well, thanks for the vaguely off-topic reply and not watching the video, I guess...
To be clear, I would appreciate discussion of the material posted, not reflectors on the moon or other things which have nothing to do with the video. Thanks.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


My thoughts are that I need to buy the sun visors they wore in the 90s, those were fly... But they don't got 'em anymore..

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Let me guess......the video was posted by YouTube account holder "greenmagoos"?

[edit] --- Oh, I see the video is originally from "greenmagoos", and his mate "michaelstmark", as presented in the opening title sequence.....it has been repeated ('mirrored' in YouTube-speak) by another user.
It is still rubbish, though


Yeah, it's more utter nonsense, from that bloke. I note he hasn't been active in the "Apollo Hoax" myth much lately. He (and his mate who assisted) was/were far more active back a few years ago.....

Anyway the simple explanation that is much easier to understand than that whole diatribe in the video? The visors had multiple layers, and thus reflections as a result. Not to mention, once you get deeper into it (and with a more thorough understanding of photography and lens optics) you also will realize that the various sizes of lenses account for the variables in the different photos.


Oh, and here you go, just one video rebuttal, not specifically to this "greenmagoos" video production, but to the equally asinine and absurd "film" that went somewhat "mainstream", and featured the puffy-haired self-proclaimed "expert" David Percy (amongst others):




But in any case, the photos from the LRO camera and orbiting satellite dispute ALL of the silly "Apollo Hoax" claims conclusively.

reply to post by ProudBird

Please elaborate how multiple visors would change the effect of the sun's appearance on the visor, I understand that there will be multiple reflections but as the video shows, an astronaut in space with the outermost gold visor down should still show a single point of light with spokes radiating from the centre. You did watch the video or just made an assumption as to who posted it and dismissed it out of hand?

ETA You did not watch the video apart from the opening titles. I am not interested in opinions, I am interested in facts. Multiple visors do not change the overall effect of the sun reflected as can be clearly seen on the multiple layer visors of recent photos of astronauts in low earth orbit.

I believe we went to the moon but what we saw and what we see as proof was a hoax.

I think the real deal is as classified as it gets due to sensitive information on the moon and possibly why we were there in the first place. The real moon-landing footage would probably be a huge paradigm shift for the world, in terms of our history, how old our civilization is, among other things.

The hollywood footage was safe for viewer consumption.

For one to think the government would openly feed live video/audio to the masses without the security of editing what might possibly happen or what they might possibly find is naive in the least.

reply to post by Sly1one


You would be incorrect. Not about the going to the Moon, but in the assessment of the mountains of evidence as to how they really happened. None of it was "faked Hollywood style". Anyone who has ever known anything about the reality of film ;production can immediately recognize this.

But, even allowing for those who have no concept of real film making and the processes involved, the VAST reams of information that exists out there is testament to the reality of Apollo (and the entire manned space flight saga as well).

Here's one place to begin an adventure of study and information gathering:

ALSJ

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


It has a combination of factors involved, as I pointed out (you might have missed my afterthoughts).

Lens focal lengths being a contributing factor in the appearance and relative sizes of the reflections of the Sun.

Also, I have sat through that video at least three times before, when first encountering it back in 2007 or 2008, as I recall. It was just one of a slew of similarly bad attempts by those two blokes from the UK. Yes, I know a bit about them, since they were rude and abusive to me, back then, on their YouTube account comments section, and in personal PMs.

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk

...the biggest one being that right now something like the UCLA Berkely has a laser that they can fire off from their observatory that hits a special reflector that was....yup you guessed it, left up on the moon by one of the Apollo...

that just proves there's a beacon on the moon. it could have been dropped there 20 years ago, or on a later, real mission to the moon.

and why aren't they going to the moon again. it was done with 60's technology and computers.

i bet if nasa scientists really wanted, they can construct a fully functional flight command centre with a few trips to radio shack and best buy.

and the russians didn't even bother.

Originally posted by randomname

Originally posted by Newbomb Turk

...the biggest one being that right now something like the UCLA Berkely has a laser that they can fire off from their observatory that hits a special reflector that was....yup you guessed it, left up on the moon by one of the Apollo...

that just proves there's a beacon on the moon. it could have been dropped there 20 years ago, or on a later, real mission to the moon.

and why aren't they going to the moon again. it was done with 60's technology and computers.

i bet if nasa scientists really wanted, they can construct a fully functional flight command centre with a few trips to radio shack and best buy.

and the russians didn't even bother.

Well it's not quite a beacon per se....more of a highly polished "aluminum" metal honeycombed kind of set up that is positioned at such and such angle (like just going off of the TV program that showed them testing it, it looks like a maybe 3 to 4 foot X 3 to 4 foot rectangle/square job that is positioned at like 40 degrees or something if I recall correctly. Oh and hey I here ya man...I STILL have me all sorts of moon mysteries/conspiracies that I still find myself not being able to resist tuning into when I see 'em so we on the same page there


A few most recent being the whole slamming the surveyor satellite into the moon in order to "record whether there was water" or not on the moon....yeeeaaa right!! And even more mysterious was how it just got swallowed up...I'm talkin disappeared!! No big explosion, not even a "POOF"! Nada. Plus the unusual high "towers" or "spires" that we see protruding from the moon that look like they extend literally MILES up into space!!

Nah I never said that NASA/JPL were completely HONEST in what all they did yada yada yada, but they DID land on the moon back in the day (I personally believe that it was the 1968/69 Apollo moon missions and that they were real...did they SHOW US everything and share all? Hells no, but they went) IMO.

**ATTENTION**

The next member to post off-topic will be rewarded with a loss of posting privileges for at least 72 hours.

Please remain on topic, there will be no further warnings.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


I will also try to search (as, of course, any of us may do as well) for examples of facts to properly address the claims from that video.

Difficult, it can be....for I am not anywhere near an "expert" level in optics, and photography.....but, I consider myself to have a rather solid understanding, based on a lifetime of experience from my teen years, with SLR cameras, and all from the era well prior to today's modern digital technologies.

In addition, I am rather "expert" in some related aviation technologies, and as such, can view the Apollo documentation materials with that eye and expertise. Would be hard to "fool" those of us who would recognize a "hoax" rather quickly.

Yes, there are various degrees of knowledge and life experience to draw upon, and as such, it behooves everyone to take advantage of the font of knowledge that's out there. Much of the misconception that is at the heart of "faked" Apollo is derived from the simple lack of experience of some of those who promote the myth.....whether they promote it in order to line their pockets financially, and do so with deception at heart....or, whether they merely haven't (yet) been exposed to sufficient grasp of the many issues involved, in order to better comprehend them.

reply to post by ProudBird

I would indeed be most grateful for any light (no pun intended!) you could shine on this matter. Now that we have a few speedbumps out of the discussion (thank you moderators! and I was as guilty as anyone else) it is a subject that interests me greatly. As of yet though, I have seen no plausible explanation as to why the reflections of the Sun, or any other object for that matter, should be anomalous.

One of the more famous Apollo shots on the moon shows a fairly perfect reflection in the visor of the astronaut taking the photo.
I believe this is an official NASA photograph of Buzz Aldrin:


Source

This to me would at least exclude the possibility of it being a camera or film artifact/error due to materials being used at that time. The visors used back then also seem to give the same well-detailed reflections when compared to the refections we see in more recent astronaut photographs from NASA. To use the old Sherlock Holmes quote:

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Go and learn a bit about photography, the IDIOTS who made the video didn't

www.advancedphotography.net...

From this site

Diffraction Spikes On Small Apertures On smaller apertures the diffraction becomes increasingly prominent. This can be used for some very creative effects. This diffraction spike can be used as a creative technique while photographing the lights (or any source of light for that matter) to get the star-light effect

How many points you get is varied due to the construction of the lens and its aperture blades.

They went to the Moon!