The Lies In Your Visors

reply to post by wmd_2008

I'm sorry but to me this image just "feels" wrong. Very wrong. I won't even mention the sun. Why is the backside of of the craft lit up like a xmas tree? Surely that couldn't be if the light source is in front of the craft?

The flag seems way too illuminated also for the side that does not seem to be facing the light. I suppose the light could be passing through the material.

Then there is the object underneath the craft at the far right. The side pointing away from the light source seems to be too bright, especially when you take into account the dark shadow on the ground caused by the craft.

Oh, and that umbrella type thingy (radio beacon?) looks to have 2 shadows, one of which appears to be going in the wrong direction too.

To be fair, it is not the best of photos either but it just feels false to me.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
In the shots used in the youtube video, I see no evidence of dust at all. With that much dust, I am sure the sun would barely reflect at all but again, in the shots used in the video, the reflection seems very well detailed leading me to conclude that dust is not the cause.

ETA Just noticed your scratched visor shots. I went back and watched the film again full screen looking for evidence of scratching but cannot see it. The other reflections seem fairly well defined. I can't imagine that the place where the sun is reflecting is the only part of the visor scratched. The chances of that happening would seem astronomical.

edit on 15/12/11 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA

Actually, if you stop the video at 4:10 you will see that Gene Cernan's visor is not quite clean.... I see dust on it. (The person who made the video should have included all the image IDs, by the way, so we could have studied the original photos more closely, in the hightest resolution possible. Very sloppy work that the IDs are left out.)

And regarding the pics of Jack Schmitt's scratched gold visor, it seems to me that there are more scratches on the areas that would be in front of his eyes as he turned his head around inside the helmit (yes, there is room for that), in order so see out... Those are the areas the astronaut would have wiped/brushed most often, I think, so it makes sense to me that there are more scratches on some areas of the visor that on others. But perhaps I am missing your point, I am not quite certain what you mean.

reply to post by InsideOfItAll

Let us assume you are right on one photo, how would that explain all the others? They all happened to have those scratches in the most opportune of places? Again, in some of the shots I see no evidence of scratches and otherwise perfect reflections in the rest of the visors.

[reply to post by LightSpeedDriver



IF you are refering to THIS photo???



BEEN mentioned, and mentioned and mentioned.....to make it simple, think about how light is refelected from sand, when filming on a n Earth beach.

The Lunar regolith is VERY reflective.....even as it lays there, like sand:....MANY Internet sources will describe this effect of the Lunar surface.

The very FIRST step to comprehension will to understand the "other worldly" aspects of being in or on an ALIEN environment....(such as the Moon).

This will be MORE important, as decades go forward......

reply to post by ProudBird

Hey, I didn't bring it up, someone else did. Complain to the poster of that photo and not me. Thanks

ETA I'm still hoping to get a little more discussion on the video posted but so far, not too much evidence that disproves the video.

hi there people

i saw this episode of mythbusters not that long ago that was about the moon landing, some people claimed it was a hoax due to some of the shadows being cast in different directions creating the illusion of multiple lights. They replicated the scene and did a really good job at debunking the hoax

this is the related segment (no idea how to embed) www.youtube.com...

Hope this is helpful somehow

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I'm sorry but to me this image just "feels" wrong. Very wrong. I won't even mention the sun. Why is the backside of of the craft lit up like a xmas tree? Surely that couldn't be if the light source is in front of the craft?

The flag seems way too illuminated also for the side that does not seem to be facing the light. I suppose the light could be passing through the material.

Then there is the object underneath the craft at the far right. The side pointing away from the light source seems to be too bright, especially when you take into account the dark shadow on the ground caused by the craft.

Oh, and that umbrella type thingy (radio beacon?) looks to have 2 shadows, one of which appears to be going in the wrong direction too.

To be fair, it is not the best of photos either but it just feels false to me.

The Apollo 14 shot WAS IN THE VIDEO thats why I used it so did you watch the video?

Have you ever seen this been done on TV for a photoshoot or on a behind the scenes video of a movie being made.



It is used to provide fill in light it reflects light on the subject to reduce shadows!
It's a similar thing with ALL the Apollo shots with areas in shadow.

Here is another shot with fill in light from the photographers clothing!!!!



As for the NO spikes round the sun I posted this picture which is similar to the Apollo 14 Moon shot.



Sun behind subject. CHECK
Subject sitting on light coloured terrain. CHECK
Can detail be seen on subject although sun is behind. CHECK
Although the sun is in the field of view is it a bright circle with NO SPIKES. CHECK

How many points of light appear around the sun , or a street light etc depends on the lens and its aperture also the astronauts have a polarising filter with the cameras which they can use.

Here is a link to what can be done with a polarising filter.

www.ephotozine.com...


What happens with the astronauts when taking pictures they used this info on the film packs.
It tells them what settings to use with the sun in a certain direction from them.



The problem with the video is the makers DONT undestand photography, MOST of the people who watch it DONT either so they think the information may be true.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Seeing as I am the one who posted the video I think you could safely assume that I did indeed watch the video. What would be the point of not watching it and making a thread on it? Anyway....

The halo shot is not what this discussion is about so lets just leave that one alone. As a previous poster mentioned it has apparently been discussed to death here already on other threads.

Personally I have nothing to do with professional photography or film making so in answer to your first question and photo, no, I have never been present on a photo shoot. But I would offer the idea that the astronauts were not either. Or are you suggesting they had lots of pro equipment (apart from the expensive Hasselblad's which I believe are considered to be among the best quality cameras available, I could be wrong though) and were busy setting up filters, reflectors and the like?

Your second photo is not bad, but I think we can both agree that there is a considerable difference in light levels. The inside of the box looks nice and dark even though it is small and not particularly shielded from the light that is present. I did not say that an object should be totally black either. But...

The third photo demonstrates this point quite well. Look at the baby's right foot (on the left in the photo you posted). There is a clear and visible difference in light levels making that foot appear much darker than the one in the light. Also there is at least one spike visible but more importantly, the sun is round, as it should be regardless of camera "settings", filters, lenses, etc.

ETA Missed your last point, I may not be a photographic expert but I do not think that any setting on a camera will change the shape of a visible light source. It might tone down the brightness but the shape should still remain the same, I would think. We do not see square or pentagonal visors in any photos? (An example of an object we know to be more or less circular or spherical.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


No I wasn't trying to make out the Astronauts used deflectors it was to show you the principle and the baby shot was to show you how the surface the subject is on can reflect enough light for detail to be seen like in the Apollo 14 shot.

They put the Apollo 14 shot in the video because they were trying to make out that was not the sun behind it because of the lack of points of light ie the startburst effect.

The starburst effect is due to the aperture setting and the number of blades in the construction of the lens.

www.slrlounge.com...

It does have an effect on how a light source looks if the light source slightly out of focus.

3 Canon 50 mm lenes---- 5 blade, 8 blade and 8 blade with circular diaphragm



On the right circular light pentagon shape (5 blades)

reply to post by wmd_2008

All very interesting and all but this discussion is not about that photo or any photos you have posted since, it is about the anomalous reflections in the visors. Thanks for the hard work though

The light source in the visor, or rather the visor itself does not appear to be out of focus.

Well. I'd expected a little more activity and replies than this but guess I made a fail thread. As no one has posted any credible and verifiable reason as to why the reflections in official photos are sometimes anomalous all I can say is, I "win". Thanks ATS!

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Well. I'd expected a little more activity and replies than this but guess I made a fail thread. As no one has posted any credible and verifiable reason as to why the reflections in official photos are sometimes anomalous all I can say is, I "win". Thanks ATS!

Anyone with a modicum of photographic knowledge will recognise the 'anomalies' for what they are... normal.

reply to post by BagBing

Link, source, evidence? I thought not...

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Link: My post above
Source: Me
Evidence: 28 years of owning SLRs.

But this has already been explained to you...

reply to post by BagBing

You and your star-giving friends call it evidence, I however do not. Comparing digital Canon SLR's to analog Hasselblads is like...well....major fail. Please do go bother someone else with your lack of evidence. Thanks!
ETA Maybe it wasn't you with the canon out of focus links but I see only 1 or two like-minded pro-NASA individuals taking part in this so I have to put you all in the same category of vague, evidence-less shills. Hope you don't mind.

Nobody has attempted a serious examination of the evidence posted. No one.



ETA2 If it wasn't entirely clear from my previous post, I have now given up on this thread due to lack of evidence to the contrary and consider my OP proven. You guys can bang on about various things all you like but nobody has proven or shown any evidence to the contrary. Apart from lots of earth photography and...well... Ergo, I rest my case

Peace

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Have you seen this mate? I think you might find it interesting.



Good luck with your researches.

reply to post by Pimander

Wow! Thanks for that, I had not seen that video before but had seen a much shorter and less comprehensive one showing the chevron connection. Your vid has way more to it though. It's sad how someone felt the need to cripple all the information released to the public and symbolism is "their way" of letting them know which organisations are under the control of TPTB.

I'm a little disappointed in how little attention (not stars and flags, they mean nothing) this thread received as I thought more ATS'ers were into the whole Space thing but at least I tried. As far as I can honestly see, no one yet has offered any credible and verifiable evidence as to why the sun should reflect differently in some photos and not others so I consider my thread so far un-debunked and the evidence posted a real smoking gun to NASA's fakery. I am not someone to cling to unfounded information or flights of fancy. (No pun intended )

For the record I believe we have been to the moon, not aboard a tinpot flimsy spacecraft but by some other, "secret" method of travel. Whether that is reverse-engineered alien tech, "space/time portals" or "Beam me up Scotty" type teleportation I really couldn't say but the idea of rocketry seems to my feeble mind at least, pathetic at best for anything other than low earth orbit and a display for the masses.

Thanks for your contributions in this thread.