New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 38
73
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Yet strangely I can't find any shadows pointing in the direction you are suggesting they are. I wonder who is using selection bias.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


I'm not being biased at all. Yes I do believe they landed on the moon, and that these picture are authentic. But I seriously do not see what the hell you are talking about. To me, and yes I draw, and(used to) take photographs, the shadows in these lunar pictures are what you would come to expect on natural terrain with the sun at a low angle. I could go out tomorrow evening(weather permitting) and get some shots on a local rocky beach and I guarantee the same "anomalous" shadows would be present, and no amount of 3d rendering will exactly replicate them. Bias has nothing to do with it, your claims are based simply upon your inability to adequately visualize a 3 dimensional space, containing irregular surfaces and lit from a low angle.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38


Everyone thought they were in the LM part of the rocket, the one that went to the moon, and not in the part left behind. The whole rocket did not go to the moon, the part that didn't go, wasn't invisible.


So now you're trying to claim that, at the height of the space race, when everybody was thinking about Apollo 11, that nobody on Earth looked at the night sky for an entire week where there would have been some unknown object orbiting the planet clearly visible with the naked eye? Your theories become more and more ludicrous with every post.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I wasn't talking to you Seablac. I don't respect anyone whose main evidence in a debate is "No, you're wrong" or "You don't know what you are talking about". I like a reasonable debate.

It's funny how in my analysis of the image the shadows do not need manipulation to be interpreted. But in the "correct" view none of the shadows are aligned.

Wasn't the point of these images is that they are disorientating? This is why so many photos are tilted. So people who are inexperienced in perspective have difficulty reading them. Or the many photos being composed strategically with the light source directly behind the camera which creates a halo effect around the cameraman's shadow. It's terribly distracting.

In this photo especially. The lower photo is almost the correct alignment but the top photo is stitched on at an awkward angle. Again the shadows read false until they are put into context.

edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
www.apolloarchive.com...

These shadows appear to be going in a horizontal direction. But not all of them...
So therefore they must be pointed at that big rock on the horizon.
edit on 4-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


Mort you can see the original film roll numbers the times are in the mission logs everyone else can see the terrain is not flat as you claim the shadows from the LM do look correct according to the video that was posted, the 60 mm lens used on the surface is a slightly wide angle lens when used on a Hasselblad!!!





posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
good day all.
i did not read 38 pages of this long... thread, so pardon me if some one else said this but.

look at this picture...what should reflect in the visor..

my guess is i should see the astronot holding the camera that took the shot.


but when i zoom in and look at the picture in the visor....wtf..


what do you say

grin.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


The photos are "tilted" because the camera was attached to the astronaut's chest, therefore if he was standing on a gradient/slope the pictures are not going to be level.



edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
good day all.
i did not read 38 pages of this long... thread, so pardon me if some one else said this but.

look at this picture...what should reflect in the visor..

my guess is i should see the astronot holding the camera that took the shot.


but when i zoom in and look at the picture in the visor....wtf..


what do you say

grin.hq.nasa.gov...


Again, the camera was attached to the astronaut's chest. You can see the astronaut(Aldrin) who took the picture in the reflection.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by mkkkay
good day all.
i did not read 38 pages of this long... thread, so pardon me if some one else said this but.

look at this picture...what should reflect in the visor..

my guess is i should see the astronot holding the camera that took the shot.


but when i zoom in and look at the picture in the visor....wtf..


what do you say

grin.hq.nasa.gov...


Again, the camera was attached to the astronaut's chest. You can see the astronaut(Aldrin) who took the picture in the reflection.


it is not the right perspective, how can i see 2 astronots in the visor.
i should only see aldrin from the front.. and not only is shadow.

the pic in the visor is not a reflection but i picture...
the picture or the reflection should be of aldrin from the front we should see is reflection and see him taking the pic.
go in front of the mirror and take a pic chances are you will see your face



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


There is one astronaut in the reflection.

Show me where you see 2 astronauts?

As for "perspective"............


edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by mkkkay
 


There is one astronaut in the reflection.

Show me where you see 2 astronauts?

As for "perspective"............


edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


ok what about the reflection of the astronot, looks like he does not have any arms



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


If you have a look for some pictures of Aldrin on the moon, you'll see the camera is attached to his chest, obviously when he was taking a picture both his hands were raised to the camera(I haven't the time to find a picture for you at the moment)

Also, this is probably the most iconic of Apollo pictures, I would imagine if it were a fake, they(whoever that is) would have paid a lot more attention to detail, don't you?



edit on 4-12-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 





Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:


yea..

and I'd like to know who the 3rd person is in Aldrin's visor .. !!!



ETA: 1) and lets NOT forget the pristen look of the LM after touch down.. even though their are boot prints in the sand/dust .. EVERYWHERE
2) no evidence of a blast crater...anywhere !
edit on 4-12-2012 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
ok what about the reflection of the astronot, looks like he does not have any arms

You're looking at a very low resolution version of this image. www.hq.nasa.gov...

This is a much better quality scan and you can see how things match up.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
It's funny how in my analysis of the image the shadows do not need manipulation to be interpreted. But in the "correct" view none of the shadows are aligned.

On the contrary, your lines don't represent any sort of accuracy with your previously drawn lines. I did a Hough Transform of the annotated 'green lines' image and found no consistent convergence.


Wasn't the point of these images is that they are disorientating? This is why so many photos are tilted. So people who are inexperienced in perspective have difficulty reading them. Or the many photos being composed strategically with the light source directly behind the camera which creates a halo effect around the cameraman's shadow. It's terribly distracting.

I find it extremely rare to come across a photo taken on earth with a perfect horizon. I've been doing photography now for a number of years and still screw it up.

If you think that the shadows truly are false then I have a challenge for you. Take any image you think is the most convincing, open it in photoshop/gimp etc, create a new transparent layer over it (ideally double resolution) and carefully draw a single line over each shadow showing its direction. Don't extend or connect the lines up, just focus on each individual rock at a time.

I will show you that your shadows don't converge at all and without manually using convergence points to draw the lines you will be wildly all over the place.

This is the maximum I'm willing to do, writing a Hough Transform is annoying and requires a lot of fine tuning. Maybe this will finally convince you that the anomaly you perceive doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
ETA: 1) and lets NOT forget the pristen look of the LM after touch down.. even though their are boot prints in the sand/dust .. EVERYWHERE
2) no evidence of a blast crater...anywhere !
edit on 4-12-2012 by Komodo because: (no reason given)

Dust doesn't form big clouds like it does on Earth. This is one of the best proofs of the lunar landing. All dust they kick up follows a ballistic trajectory. You never see it being entrained and forming a large billowing cloud.

This isn't possible except in a large vacuum chamber, and we've got video of them traversing a much larger distance than any vacuum chamber as well as the videos showing that everything accelerates at 1/6g.

There are no good explanations other than the moon landings being real, so people seek to act as if the case was ridiculous. It's not, they really went there.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by mkkkay
ok what about the reflection of the astronot, looks like he does not have any arms

You're looking at a very low resolution version of this image. www.hq.nasa.gov...

This is a much better quality scan and you can see how things match up.


so you say but....
is legs part should not be wider than is shoulders.
and in the shadow on the moon, not the visor, we see 2 lines of light



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
2) no evidence of a blast crater...anywhere !


Why would there be a blast crater? The engine wasn't expending enough energy to leave a blast crater as they were landing. If the engine was expending enough energy to leave a crater, they'd end up back in orbit!
edit on 4-12-2012 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
so you say but....
is legs part should not be wider than is shoulders.

You realise they're wearing a big suit right? With big boots? Looks pretty accurate to me.


and in the shadow on the moon, not the visor, we see 2 lines of light

If there were two lines of light, there would be two shadows.





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join