Do you really think man walked on the moon/??? | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 04/28/2013 02:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Zoom in on the astronaut's visor in this photo: Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] I see the cameraman dressed in dark colors, with one foot either on or behind a rock. I also see a "snowman," perhaps an empty spacesuit. Notice that the astronaut's shadow is in front of him, which means that the light source is behind him. If the cameraman were an astronaut in a white spacesuit, he would look glowingly white; whereas this cameraman looks very dark. Here's a similar photo, but without the "snowman." [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] That's the shadow, not a photographer. The photographer is the white blob ABOVE the dark shape. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38381173 United States 04/28/2013 02:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38997733 United States 04/28/2013 02:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | it looks like wrapping paper they used on the aircraft for apollo landing. couldn't they have done a better job. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38951016 First, it was a Spacecraft. Second, you are seeing the outer insulative covering which looks very similar to the covering on many satellites. Here is what it looked like underneath that. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] it looks like something some 15 year old boys made in their backyard hahahaha |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38816990 United Kingdom 04/28/2013 08:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Zoom in on the astronaut's visor in this photo: Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] I see the cameraman dressed in dark colors, with one foot either on or behind a rock. I also see a "snowman," perhaps an empty spacesuit. Notice that the astronaut's shadow is in front of him, which means that the light source is behind him. If the cameraman were an astronaut in a white spacesuit, he would look glowingly white; whereas this cameraman looks very dark. Here's a similar photo, but without the "snowman." [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] That's the astronaut's own shadow, on the gound in front of him, you dumb shit. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38885653 United Kingdom 04/28/2013 08:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Zoom in on the astronaut's visor in this photo: Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] I see the cameraman dressed in dark colors, with one foot either on or behind a rock. I also see a "snowman," perhaps an empty spacesuit. Notice that the astronaut's shadow is in front of him, which means that the light source is behind him. If the cameraman were an astronaut in a white spacesuit, he would look glowingly white; whereas this cameraman looks very dark. Here's a similar photo, but without the "snowman." [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] Good catch! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38997733 United States 04/28/2013 08:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Zoom in on the astronaut's visor in this photo: Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] I see the cameraman dressed in dark colors, with one foot either on or behind a rock. I also see a "snowman," perhaps an empty spacesuit. Notice that the astronaut's shadow is in front of him, which means that the light source is behind him. If the cameraman were an astronaut in a white spacesuit, he would look glowingly white; whereas this cameraman looks very dark. Here's a similar photo, but without the "snowman." [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] That's the astronaut's own shadow, on the gound in front of him, you dumb shit. lol |
LHP598 User ID: 38120397 United States 04/28/2013 08:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Another thing that's seldom pointed out is the background in the moon landings. Notice the astronauts are never in any area where you can see the distant horizon and get the feeling of real distance or depth as you get when seeing photos or videos on earth. Quoting: Alwaysaware And there's no way of explaining what happens after the 2:00 point in this video No way? Really? You can SEE the fallen astronaut's left arm on the other astronaut. He is being helped up by the other. He is also using the stiffness of the suit for help. What he did is possible in Earth gravity and much more so in lunar gravity. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
LHP598 User ID: 38120397 United States 04/28/2013 09:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | it looks like wrapping paper they used on the aircraft for apollo landing. couldn't they have done a better job. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38951016 First, it was a Spacecraft. Second, you are seeing the outer insulative covering which looks very similar to the covering on many satellites. Here is what it looked like underneath that. [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] it looks like something some 15 year old boys made in their backyard hahahaha You didn't bother to look at the photographs provided did you? If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
Hawbs User ID: 37875581 United States 04/28/2013 09:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Men have probably walked on the moon. However IMO the Apollo technology wasn't able to do it as declared. There are too many unanswered questions. The results from the work of men like T. Townsend Brown and John Searle could produce a craft that would be able to. Google their patents from the 20's and 30's and read them. The first report from a pilot about disc shaped craft was that it flew like a stone skipping across water on a pond. This would be what the technology looked like in its early development. The technology was developed in the 1940's after world war 2 in the southwest USA with some help from the good folks at Operation Paperclip. The gyros and generations of fields took some time to get it right. (See Roswell) Why haven't you heard about it? I dunno, maybe you aren't as elite as you imagine you are. Get ready for the great deception. |
Skeptic the First User ID: 38158648 United States 04/28/2013 10:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] So? Even if a camera on the moon is only 3 feet above ground level, the moon's horizon is more than 1 mile away. (You can do the arithmetic yourself using the Pythagorean Theorem.) In this photo, the "horizon" is no more than a few hundred feet away. The "horizon" is simply the end of the set, or the end of the (artificially) illuminated part of it. Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 04/28/2013 10:04 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30879308 United States 04/28/2013 10:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
LHP598 User ID: 38120397 United States 04/28/2013 01:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] So? Even if a camera on the moon is only 3 feet above ground level, the moon's horizon is more than 1 mile away. (You can do the arithmetic yourself using the Pythagorean Theorem.) In this photo, the "horizon" is no more than a few hundred feet away. The "horizon" is simply the end of the set, or the end of the (artificially) illuminated part of it. If and only if the surface is completely level. Can you prove it is? If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 02:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 02:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] You do not know the topography. Without air you lose that visual clue of distance. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30857551 Australia 04/28/2013 07:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30857551 Australia 04/28/2013 07:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | His vids have been removed unfortunately, but this one is also quite interesting. At the very least they show that NASA did indeed 'touch up' photos to make them better presentable. But, in a way I feel a bit sorry for them, as that admission then becomes a very slippery slide... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 08:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There is a Dutch guy who uses quite expensive tech to justify his claim of image manipulation. (expensive beyond the reach of your average Joe) Quoting: BadHairDay His vids have been removed unfortunately, but this one is also quite interesting. At the very least they show that NASA did indeed 'touch up' photos to make them better presentable. But, in a way I feel a bit sorry for them, as that admission then becomes a very slippery slide... Nope. First you have images taken on film and then digitized. You do get digitization errors. Then the images have been compressed with a lossy compression technique. No one ever said JPEG compression produces perfect images. Then you lost the history of the images. Where did the images this guy come from? Can you guarantee they weren't modify by someone else? Then the images are over manipulated. That introduces more artifacts. Can you guarantee that the Dutch guy is telling the truth? Finally, does this guy understand how photographic film works? My guess is no. Photographic film is not like CCD images. Photographic film is non-linear and special techniques must be used to bring out low or high light level components. Look up film characteristic curve. Too many questions and too many unknowns to blindly take this as irrefutable proof of anything. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38157265 Australia 04/28/2013 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] You do not know the topography. Without air you lose that visual clue of distance. Rubbish. Ever heard of perspective? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38157265 Australia 04/28/2013 08:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The whole problem is that they didn't have the technology to produce convincing photos back then and nobody could predict where the tech would end up today. Man, we could have such a convincing moon landing today, without even leaving the house. Truth is, Shrek was more convincing than these pathetic examples of fakery. I'm starting to feel sorry for all the shills still trying to convince the dwindling few that anyone who questions this obvious hoax is stupid, crazy or both. As time goes on it will become more apparent to anyone who looks with a little critical thought. To the shills (you know who you are): you're just looking in the mirror of your own inadequacies. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 08:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] You do not know the topography. Without air you lose that visual clue of distance. Rubbish. Ever heard of perspective? Of course, that is what I am talking about. You are speaking rubbish because you are trying to apply an Earth based bias to an object that has no air. You can't tell if the distance between the top of the shadow is 1 foot or 1 mile. On Earth you use the visual clue of atmospheric attenuation. You don't have that on the Moon. You also don't know if you are on top of a small hill that changes the apparent position of the horizon or not. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 08:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The whole problem is that they didn't have the technology to produce convincing photos back then and nobody could predict where the tech would end up today. Man, we could have such a convincing moon landing today, without even leaving the house. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38157265 Truth is, Shrek was more convincing than these pathetic examples of fakery. I'm starting to feel sorry for all the shills still trying to convince the dwindling few that anyone who questions this obvious hoax is stupid, crazy or both. As time goes on it will become more apparent to anyone who looks with a little critical thought. To the shills (you know who you are): you're just looking in the mirror of your own inadequacies. Bobble head. Agree with anything that seems to fit the bias that was spoon fed to you. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 04/28/2013 09:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] You do not know the topography. Without air you lose that visual clue of distance. Rubbish. Ever heard of perspective? Ever heard the term "terrain is fractal?" Without anything of an absolute scale to reference (and without aerial perspective), it is very difficult to figure out how far something is. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38885653 United Kingdom 04/28/2013 09:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] It looks like fake shit! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38885653 United Kingdom 04/28/2013 09:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 09:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 38885653 United Kingdom 04/28/2013 09:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Another bobble head. "Yes sir I agree the Moon photos are fake." "No sir I promise not to think about it." Whose yer squad leader, scumbag? Sir, the Private's squad leader is Private Snowball, Sir! Get over here, Snowball! Sir! Private Snowball, reporting for duty, Sir! Yer fired, scumbag! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 37747592 United States 04/28/2013 09:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Another bobble head. "Yes sir I agree the Moon photos are fake." "No sir I promise not to think about it." Whose yer squad leader, scumbag? Sir, the Private's squad leader is Private Snowball, Sir! Get over here, Snowball! Sir! Private Snowball, reporting for duty, Sir! Yer fired, scumbag! Bobble head |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4214994 04/28/2013 09:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 04/28/2013 09:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Here's a really hilarious photo. Notice how the lunar module's shadow comes within inches of the "horizon." Quoting: Skeptic the First [link to history.nasa.gov] So? Even if a camera on the moon is only 3 feet above ground level, the moon's horizon is more than 1 mile away. (You can do the arithmetic yourself using the Pythagorean Theorem.) In this photo, the "horizon" is no more than a few hundred feet away. The "horizon" is simply the end of the set, or the end of the (artificially) illuminated part of it. Way to miss the point. The geometry of a line of sight is not being disputed. The nature of the obstruction is. You haven't show this isn't a rise in ground. Incidentally, sets don't work like you seem to think. They don't "end" in a black void. They end in the back wall of the studio. Usually masked by a cyclorama. And every production ever made masks that line where they can with scenery. I don't know why I bother responding to you, though. Your talking points haven't changed an iota since we first conversed. It is as if no conversation we had ever took place; you continue to trot out the same points claiming that no-one has ever responded to them. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 04/28/2013 09:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I do have to say; the "dark-clad photographer" is a new one. Well, a new one for you. I've seen something a bit similar before. But nothing with such clarity of error before. It makes a nice change after some of the shadow-boxing to have something that is so clearly wrong. |