Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

I finally found a picture that shows dust accumulation in the LM's footpad !!!

Using Apollo photography is very difficult to use as proof of fakery.
Since none of us can go to the moon to verify the images.
However, they are interesting to study.

I want to begin with this image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c1d2c90460e.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I want to know who took the photo?

The astronaut in the reflection
has his camera pointing down and to the side.
So how did he manage to take a photo

Must be the invisible astronaut next to him. I mean that's the only logical explanation

Originally posted by FoosM
Using Apollo photography is very difficult to use as proof of fakery.
Since none of us can go to the moon to verify the images.
However, they are interesting to study.

I want to begin with this image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c1d2c90460e.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I want to know who took the photo?

The astronaut in the reflection
has his camera pointing down and to the side.
So how did he manage to take a photo

HERE WE GO AGAIN I take it you mean the reflection in the helmet you know a CURVED surface which alters the perspective

Smoke and mirrors again Foosm

reply to post by FoosM

The astronaut in the reflection
has his camera pointing down and to the side.
So how did he manage to take a photo

If you knew anything about optics, you would understand who took the photo. The curved surface of the astronaut's helmet distorts the image of the photographer in a manner similar to a fun house mirror. You can use a polished spoon to explore the nature of the phenomenon on your own; you will then have knowledge and will not need to ask childish questions to understand such a simple thing.

reply to post by FoosM

Using Apollo photography is very difficult to use as proof of fakery.

Correction: it is impossible to use Apollo photography as proof of "fakery," as there was no "fakery" involved.

Originally posted by wmd_2008


HERE WE GO AGAIN I take it you mean the reflection in the helmet you know a CURVED surface which alters the perspective

Smoke and mirrors again Foosm

Yes, stop trying to confuse people with smoke and mirrors.

A curved surface cannot magically make somebody who is standing forward stand to to the side.
And the camera, no matter what should at least look like its pointing to what it is taking a photo of as demonstrated here:


here

and even here



Its clear in the reflection that Schmitt is standing very similar to this photo:

compare to:


In that position he wouldn't be able to take the photo that he made.

reply to post by FoosM


OH!!! From the mouths of babes!!! >shrug<

Yes, stop trying to confuse people with smoke and mirrors.

Irony. Look it up, FoosM.

It is obvious (by now) that your forte' is NOT in photography....not even close. This is also a trend in the many. many delusional "APOLLO HOAX" belivers. Fail, each and every time.


OH!! And, why have you run away from the RADIATION argument???

The clown "Jarrah White" and his riduculous assertions have been thoroughly trounced....I (and others) may only assume that, by refusing to engage any longer on THAT topic, that defeat has been tacitly admitted???

Can be the only explanation for these continuoing DIVERSIONS....to get as far away, as fast as possible, from the schooling and drubbing experienced on the topic of RADIATION!!

(I capitalize it, for emPHAsis).....

I was actually skeptical if we actually went to the moon, but watching Jarrah's video, I'm convinced more than ever that we DID GO! Wasn't he supposed to be debunking the manned landing? I've never seen that 16mm astronaut foot of them leaving the moon until I seen Jarrah's video, but when he compared that to the LRO images... it doesn't make sense that 16mm camera footage from 40 years ago looks far better than the best digital equiment money could buy today (LRO).

Originally posted by BishopLord
I was actually skeptical if we actually went to the moon, but watching Jarrah's video, I'm convinced more than ever that we DID GO! Wasn't he supposed to be debunking the manned landing? I've never seen that 16mm astronaut foot of them leaving the moon until I seen Jarrah's video, but when he compared that to the LRO images... it doesn't make sense that 16mm camera footage from 40 years ago looks far better than the best digital equiment money could buy today (LRO).

??
So how does that prove that we did go?

reply to post by FoosM

A curved surface cannot magically make somebody who is standing forward stand to to the side.
And the camera, no matter what should at least look like its pointing to what it is taking a photo of as demonstrated here:

FoosM, is there a reason why you chose to post only photos where the camera is pointing directly at the reflecting surface? Couldn't you find any where the surface is not the actual subject of the photo?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

The astronaut in the reflection
has his camera pointing down and to the side.
So how did he manage to take a photo

If you knew anything about optics, you would understand who took the photo. The curved surface of the astronaut's helmet distorts the image of the photographer in a manner similar to a fun house mirror. You can use a polished spoon to explore the nature of the phenomenon on your own; you will then have knowledge and will not need to ask childish questions to understand such a simple thing.

Funhouse mirrors distort an image..
They don't alter it...
If the camera is not shown pointing at the visor (ie: we see no visible lens in the reflection) then how was the pic taken by THAT camera?
I'm sure there is a reasonable answer but I think that is what Foosm is saying...

reply to post by backinblack


WHY are you helping (aiding and abetting?) FoosM deflect this thread (yet again)?? This time, as usual from the FAILED area...the "radiation" area??


The distraction that YOU just exhibited is very sad, really. Nitpicking on a casual mention of "Fun-House Mirrors". Very, very poor form. And, you were doing so well, earlier!! :shk:


But, to just "play along".....WHAT DOES THAT PHOTO DO "PROVE" A "FAKE" APOLLO???????

The entire "ploy" by FoosM is rather obvious....and YOU just fan the flames of his deception?? Why?

(BTW...if you haven't figured out why this is a distraction yet....then....well.....you have to consider your continued reputation on this site, and in this forum).

It is up to you to decide........

reply to post by backinblack

If the camera is not shown pointing at the visor (ie: we see no visible lens in the reflection) then how was the pic taken by THAT camera?

Simple. Perform the following experiment: take a spoon. Hold it in your hand with the convex ("bulgy") side facing towards you. Hold your arm out at a 45 degree angle. Point your head straight forward, then look at the spoon out of the corner of your eye. What direction do you appear to be facing in the reflection on the spoon? In French, the word for "experiment" is "l'experience." If you perform this experiment, you will have experience of the real world. Until you perform this experiment, and gain this experience of the real world, no amount of drawing lines on the screen to explain the path of light rays impacting a curved surface will make any sense. Perform the experiment, gain the experience, and tell me what you saw. Then we can talk.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like you to watch the following videos all dealing with Front Screen Projection:






This will lead to a photo I will present to you all for analysis.

reply to post by FoosM


You DO realize that YouTube poster screen name "greenmagoos" is an idiot, right??

In fact....oh and this is SO juicy....perhaps I should POST, here on ATS, a message I received from THAT YouTube user himself.....as I had, about TWO YEARS AGO, posted a few comments on his crap "videos", on YouTube....

The reaction, from the "YouTube user" you just chose to highlight, in the video selections.....well.....this is NOT something you want anyone under the age of 18 to read.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

WHY are you helping (aiding and abetting?) FoosM deflect this thread (yet again)?? This time, as usual from the FAILED area...the "radiation" area??
The distraction that YOU just exhibited is very sad, really. Nitpicking on a casual mention of "Fun-House Mirrors". Very, very poor form. And, you were doing so well, earlier!! :shk:
But, to just "play along".....WHAT DOES THAT PHOTO DO "PROVE" A "FAKE" APOLLO???????
The entire "ploy" by FoosM is rather obvious....and YOU just fan the flames of his deception?? Why?
(BTW...if you haven't figured out why this is a distraction yet....then....well.....you have to consider your continued reputation on this site, and in this forum).
It is up to you to decide........

Weed, I'm not aiding or abetting any particular SIDE..
If pointiong out an opinion on a post that is "on topic" is Nitpicking then I'll go ape..

My reputation?? Mate many are tired of hearing your off topic rants more than mine..
We've all heard about your flying adventures in many posts that are so far off topic that no one really knows why you post them, though I assume it's ego...

I'll worry about my reputaion Weed, you worry about yours.....

Now, do you not agree that reflections merely distort an image and NOT alter the actual visuals shown???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

You DO realize that YouTube poster screen name "greenmagoos" is an idiot, right??

In fact....oh and this is SO juicy....perhaps I should POST, here on ATS, a message I received from THAT YouTube user himself.....as I had, about TWO YEARS AGO, posted a few comments on his crap "videos", on YouTube....

The reaction, from the "YouTube user" you just chose to highlight, in the video selections.....well.....this is NOT something you want anyone under the age of 18 to read.......

Im not really concerned about the makers of the video(s).
Im more interested in their theories that FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION
was used to fake the various photos and possibly videos of the Apollo missions.
I want you all to study this special effect in relation to the photo I would like you all to analyze.

reply to post by FoosM


Aaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

We see yet another KEY ignorance....in this case, the long-ago debated (and THOROUGHLY de-bunked!~) "Front Screen Projection" stupidity.

Im more interested in their theories that FRONT SCREEN PROJECTION
was used to fake the various photos and possibly videos of the Apollo missions.

Oh, my dear, dear FoosM....I DO believe that THIS particular red-herring was discussed....oh, SO MANY PAGES BACK in the thread!!!

In fact....as I recall....YOU were a party to the very same conversations. Hmmmm.....funny, that?? YOU decide to bring it up again???

How sad......OH!!! Hey, before it gets LOST in yet another distraction.....what say YOU about "radiation"????

reply to post by DJW001

Simple. Perform the following experiment: take a spoon. Hold it in your hand with the convex ("bulgy") side facing towards you. Hold your arm out at a 45 degree angle. Point your head straight forward, then look at the spoon out of the corner of your eye. What direction do you appear to be facing in the reflection on the spoon? In French, the word for "experiment" is "l'experience." If you perform this experiment, you will have experience of the real world. Until you perform this experiment, and gain this experience of the real world, no amount of drawing lines on the screen to explain the path of light rays impacting a curved surface will make any sense. Perform the experiment, gain the experience, and tell me what you saw. Then we can talk.

DJW, despite what WW thinks, I'm far from silly..
I think Foosms issue is the direction the camera is pointing..
The pics hard to tell but it DOES in fact appear something is pointing towards the visor, not to the left as Foosm stated..
Therefore the pic would be fine in my view...

My issue in saying pics like these are fake is "why would they bother?"
It would be one of the easiest pics to fake..