|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 26, 2006 21:09:52 GMT -4
Look at the anntena from the back pack. No white attentana appears on the dune buggy shot posted and the pics are taken on the same mission...lol Nooo, This picture is from Apollo 11, which did not include a rover. The other picture was taken three-and-a-half years and six missions later, on Apollo 17.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 27, 2006 8:20:34 GMT -4
Look at the anntena from the back pack. No white attentana appears on the dune buggy shot posted and the pics are taken on the same mission...lol Nooo, This picture is from Apollo 11, which did not include a rover. The other picture was taken three-and-a-half years and six missions later, on Apollo 17. Aw, c'mon, Count Zero, Moon Man doesn't want to be bothered by facts like that. You're not supposed to be showing him that he's completely wrong, you're supposed to be playing his silly game, you know. Note that he also says there is no white antenna in the rover photo, but of course there is an antenna there and this time it appears black. The poor sod must be partly blind. Hahaha! What's the bet that he couldn't tell us why the antenna on the PLSS sometimes shows up black, sometimes white, and sometimes not at all. I suspect that researching this is beyond him.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 27, 2006 11:28:02 GMT -4
I spent a couple of years in England. It took me a month to figure out why some cars have white license plates and some yellow. . .
I had really bad jet lag, OKAY?
Thanks, CZ, for pointing out the error. Not many of us are interested in bothering at this point, but errors that dumb NEED to be pointed out, if nothing else just for the sake of being thorough.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 27, 2006 11:34:58 GMT -4
You'd hate it here then. Some are black with white letters, most are white with black letters, some are white with red letters, some white with blue letters, and some yellow with black letters.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 27, 2006 11:48:52 GMT -4
For the benefit of other Yanks here: white on front, yellow on the back. Yes it really took me a month.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Mildred Pierce on Feb 2, 2006 16:09:15 GMT -4
"There are a number of pictures that show shadows and impossible light angles."
If they are impossible then they are just as impossible on the moon as they are anywhere else. And yet we have photographs that show the angles are quite possible.
"The are a number of footprints that lead to nowhere or only consist of one footprint. The are pictures of the rover that have no tire tracks behind the wheels. I have not viewed all of the Apollo picture collection but the ones I have viewed appear to be bogus."
You mean the few you have culled from the thousands of pictures? What about the pictures you haven't shown us?
I will post some pictures and point out the oddities and allow you to make up your own mind."
"The footprint in straight down in the dust. There is no dragging of the back foot when this footprint was made. There is no dragging at the top of the print when the astronaut stepped forward. Whoever made this print simply stepped straight down and lifted his foot straight up. No one on earth walks like this. The astronauts are said to have hopped when they walked. They certainly were not hopping when this print was made."
They were certainly not? how can you tell? It looks pretty obvious to me that the front of the foot and the back of the foot are further in to the dirt because there was more pressure on those parts of the foot when the foot was first pushed down (the heel digs in) and when he let up as he walked forward. That they were "hopping" would cause the foot to dig in even more. Watch how the "hop" in videos. They don't hop like a bunny, i.e. both feet together side by side, they hopped from one foot to the other and kept the forward momentum going.
What is your explanation for the way the shadows were falling on the footprint?
Where is the other footprint..?"
Out of frame.
"Where is the shadow from the octagon descent module..?"
Um.. under the yellow dot?
"What has created the shadow where I have placed the yellow dot..?"
Um.. the descent module? What do YOU think has created this shadow? I mean, light works the same as it does on earth as it does on the moon.
"It's certainly not from the octagon descent module, as the light is coming from right to left."
But... um.. the descent module is on the right, and the shadow is on the left... Are you confused about what is left and right or something? You have failed to proven anything here, you haven't even told us what you think the shadow is from if not the descent module.
"Why are the words United States lit up when they are in the shaded side of the LM..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"They should be dark and unseen."
Prove it.
"Why is the front of the jettison bag lit up when the front of it is in a shadow..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"How is it possible for the inside leg of the astronaut to be lit up when the light is coming from the other direction, as evidenced by the astronauts shadow.?"
Because the bright white material of his right leg is reflecting light on to his left leg, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact? Seriously, are you really under the belief that OBJECTS DO NOT REFLECT LIGHT??
"Why is the moon surface so brightly lit up to the right of the astronaut when it is not lit up in the near distance behind him..?"
Wait, I thought you didn't believe that things on the moon reflect light. Well, it seems with this comment you DO believe that things can reflect light. But now perhaps you are not aware that the further light travels the less concentrate the light will be, and thus
"Since when does the sun shine brighter in one spot and not another..?"
Non sequiter. Here's an interesting thought experiment. Did you know that our teeny little sun in our solar system is the brightest thing we can see? And yet there are definitely brighter stars out there, we can even see them. And yet.. those stars do not appear nearly as bright to us as the sun does.
Why is that? Please explain that to us.
But before you explain that to us, do an experiment with a friend. Go outside when it is dark with a flashlight, have him stand at the end of the street, say 200 meters away or so and have him shine the flashlight in your eyes. You can see it for sure, but it ain't all that bright, is it? Okay, now have him come back and have him hold that same flashlight up to your eyes and turn it on. DANG!!! that hurts don't it!? But why is that?
Please explain THAT one to us.
"You can see one footprint in going horizontally in front of the astronaut. Where is the second footprint and why is there no footprint step to the right if the astronaut who made this print was walking..?"
They tend to take long strides on the moon. I mean, this isn't like as if they were on a Hollywood set or something with those big bulky suits where they'd only be able to step like one or two feet. I mean if this were on Earth that place would be covered in footprints!!! I'm glad you don't believe this wasn't on the moon!!
So... what's your explanation?
"How is it possible that the front of the astronaut is lit up when the light is coming from behind him, as evidenced by the shadow..?"
It's funny you should ask that... you see, some things in the universe.. yes.. even dirt on the moon... has the ability to reflect light!! Strange that.. If it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Maybe the dirt really IS invisible and NASA airbrushed it in... Ah.. I see what you are finally getting at.
"How is it possible to have two completely different [shadow] angles..?"
Well, it is an established fact that the moon is COMPLETELY FLAT with ABSOLUTELY ZERO PERCENT DEVIATION IN ALTITUTE. Not a single bump. (Any alleged bumps, craters, hills, valleys, &c. are an obvious NASA conspiracy to hide the truth)
So to answer your question, I have NO IDEA!! I mean it's obviously one single light source (like the sun), I mean it certainly couldn't be more than one light source because if you had more than one light source each objects would have more than one shadow, but as we can all see every object only has one light source and one shadow, in fact you can see this in ALL the photos from the Apollo Missions.
There's obviously only one explanation for this:
Magic.
NASA VOODOO BLACK MAGIC.
"Why is the front of the lander leg lit up when the light source is behind it..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"Why is the moon surface so bright in one spot..?"
Because the dirt on the moon reflects light (because it is imbued with VOODOO BLACK MAGIC).
"Why is the front of the jettison bag visible if it's in the shadow..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"Why is the front of the lander leg visible when it's also in a shadow..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"Why are the words United States visible if they are on the shadowed side..?"
Because Hollywood lighting specialists shined a light on it, and then they used NASA VOODOO BLACK MAGIC to prevent that light from casting any shadows behind the Lander.
"Why is the peg beside the lander leg casting a shadow that is so much longer then the jettison bag..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"Why is the moon dust in front of the lander a different colour then to the back of the picture..?
Is all dirt created equally? Perhaps some dirt is soft and dark and other dirt is hard and bright.
"Why is there only footprints in the front darker dust and none in the back..?"
Is all dirt created equally? Perhaps some dirt is soft and dark and other dirt is hard and bright. HA! Not on the moon. As we all know dirt on the moon is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT UNIFORM, this is a result of it being completely flat. I mean just walk outside and look at it! Not a blemish on the thing. No dark areas, no light areas or anything like that! Just a big white disk.
"Try and find two footprints that actually match up as if someone was actually walking..?"
Which only goes to show that this shot couldn't have been taken on earth since their walking stride would have been much much shorter.
"Why is the front facing lander leg visible when it's in shadow..?"
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light, if it didn't it wouldn't be reflecting light in to the camera, and thus it would be dark and invisible. Are you denying this fact?
"For example, you cannot see this side of the lander cup at the bottom because it's in shadow."
Because the bright light grey dirt on the moon reflects light except when that dirt is obscured in shadow. Are you denying this fact?
"Why are there no shadows from the rocks I have circled in yellow..?"
Because they are magic rocks made especially to be used with magic Hollywood studio lights and they don't cast shadows. Well... except the shadows... um... that can be seen in this photograph. WHAT ARE YOU BLIND?!?!
"Follow the footprints in the forefront and see if you can match two up..?"
Okay seriously dude.. I'd really like you to explain your theories on why the footprints don't match up.
Anyways.. I hope I answered all your questions.. You did forget to point out about there not being any stars in the sky tho. How disappointing. I mean, if you are going to prove your case that the Moon Landings were not hoaxed, you have to point out that there are no stars in the sky!! I mean if there were stars in the sky it would obviously be a hoax straight out of a Spielberg production (he really loves those shots of starry skies).
|
|