|
|
Post by roswell47 on May 23, 2006 2:53:27 GMT -4
Go to www.apolloarchive.com and checkout photo AS12-48-7071 and see the object hanging down in the visor ,it looks like a stage camera.The LM is in the back of the background...and I don't think it is part of the surveyor spacecraft |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2006 3:10:46 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure that it's been discussed here before and the conclusion is that it's dust on the visor. The mark apears from different angles in either the 9mm footage or another photo. I can't recall which off the top of my head by I'm positive that someone will recall it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on May 23, 2006 3:18:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 23, 2006 3:25:11 GMT -4
It's definitely been covered before, in this thread. From comparing the appearance in different photos, it certainly appears to be actually on the visor rather than a reflection - dust or a smudge. Edit to add link. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 23, 2006 3:37:10 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on May 23, 2006 5:12:23 GMT -4
...it looks like a stage camera... It's always worth remembering that "looks like" doesn't mean "is". We strike that line of thought here many times. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on May 23, 2006 8:40:06 GMT -4
...it looks like a stage camera. No more so than a cloud looks like a bunny rabbit. Would you honestly say that smudge looks like a stage camera if you weren't predisposed to the notion of a hoax? |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 23, 2006 9:17:20 GMT -4
Smudge. It's right up there where you would reach with your dirty hand to grab the tab on one of the visor shields. When you reflect a dark background, contamination on the reflector shows up lighter.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on May 23, 2006 12:08:57 GMT -4
A smudge it is. I work in TV. I work daily with the type of fresnel barndoor light claimed is reflected in the visor. I conducted a small experiment in the studios the last time this discussion was brough up, using our studio lights, and a fishbowl. The reflection was nothing like that you see on the photo, what is in the reflection means the light would have been about 20 times bigger than the biggest barndoor light I have ever seen. Jay, I believe has the specs on said light manufacturers. Furthermore, the "doors" are way too big for the light alleged to be in the reflection. Additionally the light would have to be so low that it would obscure the photo in order to be reflected where it is alleged to be reflected. I'd say that is a resounding case closed. Dont take my work for it, conduct the same experiment I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on May 23, 2006 12:13:54 GMT -4
It's a dust smudge. That Pete Conrad put there so that people would realize he wasn't really on the Moon. What, didn't you know he was a whistleblower? That's why NASA used their psychic powers to launch him off his motorcycle 30 years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2006 14:17:16 GMT -4
See, back then, they only had vacuum-tube telekineticists who took a few decades to warm up...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on May 23, 2006 22:35:36 GMT -4
Additionally the light would have to be so low that it would obscure the photo in order to be reflected where it is alleged to be reflected.Thanks, Dwight. From my own experience I wondered if the "light" would have to be between the camera and helmet. I shake my head over the people who won't do a few simple experiments themselves. In regard to another hoax claim I got out a roughly-spherical glass flower jar, set up front and rear "horizons," and viewed them through my camera. This proved that what happened in reality was the exact opposite of what the hoax-believer was claiming. He was merely guessing and hadn't bothered to check. Thomas Bohn has an excellent website which shows his Apollo "anomaly" photo experiments that most people could do: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm
|
|
