david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 18, 2007 12:44:54 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 16, 2007 7:38:47 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 15, 2007 13:41:52 GMT -4
Sorry but I don't know how to do that but I think you're just playing games anyway. It's inside the circle here. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgIt's the clear image of the nose of an aircraft that's too pointed to be the nose of a 757. Pretending you don't see something that's obvious is a sign of desperation.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 14, 2007 9:25:20 GMT -4
Blurry my foot. It's so clear that the shadow line can be seen. The shadow is right where it's supposed to be. The top is illuminated by the sun and the bottom is shadowy. It's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. I don't see how any "Objective" person say it's blurry with a straight face.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 14, 2007 8:27:15 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 25, 2007 9:57:53 GMT -4
Of course I know this. I should have metioned that the people I asked had taken a few physics classes and had studied the properties of light. Concerning the pictures in reply #24 The glare obscures the size of the actual reflection ihn the two pictures. I base my opinions on the evidence I see. I don't worry about who presents it. Of course--provided that the person is not a con-artist. There are a lot of con artists who have more knowledge than I do. I only have an hour today. I won't have any time to any serious posting until the weekend after next. I've only had time to scan your explanations of the difference in the size of the reflections in the visors. Of course I'm going to spend some time and try to analyze them the weekend after next. All I can say so far is that the pictures and footage of reflections of light I've seen during the course of my life is not consistent with what you're telling me. Is it possible to post some photos of the phenomena that you've described? This is from Apollo 12. www.hasselbladfoundation.org/images/centenary_4.jpgThis is from the shuttle. a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/ig_65.13_sts51i_ox.jpgThis is the one in question. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1653238.rmThe one from apollo 15 is quite different from the one from Apollo 12. I know you've explained it. You sound like you have photography equipment. If it's easy for you to do, I'd like to see some photos of the phenomena you've described that explain the difference. I know this post doesn't begin to cover everything you've said. I'm just real busy now.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 23, 2007 15:49:11 GMT -4
There's nothing rhetorical about my question. I don't see how anybody can say it's rhetorical with a straight face. It was a simple question about a simple picture. I guess everybody was afraid to answer it because they have to agree with the official government version of everything on this site and the official government version is obviously wrong. Well, sidestepping the question says a lot about your level of objectivity too. After seeing everybody's response I would say none of you are objective. I won't be able to post very much for about a week as I have to change residences. If I'm not banned, I'll be back.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:33:12 GMT -4
Asking people to analyze that picture is the best way I know to identify unobjective people. Unobjective people can't say it's a plane that is obviously not a 757 so they avoid the subject. I see most of you people are not truth-seekers. I'll keep that in mind when I read your analyeses of the Apollo pictures and footage.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:16:11 GMT -4
Stop avoiding the issue and give your analysis of that picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon which is obviously not the nose of a 757. As I said--all I want to do is see how objective you are. After the post we can discuss it on another thread if you want to discuss it further.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:00:27 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 12:58:49 GMT -4
Of course I know that. I don't want to discuss 9/11. I just want to see how objective you people are. Of course it has nothing to do with Apollo. I don't intend to discuss 9/11 here. A lot of the people who post on this thread showed a clear lack of objectivity in this thread on this other site. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507They pretty much destroyed their credibility when they said that the object on the right in this picture was smoke. There are some people who post on this thread who are either incompetent or insincere. I just want to check the objectivity of the others who haven't posted there. If this site is dedicated to truth, that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 12:33:07 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 21, 2007 11:31:14 GMT -4
I'm not expert in this so I've been asking around. Nobody I've asked so far agrees with you. I haven't asked any real experts though. This Thursday I'm going to have a chance to ask a high school physics teacher. If the light is far enough a way, it looks about the way it should look. www.learner.org/channel/workshops/sheddinglight/highlights/highlights1.htmlThat light might be one hundred yards away. I've never seen any evidence that looked irrefutable. I've only seen things with multiple explanations. The pro-Apollo people just choose the explanation they like and ignore the other ones. That was my experience with them here anyway. z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560Go into some detail and give an example of something that you say is irrefutable and we can talk about it. That's funny. I have a totally different experience. I've never seen any difference in the size of reflections of lights in similar-sized convex surfaces. The reflection in the shuttle astronaut's visor is consistent with the reflections I've seen on other convex surfaces. I'm not expert so all I can do is start asking people. After what you people said about the picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon, I don't take your analyses of anything very seriously. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgLook at post 914 on this page. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=31I can't see how you can say that with a straight face. Try maximizing the video frame. Please go into detail when you say things like this. This video shows a Russian satellite photo of area 51; it has craters. video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apolloIt's toward the end of the movie; I don't have time to find the exact time mark now. Here are two more. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm These general statements don't say anything. Please go into detail.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 19, 2007 7:41:03 GMT -4
I don't have the same footage that was on "What Happened on the Moon". It showed a closer look at the Apollo astronaut's visor. It was the actual reflection and not glare. For scratches to cause that much distortion the visor would have to be very scratched. Wouldn't those scratches be discernable. In order to get that many scratches wouldn't the astronaut have to fall down about ten times and land on the visor each time. The difference in curvature between the two visors is not significant enough to cause that much difference in the size of the reflections in the visors. I've seen enough convex mirrors on trucks and in department stores to have an idea of how much difference would be needed to cause that much of a difference in size. According to the hoax theory some of the footage was taken in the Nevada desert and some of it was taken in a studio. I just googled arond and found this right away. www.hasselbladfoundation.org/images/centenary_4.jpgIt says it's from Apollo 12. The other pictures are from apollo 15. It's quite plausible that most of Apollo 12 was taken in a studio with lights and Apollo 12 was taken in a desert area. I wish WHOTM were still on-line; the picture was much clearer and it was only the reflection without any glare. What you said about the sun is probably true. Maybe the reason the reflection I'm referring to was clear was that it wasn't of the sun. I've seen lots of pictures taken in areas where there was a lot of dust and I've never seen that phenomenon in any picture.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 19, 2007 6:50:02 GMT -4
The main thing that convinced me that Apollo was a hoax was the size of the reflection of the sun in the Apollo astronaut's visor. It was much bigger than the reflection of the sun in the shuttle astronaut's visor. This was presented in the video "What Happened on the Moon" which is off-line now. I did some looking around. I couldn't find the exact footage that I saw on "What Happened on the Moon" which showed both the shuttle and Apollo astronauts a little closer to the camera so you could see what was glare and what was the actual reflection. This isn't as good but it will have to do. The glare in the shuttle astronaut's visor obscures the actual size of the reflection of the sun. The reflection itself is smaller. I wish I had the footage from the video. It was closer so the actual size of the reflection of the light source in the Apollo astronaut's visor was plainer. This one isn't as clear as it is a bit further away. Stop the video at the 50 second mark and compare the size of the reflection of the sun to the size in the pictures. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1653238.rm50 sec. mark a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/ig_65.13_sts51i_ox.jpgwww.todaysthv.com/assetpool/images/061130113836_astronaut_earth_space.jpgIf the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's helmet is overexposed, why doesn't the rest of the picture look overexposed too?
|
|