|
Post by gwiz on Jan 18, 2007 13:10:35 GMT -4
Overexposure does not make an object one hundred times bigger. Yes it can. Even a bright pinpoint source can give a large image if you overexpose it. How big do you think the reflection of the sun would really be in that building photo? Have you ever actually tried to take such pictures? Incidentally, as you move away from an overexposed reflection such as the astronaut helmet, the image of the helmet will get smaller, but the overexposed area will change little as it is a lens effect. Does your comparison give you the same message when you compare the size of the overexposed image with the size of the picture rather than the size of the helmet? Obviously Sibrel, Percy and co protecting their sales. Don't go off at a tangent. You asked for examples of Hufschmid's ignorance, I showed that he appears to be unaware of the hammer/feather demo. Whether these demos look fake to you or not is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 18, 2007 17:57:43 GMT -4
And how do you make a convincing lead feather?
Exactly, if you watch the footage, the feather was dropped flat so even a lead feather would react to an atmosphere, even if it was just turning to the side to reduce it's air resistance.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 19, 2007 6:43:17 GMT -4
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?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 12:39:10 GMT -4
Have you considered the possibility that the picture isn't overexposed at all, but rather exposed enough to clearly show details of the astronaut's suit and equipment, while somewhat exaggerating the image of the sun reflectied in his visor?
After all, the suit is a less efficient reflector than the visor, so adequate light reflecting off the suit is probably going to be excessive light reflecting off the visor.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 12:40:29 GMT -4
Also, what does this have to do with Jonestown? There's a whole board set aside here for Apollo hoax theories.
David, have you considered discussing a single issue at a time? When you bring up multiple subjects like this, it gives the impression that you don't have good answers to questions about your original subject, and are trying to distract everyone by bringing up a new subject.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jan 22, 2007 18:43:28 GMT -4
We don't learn from history and so we repeat it. Do you think anyone at Jonestown ever heard of Colonia Dignidad?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 17, 2007 3:49:36 GMT -4
Naom Chomskey is not being surpressed in America. His books don't sell as well here as they do in Europe because we don't generally like books full of anti-American hatred. He's always had steady sales (if not in great numbers) in the USA to the "hard left" and to universities/colleges. In fact, there's a nice selection of his political works in my local state college's library (I'm not sure about his linguistic texts)
|
|