Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by KChrisC, Jan 31, 2016.
Duh, it is behind the astronaut. You must think these were real.
Plagiarizing Jack White again. In a matter of a few minutes of just walking around, big areas are transformed from the volumes of dust kicked by astronauts as they move around. This is one of the more stupid claims. I notice you've given up responding to me completely. So strong is your argument that you vacate once it is torn apart. This particular argument is one of those ignorant appeals to incredulity.
What should distant mountains look like with no atmospheric distortion? Your claim is so sad considering the numerous examples of the camera zooming out large distances up places like Hadley Rille Here is a nice example showing how the terrain is very deceptive and a very distant astronaut:-
While doing some research on the geography of the supposed landing site of Apollo 15, I came across the following cropped photo:
Immediately I noticed the strange shadows. It then occurred to me that the most likely reason for the shadows to appear as such is if the light source used were too close to the photog. From experience then, I knew to look for a lightening, or even ghosting, of the shadows toward the foreground of the photo. As expected, right under the drill-stem rack, a lightened shadow is apparent, clear as an artificial day.
Next I was off to get the original photo, AS15-92-12407, from NASA. Below is the marked up version.
The arrows indicate the apparent angles of the shadows. The red circle is the original lightened shadow, and the yellow circle highlights an additional lightened shadow around the photog. The green circle is highlighting the light source's "hotspot," which is most evident toward the bottom of the circle, approximately around the shoulder of the photog.
The blue circle is of terrain that seems to be throwing a shadow toward the left of itself. Very strange. It is zoomed in next.
For good measure, I have included close-ups of both the lightened shadow under the drill-stem rack, and around the photog's head.
An American citizen, not US subject.
As you are a novice in photo-analysis I can suggest you consult with somebody who has better understanding. What you are posting and suggesting is the most ludicrous of ludicrous claims. They "pasted" in shadows or some crap? This on ektachrome exposed film? Or how?
Regarding the astronaut shadow - heiligenschein:-
The Moon is one mass of volcanic beads that cause that very effect. Your other observations are just crazy.
The picture itself looks like some over exposure effect. The previous picture and subsequent one are perfectly exposed but don't have the bright astronaut in them up Sun.
Yada yada yada.
Maybe I can help you out with some stunningly obvious observations from a video used to debunk an equally absurd claim from the "Australian grandson":-
This photo, AS15-90-12243 (12243), is part of a panorama from Apollo 15 that I have seen many times. Something always bothered me about it, but I was always in pursuit of something else, so I never stopped to investigate it. The other day I did stop. Took a longer look at it, and what do you know, clear as day, another smoking-gun error. It is also a "how" reveal error.
Photo 12243 was taken at Station- 4, at the edge of Dune Crater. The large pointed boulder at left of center is on the edge of the crater. Behind the boulder is the opposing side of the crater, a full half a kilometer (.5km) away. Problem is, the pointed boulder's shadow is impossibly visible behind it. How could this be, as, for a half kilometer, there is nothing but empty space until the crater's opposing side is reached. The boulder's shadow should fall invisibly down into the crater.
Zooming in on the area in the blue circle in the marked version below, the answer is revealed, along with a lot more: The boulder's shadow is falling upon the front-screen projector screen that is displaying the background behind the foreground. This is even more apparent in the blue circle of the zoomed version where the background terrain features are seen within the boulder's shadow--busted.
An American citizen, not US subject.
A close up of the boulder shows how the terrain is perfectly consistent with being cast on the uneven slightly raised part of the downslope. The claims and amateur observations you are making are extremely unscientific.
The way nearby terrain and far terrain appear next to each other is a property of the same color, no atmospheric distortion and the exposure/focus settings on the camera. The Sun is roughly 30 degrees in the sky.
Dude! Where's My Boulder?
The photo on the left is AS15-85-11423HR (11423), taken by Apollo 15 at 122:38:47. The photo on the right is AS15-85-11448 (11448 ), also from Apollo 15, and taken at 123:17:15.
The first photo has no boulder, and the second, which has the exact same background, does--"Houston, we have a problem boulder."
Same photos, but marked up.
Notice the rock groupings circled in blue and yellow, and their orientation to each other, Hill 305 behind, and the foreground. The green circle indicates where the boulder that appears in 11448 should be, in relation to the aforementioned rock groupings. The red circle is of import because the three terrain components in it, Hill 305, surface/floor, and the oblong peak at right, do not change relative to each other or the foreground between photos.
In 11448 there is now a boulder in the middle ground. Its relations to the background rock groupings, and the terrain further back, indicates that it is in about the position circled in green in 11423. Note that the terrain in the red circle does not change relative to each other or the foreground.
The fake dialog to go with these pictures had the astronauts on a slope of some kind. Note that the rock grouping in 11448 have moved slightly downwards toward the stageline. If these photos were real, the movement downward of the rock groupings would indicate the photog moved backwards some. However, the nonexistent change in the photogs' view of the oblong peak relative to the surface/floor belies such a conclusion. Therefore it must be deduced that the background projector's position was lowered a fraction.
Dude, where's your brain!
As can be seen the picture is taken from a different angle. The distant mountains several miles away are clearly not a backdrop or projection on pictures of such clarity from the 70's!
No. It must be deduced that the sum total of your efforts so far in this thread are just one scientifically inept epic fail!
Viewers: Check out this info and judge for yourselves.
Spammed and addressed already:-
As always with information and expertise from this gentleman, who is an actual expert, it will be ignored due to some ad hominem about dust that has also been shown to be total nonsense. The person on that Aulis site has no credentials, is fictitious anyway and makes so many errors in his laughable excuse for analysis that we can easily dismiss his claim.
Besides it's from the same people who made the hoax film showing totally corrupt practises.
The person who supplies this link above makes no judgement on the credibility of the source when it is 10 times worse than the ad hominem he uses to dismiss the rebuttal!
That is a good study.
I am using it now to study some interesting anomalies in the backgrounds in some of the Apollo 15 photos.
The study was inept, you are demonstrating the same level, yeah that's going to work!
Maybe you might like to align the images correctly and explain why there should be any differences. When I say explain, not some fudged, vague claim.
Can you do that?
He's referring to Jay Windley who is the webmaster of the Clavius forum.
http://www.clavius.org/ (click on web forum)
Jay Windley is a paid sophist who knows the moon missions were faked. Here's some info on Jay Windley and the Clavius site that I've posted before.
Look at Jay Windley's lame behavior on page #2 of this thread.
Watch this video. Jay Windley won't debate on neutral ground. He'll only debate on a forum where the moderator will ride to his rescue and delete the truthers' posts when he's checkmated.
MoonFaker: The Punch Heard All Around The World. PART 3
Our friend Betamax also destroyed his credibility a long time ago by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
Nothing either one of them says is to be taken seriously.
You are a liar! Jay Windley is NOT the webmaster of the forum. There is no actual "clavius" forum. It is and always has been called apollohoax.net
You are a liar! You have no evidence for anything in that statement. In fact the opposite is true. Anyone with treble digits IQ knows that faking all those missions with the level of documentation and evidence available is impossible and that only brainless conspiracy nuts believe it was so.
Moronic opinion does not count as evidence.
Off topic spam and already addressed here:-
A moronic claim. Never in the history of conspiracy claims have any of you gullible people "checkmated" anybody. I suspect Mr Windley will never engage people like you because you continue to defame him without evidence or apology.
When the person assessing my credibility has no honor, no clue or understanding, wilfully avoids counter claims including huge websites and bases his claim about a spacewalk faked on his inept cable observations, I can rest easy.
100% accurate translation:- I cannot answer any of this rebuttal because it destroys my case completely and makes me look extremely dishonest.
Cosmored, have you watched the videos showing your film maker is corrupt?
You are the one who has no credibility. A truther would give an honest appraisal not avoidance and lies.
Okay! Who Moved My Background?
From Apollo 15. The photo on the left is AS15-90-12243 (12243), and shows a boulder pair on the edge of Dune crater. The pointed boulder is the one with the shadow that falls upon the screen depicting the background, as discussed in an earlier post. Dune Crater itself is .5 km wide. Notice the rock groups in the red and blue circles, and the orientation line from the middle of the blue group to the middle of the pointed boulder in the middle ground.
The photo on the right is AS15-87-11778 (11778 ), and is a close up of the same boulder pair in 12243. Notice the rock groups again in the red and blue circles. The problem is, based on what is seen in 12243, the rock groups should be either behind the pointed boulder, or to the left of it, in 11778. Yet, not only are the rock groups inexplicably on the right, but the orientation line form the blue circle rock group now goes through the smaller boulder. Oops!
They goofed with 11778 when they did not, or could not, shift the projected terrain properly to the left. And so the same rock groups appear behind the boulder pair.
An American citizen, not US subject.
Nobody did. You are absolutely useless at this.
Yes, as is pointed out they are 500 metres beyond. The rock is also pretty small around about 1.5 metres high.
Inexplicably? The extremely simple explanation is that the direction of viewing the rocks is different.
Every single thing you've done in this thread is the complete opposite of scientific process and conclusion. Here for you to ignore once again, is your claim taken to pieces. The rock picture on the right is taken from a counter-clockwise position. The effect for those needing this explained is for the background to shift around to the right on the second picture.
View attachment 41288
View attachment 41289
An American citizen, not US subject.[/QUOTE]
Apollo 15 strikes again.
This is AS15-85-11423 taken at elapsed time 122:38:47.
Note in the marked version below the rover's wheel, and the astronauts' footprints. Note their positions relative to the rocks in the blue and yellow circles. Of special note are the rocks in the yellow circle and their distance above the foreground's "horizon line."
About 39 minutes later, at 123:17:15, AS15-85-11448, below, was taken. Based on the rocks in the middle-ground, and the background, this photo was taken near the same spot as 11423.
Below is 11448 marked up. The rock groups in the blue and yellow circles are in the same locations relative to the camera and background as seen in 11423. However, the rocks in the yellow circle are closer to the foreground's "horizon line" indicating that the camera was moved some to the rear, up the down slope of the terrain. Therefore the rover's tracks, and the astronauts' footprints and disturbances of the soil, seen in 1423 should be visible. They are not. Instead a boulder has been inserted into the scene. Oops!
The few people who frequent this sub forum can see quite clearly that I have completely debunked every one of your claims, yet you shamelessly avoid any of my replies and carry on stinking the place up with your trash. This latest one has used nothing more than your personal and totally biased observation. There is no photogrammetry being used and your conclusions are woeful in the extreme.
Please note the emphasis as "near the same spot". This person's definition of "near" being in question since no distance calculations have been made for the items in circles.
What we have here is incompetence at the most extreme level. Just by looking at the pictures we can see from the distant mountains that the camera angle has changed. The rocks circled are also different in relation to the ridge just below. Here are the two pictures reasonably aligned showing quite clearly that the camera has shifted direction and distance:-
Yet another epic fail from this guy and he won't acknowledge it. That tells the people viewing all they need to know about his objectivity and credibility.
Separate names with a comma.