The Sun image is approximately 1/2 a degree in angular diameter - if you place something with the same width in the path from the sun to the visor, the reflection from visor to camera is blocked. Since the rod is nowhere near the same size as the reflection, still it makes the Sun disappear off of the visor and actually now reflects off of the rod, we can accurately deduce that what we are seeing on the visor is a product of the sun blooming on the camera. Exactly as it should, if any part of the Sun is cast on the visor you will get blooming. Yes it does - it now reflects off of the rod. But let's for arguments sake concede that the dull area (which is caused by the image temporarily burnt into the vidicon tube) is actually something now 90% dimmer, how the hell does that work! Fairly dumb claim, how does that work for the idiotic superlight that is able to light acres and acres of terrain evenly? It takes delusion of the highest order to claim that is a single spotlight doing that. Why don't you explain why that is significant, since you can observe the rod occluding the Sun in the video! I don't have any idea what you are talking about, sounds like your usual diversionary bullshit.
Troll. I often wonder how conspiracy theorists are able to disregard such overwhelming evidence. You responded to two pieces of slam-dunk evidence and your first thought was to bury it with horseshit and deny it. At no stage, probably even still, did it cross your blinkered mind that just maybe all the stupid crap you have assimilated is plain wrong. In this thread, the area for that EVA is over many absolutely massive perfectly lit sites. There is not a single light in existence that could do this, yet the moronic hoax crap says bullcrap about a superlight. Now, notwithstanding such a light would need to be monstrously huge, it would light the opposite part of the ground and wipe out the crisp dark shadows we see. I used a simple analogy of penumbra/umbra on eclipse. Now the bullcrap hoax further claims that the bright area on the visor is the spotlight. So how the hell does it disappear when a narrow rod passes in front of it!? Are you blind? In the other thread, can you not see the dust arc between his boots falling in unison!?
It is only massive if you believe the rear projection screen is real. Maybe they used more than one? I don't know what you have been looking at - but there are many examples of unevenly lit terrain in the Apollo record.
A provably idiotic claim. Frequently the camera does a full 360 pan and often zooms towards the distance. Multiple lights cast multiple shadows. As there should be, but in general when viewing the EVA footage, it is a very large area, it is evenly lit, there are only single shadows for every object casting one and they are all jet black.
It should be very obvious to anyone who has good vision that the first image of your gif is of higher resolution than the second one. Why would that be? The second image shows the rod in front of the visor.
As I said lying troll is a lying troll. It should be stunningly and irrefutably obvious to anyone who has a brain cell and average vision, that a narrow rod occluding the sun completely proves it is not a "superlight". Your pathetic diversionary reference to the irrelevant quality of any of the images is the kind of thing you do best. Answer: Do multiple lights cast multiple shadows? Have you viewed the full EVA and noticed the enormous evenly lit area? Did you notice from his visor, just one light source? Does the rod block the large light reflection? Can you explain this? Can you crawl back into your hole and come back when you can post honestly?
Your blooming theory doesn't make sense. If the vidicon tube was overloaded, it would not have responded instantly to the rod blocking the center of the image. We also would see the reflected image producing ghosting, smearing, luminance and luma trails as the astronauts move. We don't see any of that - because your blooming theory is blooming wrong!
Ignorant troll is ignorant troll. Your diversionary objective is nauseating. From here:- https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.alsepdep.html - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1195709.mpg or here:- The image is over exposed by the camera so the operator closes the aperture in mid shot. The exposure is lowered, so is the size of the Sun reflection. Now troll, how does a narrow rod block the Sun reflection?
I'm diversionary? You have just changed the subject to camera apertures and image sizes now - I thought we were talking about your blooming theory. I guess you realized that your Blooming Theory was an untenable position and we better not talk about that anymore, right? I don't think that it does
Stupid troll is stupid troll. The camera aperture changes the amount of light hitting the vidicon tube. Lower the light and the size of the sun changes. Proving that the Sun is being over exposed. You must be really dumb if you don't get that. Wrong jackass, the point is proven. You have no cards and keep firing at the pot - fold and get a life. Remnants from the burned image apart, it clearly does. I really detest liars.
In your video sequence we see the light beam coming in from a sharp angle from the side; and because of the sharp angle we can make out a 3 dimensional shape of the light source. Look closely, we can actually see the sides of the studio light here. Also, we can see a four pointed star pattern in the image that can be explained by "barn doors" attached to the light to provide a more diffuse effect of the light for obvious reasons. If the light source was the sun we wouldn't see this 3d effect. image with contrast adjusted to highlight studio light:
What a crock of ****! A studio light illuminates acres of land at night!? Barn doors as well? That limits the spread of the light you hopeless fool. It effectively turns a small light into a narrow beam. You utter waste of time - so sad that there are people like you on the internet.
The proof that the footage was taken in air has already proven the hoax so the lighting issue is about how they faked it. It's not about whether they faked it... American Moon (English Version) https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...2EC5ECD4F615E147D1212EC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE (2:06:28 time mark) ... and Betamax discredited himself by trying to obfuscate this. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-15-flag.438617/page-2#post-1065710796 Here's something that just occurred to me. Does everybody remember the reflection of what looks like a studio light in the astronaut's visor? https://crberryauthor.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/reflection-2.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Pxx6gM1pBLc/maxresdefault.jpg In the Apollo 11 missions there was lighting fall-off in some of the photos and footage. https://www.reddit.com/r/moonhoax/comments/eh0ofj/light_falloff_proves_studio_lighting_in_apollo_11/ Maybe they decided to solve this problem in the later missions with studio lights with shades to prevent multiple shadows. https://www.google.com/search?q=stu...UQ9IUKHZakAx8Q_AUoAXoECA4QAw&biw=1366&bih=657 https://www.shutterstock.com/es/ima...ighting-equipment-spotlights-white-1526599190 Here's what the a reflection of the real sun would look like. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/29/bruce-mccandless-obituary
I just checked this link and some more videos that had disappeared have come back. https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist At the 1:11 time mark of this video it's shown that they think the studio light is too bright so they dim it. The Mystery of the Apollo Sun https://www.brighteon.com/bed55bd6-d0da-420b-87e6-36f5020bf13b
Wow, no sooner had the forum troll finished up, we have the world's worst forum spammer back. Listen up spammer, it has been irrefutably been proven that a falling battery cover (not sample box) lid is in vacuum. It creates no wave of air in front of it as it falls, just like a door. Your whole reliance is on a flag where like a jackass, you claim the astronaut is creating a wall of air to the side(!) about 4ft in front of him, whilst denying like the dishonest spammer you are, that a box lid would move dust right next to it. There is no end to the is pathetic spammer and his repetition. Once again. If the judge of my credibility is an ignorant and dishonest forum spammer who has failed to acquire any integrity in his whole life, it can be dismissed. The aperture is closed on the camera and the reflection blooms less. Liar. You are trying to divert this issue. Spam addressed here:- http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/apollo-12-smudge-on-visor.html No there was not, they deceptively used a poor copy of the original picture. Circular reasoning. Multiple lights wash out shadows you imbecile. That is what a reflection of a sun looks like with a single exposure from a small aperture on a camera. Hey spammer, when are you going to explain how a narrow rod blocks this "superlight"? You aren't are you, so here's a much better one I found. This time there is a much narrower black pole further away - and it disappears completely:-
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-9#post-1072160675 I told you it all depended on doing an experiment that duplicated the same conditions as light can do some surprising things. Until I see this experiment, my position is I don't know. Nobody is going to take your word for it. Tell us the difference between what would happen with something flat blocking the light and a reflective tube blocking the light and a non-reflective tube blocking the light shining on a convex surface. I said lights with shades to keep stuff like that from happening.
People can read this discussion and decide for themselves. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-apollo-landing.519410/page-9#post-1072078676 You got careless and got checkmated in this discussion and you had to worm your way out of it.
Here's an expert in photography who thinks there was artificial lighting and no sunlight. Apollo Moon Hoax? Spotlights, Fall-off, Camera Angles (1:20 time mark) edit ------------------------ This looks like a hotspot to me. https://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/105561/76/1055617638.jpg
I have no interest in what you tell me. You are as ignorant about this as a blind person! No such experiment is needed. A narrow rod blocks off the reflection on the visor, from this it is just a matter of working out that the area the Sun casts on the visor MUST be at least as narrow as the rod, otherwise it would not disappear. Or yours even less. Now we know for sure that the area reflecting on the visor cannot possibly be a representation of the actual sun being cast and MUST be as small as the narrow thin upright blocking it completely. Even you aren't so dumb that you cannot see this. It is irrelevant you fool. The only salient issue is that the width of the rod is sufficient to stop the Sun hitting the visor, and just above an even narrower upright doing the same thing. Case proven. You really are so very dumb aren't you. The extra lights would a) show up on the visor! b) wash out shadows cast already. The effect can be seen on Earth with reflected atmospheric light making shadows much softer or in a soccer stadium:- http://footage.framepool.com/shotim...edonian-national-team-dutch-national-team.jpg
The people decided you are a dishonest spammer. Anyone who denies a falling flat surface would scatter dust is lying or very stupid - or in your case, both. No such irrelevancy occurred. You realised that single-handedly you had shown a piece of Apollo footage must be in a vacuum, so your mission become to cover it up and divert away from the real issue. You are a pigeon playing chess. https://i.imgur.com/TMRoLXp.jpeg
Dishonest film making in action. He was shown the poor version of the Man on the Moon image instead of the perfect original! That's because you are referencing a shitty compressed image. The slightly lighter area is formed by the blast trail just seconds before landing. The darker foreground soil is disturbed unbleached regolith - it's also gently sloping away from the LM. Clearly from his visor, there is one single light illuminating the entire area.
Now let's hear you do this one. Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis edit ----------------------------------- Here's the full movie. What Happened on the Moon? Documentary, 2000 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...19E6534801F852A6A0A519E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE https://videa.hu/videok/film-animacio/what-happened-on-the-moon-apollo-david-percy-4jQyc4imZaVCR7oV
Look at this clown. He gets his ass handed to him in every post and just keeps firing one spam post after another! Listen up you troll, address the last post response. Surprise me, show some honesty and integrity instead of your usual lying horseshit! If you are claiming this Groves imbecile has a PhD identify what it is and from where and use something not affiliated to making money off of idiots like yourself! https://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html
