Kevin M. West

Gotta love the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ninj...ps_through_town

And if you had even basic understanding of what you were reading, you'd know that Orion is intended for both LEO and lunar missions, which is why they are developing a new heat shield that would be appropriate for both. They can't just use the 40 year old Apollo heat shields on a new larger craft with different requirements than Apollo. The article clearly states that. Seriously, do some reading on the new program so you can avoid amazingly inaccurate statements like that. Orion is not the new LM, it's the equivilent of the command module of Apollo. The only landing Orion will be doing is on Earth, just like the CM from Apollo. They are giving it airbags so it can end its parachute descent on solid ground instead of the ocean landing that Apollo used. There are no legs involved in the Apollo CM or Orion. So far, you've shown an amazing ignorance of both programs, so your assessment is worthless.

Thanks for finally answering Jack's question and proving his evidence is correct . I'm afraid that quoting from the ALSJ won't help you with this one either .... Schmitt stood closer to Cernan in the A17 photo than Bean did to Conrad in the Apollo 12 photo , You have that backwards. The a17 helmet being smaller indicates that the a17 photogrpaher was farther away, not closer.

Can't wait to see the video!

As usual there seems to be a failure to communicate with you , which is usually the reason I don't even bother to reply to your one liner posts here . Here is the point of Jack's question . The astronaut reflected in the Apollo 12 photo is much further away from the visor he is reflected in than the astronot reflected in the Apollo 17 visor ... Yet the astronaut's reflection , which is FURTHER AWAY in the A12 photo is LARGER ... and the reflection of the astronaut that is CLOSER in the A17 photo , is SMALLER. It should be the opposite. Schmitt was allegedy only a few feet away from Cernan when he took that photo , yet his reflection looks MUCH TOO SMALL for someone being reflected that close . If you compare it to the photos that Gavin posted here at the top of the thread , you will see how large his reflection should have been , but wasn't . Duane, when I read your post, there was only one image. So that's the one I worked with. You added the second one while I was composing my post. I'd compare your two images, but it looks like it's already been done. As usual, Jack cropped the images so you can't see the whole picture, including the fact that he was using different size fiducials to normalize the images. Why do you keep supporting this guy when he keep posting such obviously false info?

I still don't see the problem. The reflection of the photographer in the visor in the first post is about twice the size of the reflection of the astronaut in the apollo photo above. This is clearly due to the increased distance between the photographer and the visor. Where's the problem?

I don't understand the point of the "it could be anyone" argument. Are you saying it would be more believable if they weren't wearing helmets?

Tell your buddy Jarrah to look closer at that picture. There are two HF antennas, one of them labeled "orbital HF whip antenna", the other "recovery hf whip antenna".

Yes I know the store mirror is not the same size as the visor , but that's not the point ... That's exactly the point. The visor has a smaller radius curve, and therefore produces smaller reflections than the mirror. When you're looking at a reflection in a sphere, the smaller the sphere, the smaller and more distorted the reflection will be. You could reflect your entire body in a marble if you tried, doesn't mean you a midget. That store mirror is much bigger than the visor, therefore it produces larger, less distorted reflections. Thanks.

Sure, give me the image numbers so I can see the whole thing, and not just Jack's cropped and enlarged images, and I'll gladly tell you why he's wrong. You know that mirror has a different radius curve than the helmet right?

Only a few feet? Come on Duane, you can do better than that. The tourist photos in this thread are taken from much closer than the apollo photos you're referring to. Maybe you're just confused because in the threads here, the photos in the 'feathery horn' pictures (when did you change to it to hairy?) are all cropped to only show the visor?

How are they too large? Those photos are taken from 2 or 3 feet away and the photographer's entire body is reflected in the visor. The lunar photos in question have the photographer standing much farther away, of course they are smaller.

New challenge for Duane. Take a picture of the shadow of your own bent knees, with the camera facing forward and roughly level.

So how would you see a bent knee in a shadow if the light is coming from behind the photograper? To see the bend in the shadow, the light would have to be from the side wouldn't it?

Lame excuse Duane, a spacesuit is not necessary to take a picture of your shadow.

Duane, please stop with the insults, stop trying to change the subject, stop trying to get this thread locked. This thread was about Jack's contention that a photographer's shadow must point to the bottom center of the image. He should prove his point or admit he's wrong. You need to stop trying to distract everyone by burying the thread in your crap. Mods: I suggest that rather than lock this thread, all of the posts irrelevant to Jack's point on page one be split into a new thread. Also, read the whole thread and take note that every single post was on topic until Duane showed up in #22.

Can you show us a copy of the file you've had "for a couple of years"? In its original state, no further alterations please.

It has everything to do with truth and accuracy. Jack said something demonstrably false, has been thoroughly proven wrong, and refuses to take his disinfo down from aulis.com and continues to defend it here. As long as he keeps pushing his disinfo, people will keep calling him out for it. Seriously Duane, why don't you go take a couple pictures yourself. It's easy and you might learn something.

Because my claim which is being disputed here is that A PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHADOW IN A PHOTO MUST POINT TOWARD HIS FEET. Those who oppose my study say that this is not necessary. The feet of an erect photographer are under his camera. If the shadow does NOT POINT TO THE POINT WHERE THE FEET ARE, the photo is not genuine. A very simple concept. Jack Pop quiz Jack: This is a top down view, the red dot is the photographer, the green lines are the field of view of his camera, the blue lines are drawn on the ground. What will the blue lines look like in the picture he takes, assuming he holds the camera level (not pointed at his own feet): a) They will converge on the bottom center of the image They will converge below the bottom center of the image c) They will be parallel d) They will converge at the top of the image e) They will converge above the image This is an open book test, I encourage you to cheat by taking a camera, laying out the lines on the ground with tape, and trying this yourself. Try pointing the camera slightly up and down, and tilting it to the side a bit. Check out the results you get with the camera in different orientations (but always standing up straight with the camera roughly above your feet). You may learn something! When you can answer the question correctly, you will realize why your study is wrong.

Why would you want feet in the picture? That doesn't match any of the apollo photos in question.

Don't try to blame your problems on me Duane, I've never tried to get you banned anywhere. I didn't link any of your posts here to U-M, and was actually surprised when you were banned there.

Yes, they just have to read the rest of your post to see what kind of person resorts to ridicule instead of rebuttal.

Also, Duane, yours are once again not originals, you can clearly see that the contrast has been increased in your images when you compare them to nasa's versions. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20475HR.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20477HR.jpg

You have a strange definition of square.

The white square is not in the middle of the sun, the sun is in the middle of the white square. The actual size of the sun can only be SMALLER than the white overexposed area.