Kevin M. West

Gotta love the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ninj...ps_through_town

I thought you might find this article interesting ... You will need to read between the lines to see that so far NASA has no way of knowing how to develope a heat shield which will keep astronots alive "on the lunar side" !!

" Where does NASA stand on risk of the heat-shield materials for Orion? "We can handle the initial operating system of (re-entry from) low-Earth orbit," Reuther said. "On the lunar side it's a much greater challenge. We need a single heat-shield material for the lunar environment and re-entry...We're at greater risk there building a single system for both FROM SCRATCH ."

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.

Oh and it's even better before that part at the end .... Check out how they plan to SOFT LAND THE CRAFT ON SOLID GROUND !

"The craft will be comprised of four parts: a launch vehicle, or spacecraft adaptor that will carry the capsule into LOW EARTH ORBIT ; a service module that contains an engine and pedals for aerodynamics; a crew module (in which the crew rides); and a LAUNCH ABORT SYSTEM . This system is used to eject the crew in case of emergency on the launch pad. It will also include A SET OF AIRBAGS SO THE CRAFT CAN LAND ON SOLID GROUND ."

Why don't they just use the four legs from the old LM's to land on solid ground ? ... After all , they WORKED PERFECTLY ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO WHEN SIX MISSIONS USED THEM TO PRETEND TO LAND MEN ON THE "LUNAR SIDE" !!

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.

Like I have always said ... The future manned missions to the Moon (if there ever really are any by 2020 ), will blow the Apollo scam right out of the water !"

So far, you've shown an amazing ignorance of both programs, so your assessment is worthless.

Sorry Evan but they were not taken from anywhere near the same camera to subject distance. The A17 helmet is about 20% smaller than the A12 helmet which indicates a change in distance.

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!

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?

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?

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/radioind/Gemini...eminiRadio.html

Note closely what the caption says:

"The HF antenna was 3.9 meters long when extended on orbit."

Now, why would the website Burton got his picture from, clearly state that this antenna was indeed erected in space, if it was never extended until after the vehicle splashed down?

I think I know the perfect title for such a video: "MoonFaker: Whiplash"

Jarrah"[/b]

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".

You know that mirror has a different radius curve than the helmet right?

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.

The point is that what is reflected in some of the Apollo visors contain not only very weird looking anomalies but also feature astronot "photographers" who are allegedly just a few feet away from the subject , as looking like tiny dwarfs ... The Apollo 17 visor reflections in particular are quite ridiculous looking .

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.

I will get the ID numbers for you so we can see what's up with those two photos and hopefully answer Jack's question.

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.

Post your evidence right here which proves that Mike has been dishonest about the contrast on those A17 photos and that a Sun reflection can have a square shape while reflected in a visor .

It doesn't matter that he won't debate you on this forum if you really have the proof which proves him wrong .... Right ? ... Just post it .

I don't knowif Mike altered the contrast on those A17 photos or not ... I am only going by the same A17 photo that I have had in my files for a couple of years now , where the image was originally UNDEREXPOSED and MUCH DARKER than what NASA currently has on their ALSJ web site now .

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.

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

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.

The reason I was banned from the UM was not because I "badmouthed the moderators" ... It was because I suspected one of the moderators of reading my posts as they were being written ... and thought that was how he replied to each and every line of my posts in a matter of only a few minutes sometimes .... Nobody at the UM would have even known I had posted that here , if it hadn't been for you or possibly your buddy West , linking my post to the UM in hopes of having me banned ... Which it did , considering the unfairness of one particular moderator there who despises any CT who dares to question the authenticity of the official Apollo record .

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.

I bet you think that you're quite the comedian , don't you Dave ? ... Unfortunately for you though , there is a huge difference between humor and ridicule ... Not only does ridicule usually not work as a form of rebuttal , but it shows the "gentle reader" exactly what kind of person uses it , and why .

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

If you believe that you have "won" the argument by making fun of Jack and me with your condescending rubbish , then think again ... People are not that stupid or that blind Dave ... You may hope they are , but they're not ...They are not blind to the obvious unexplained anomalies in the Apollo photographs and they are not blind to the despicable tactics used by you and Lamson against those who are exposing those anomalies ..... When it comes to attacking those you oppose , you both are really two of a kind ... I just never realized that you are as hateful as Lamson is , until now .

Well , since the two of you have now turned this thread into nothing but the typical cesspit of pro Apollo nonsense , I will stop playing your silly game and from now on will only post what may be relevent to proving that the Apollo "Sun" was nothing but 'One Giant Spotlight for all Mankind . '

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.