Kevin M. West

In low light, with a long exposure, as can be seen by the overexposure of the white parts of the displays. Why are you assuming a camera and the human eye will see the same thing anyway?

How do you know Collins took that lame looking solar corona photo that Greer posted here and not Armstrong or Aldrin ?... Because according to this statement from Moon Base Clavius , all three of them participated in the solar corona photography? .. I don't know why Jay Windley is confused.... Armstrong made it crystal clear in his answer that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface 'during daylight by eye, without looking thru' the optics' and THEN stated he couldn't recall what stars he COULD see during the solar corona photography.... Mike Collins doesn't remember seeing any which can only relate to the solar corona photography which contradicts what Chaikin stated in his book. " Armstrong,Aldrin and Collins had not seen the moon on the way out, but according to the flight plan they were supposed to take some pictures of it a few hours before braking into lunar orbit. As they finished breakfast, a sudden darkness came around them ****and for the first time in the flight the sky was full of stars, too many to count, each with a steady, gemlike brilliance. They had flown into the lunar shadow. Through the windows of the slowly turning spacecraft they looked out at the place where the sun had once been, and there was the moon: a huge, magnificent sphere bathed in the eerie blue light of earthshine, each crater rendered in ghostly detail,all except for a third of the globe,which was a crescent of blackness. As their eyes adapted to the darkness they saw that the entire moon was set against a giant ellipse of pearly white light,the glowing gases of the suns outer atmosphere which stretched beyond the moon into the blackness****. Somehow in these strange, cosmic illuminations the moon looked decidely three-dimensional. bulging out at them as if to present itself in welcome,or, perhaps, warning." So the stars had appeared for the first time in the flight "too many to count, each with a steady, gemlike brilliance" , at the same time "the glowing gases of the suns outer atmosphere which stretched beyond the moon into the blackness", all three of them participated in the photography, Armstrong couldn't recall what stars he COULD see at this point, yet Mike Collins who was interviewed by Chaikin couldn't recall seeing any. Seems to me that either Chaikin is embellishing his work of fantasy with lies, or Collins wasn't being truthful at the press conference. Which is it? One quote about seeing stars out the window from the dark side of the moon, the other about not seeing them while photographing the solar corona. If you stop taking the quotes out of context, you may understand: 1) On the day side of the moon, they couldn't see the stars with the moon or sun in their field of view 2) On the day side, they could only see stars while looking though the navigational optics 3) On the dark side, they could see them out the window 4) On the dark side, they were difficult to see when they were photographing the solar corona. Each of your quotes fits one of these 4 situations perfectly, and there is no contradiction when the quotes are kept in context.

You've already been shown that blue flare happens in sunlit photos also.

Uh, your quote is about them passing into the lunar shadow, while in the youtube clip he said "on the daylight side of the moon". You lose, try again.

Light flare? Now you're just making things up to cover your ass. Please, Jack, show me one example of anyone using the phrase "light flare" in the context you mention.

We covered that "horn" here a while back, if I have time I'll look for the thread later. What it comes down to is this: The dark patch is always right where the astronaut's shadow should be, and the light highlights on it in the picture above can be seen in other photos, in the same spot on the visor (because it's dust & scratches), and only look like part of the 'horn' in that specific photo. Jack & Duane, do you have long term memory issues? You're recycling the same arguments as if they are something new.

Your two examples don't look like each other either. One has 10 'spokes' and the other has 14. Do you know why? How many should the apollo pictures have and why?

There is nothing "paranoid" about being concerned as to why his e-mails will not go through to a fellow conspiracy researcher , when there is no problem with them being delivered to anyone else . Yes there is, if he's posting about it here rather than asking his mail provider for tech support. He's making the assumption that it's a conspiracy against him without even attempting to see if it's a normal everyday problem. Being able to send email to most people while being blocked by a specific domain is a very common problem which most likely has nothing to do with Jack.

Have you tried tech support at your (and David's) ISP? You might get a better response if you explain to them that you're having trouble sending email to David, than you will with a paranoid post on a CT forum.

Why don't you ask a few astronomers if there would have been any scientific value to pictures of the stars taken from a handheld camera on the moon.

I think you have a typo there. You said "OVEREXPOSED LUNAR SCENES" when you must have meant "solid white area unrecognizable as anything specific".

But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon. If I had to guess, it's a rotated, cropped, and scaled bit of the reflection in someone's visor. Can't tell what mission.

It would help to see what that was cropped from.

And yours is?! It is as obscure as your photo...or maybe not...maybe both indicative of something..... My old avatar was indicative only of my love of diving, here's a new one so you can see my face. Unfortunately unlike my old one, it tells you nothing about me except that I'm a white guy. Maybe you can explain how seeing my face is relevant to anything we've discussed here. Now, back to the matter at hand, if you want to say something completely unrelated to the subject of the thread, it's best to start a new thread, not derail an existing one. It's basic forum etiquette, and as such, this will be my last response to you in this thread unless you say something on topic.

Shouldn't those last 2 posts be in another thread? This one was supposed to be about Jack's new discovery.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

The 3 circled in the lower half of those pictures are not the same. The rock you circled in light green in the left pic is the same rock in white in the right pic.

There is a difference between the pasted shadow and the original one. The one where they are side by side is not the original, it's been altered, jpeg compressed, and reduced in size. How about you provide the ID for that second image so someone can find the high-res version?

And again Jack shows he has no understanding of perspective. A challenge for Jack (or Duane). Imagine the following pattern is drawn on flat, level ground, and a photographer stands at the vertex and takes a picture, holding the camera level and aimed in the direction of the center line. Sketch what the photograph would look like.

Duane, he's trying to teach you something about photography here, maybe if you pay attention you'll learn something. Dust on the lens, when illuminated, will cause a 'glow' and reduce contrast. It's one of those fact things that you like to dismiss.

Would be helpfull if you could define 'elsewhere'.

It is at the same slope. Well, it doesn't look that way to me. If the boot were on the same slope as the shadow, the toe would be higher than the heel, but in the picture the toe is level, if slightly lower. Another thing is that the shadow appears to wrap around the heel, which tells me the heel is in ground contact. Curious, no? Looks to me like he's standing at the top of the slope, and it slopes downward behind him. Who knows what the exact shape of the ground under his boot is.

No, it's only used for lens flares. No one said that. No one said that. And no one said that either. Stop making xxxx up. If someone said that, I'll disagree with it. Dust on the lens, if illuminated, would cause haze, not a lens flare. Different effects altogether. The rest of your post is just the usual rant, I won't bother replying.

Structural steel has manganese in it and not much chromium, that's not a lie, it's a fact. You can go look it up. That presentation says the opposite, that IS a lie, not a fact. If you want to prove the official story is a lie, you'll need to do it with facts, not more lies. If the facts don't agree with your theory, maybe that should tell you something about your theory.

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that image. You just want there to be so you can dismiss the evidence. I never refused to give you the source, I was just afk most of the afternoon and didn't answer you yet. I found that image in another thread on this forum, I don't remember exactly who first posted it but I'm sure it's not hard to find. I don't know who took the photo originally, but there is nothing in it to indicate any sort of forgery. Like I said before, the brightness of that rooftop matches the brightness of the other flat horizontal sunlit surfaces in the scene fairly well. Jack's claim that it's too bright is meaningless, because he hasn't said how bright it should be and why. He just says it's too bright, and you agree like the sheep you are without even caring why.