Gavin Stone

Jack White's Original Study: http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/convexmirrorcomp.jpg I was browsing through some random images on Flickr when I suddenly had the idea of searching for some high resolution pictures of Apollo Spacesuits, and I came across this gem. Quite blatantly, the appeared reflection of the photographer is much higher than it actually is. As can be seen in this picture (of the same suit) the suit is slightly raised. It also shows what happens to peoples legs when viewed from the reflection; you lose them! This photo clearly show similarities to the official NASA photo taken on the moon. I'm wondering if White will remove his analysis now (I'm going to guess on no). Other good examples:

Original Email: Reply:

Evan, The links that Duane provided encapsulated in IMG tags were on NASA's servers. The pictures being embedded into this thread would not effect the bandwidth usage of this site, Just so you know

Duane, are you being willfully obtuse? Can you not see the pan of the Apollo site clearly shows the the terrain is not level? Are you trying to suggest that this terrain is level, Duane? This quote is absolutely absurd and is a good representation of your illogical thinking. It is a throwaway comment. I'm sure that Armstrong didn't mean that "the entire Lunar Surface was perfectly flat" just that they'd landed in a relatively flat place. No wonder you have no credibility Duane.

I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat. Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer: Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows? Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane? Should we now consider this "anomaly" explained, Duane?

Lol, oh Duane, you really do provide classical examples of Logic Fallacies.

Too much there to debunk at once so I suggest we start with the first one I agree that the shadow is roughly 75% the length of Aldrin's. The shadows are not parallel argument is completely ignorant and has been debunked so many times it is unbelievable. "Rene used trigonometry". Is this the new trigonometry that works when surfaces aren't flat and not in any sort of geometric shape? I'll have to look that up in my maths course notes The reason the shadows are different lengths is because the surface is not flat. Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11pan1103147HR.jpg Given that the surface quite blatantly raises and also has depressions, the shadow length is effected by these raises and depressions. I refer you to some excellent diagrams created by fellow forumer Dave Greer: Also, if there are two light sources, at two different angles; Why do the astronauts not have TWO shadows? Can we now consider this particular part a non issue, Duane?

Duane, I am not an astrophysicist by profession, I am an IT Systems Analyst, by profession. Let me quote you some definitions of the word astrophysicist: I apply to all of these definitions and regularly practice this behaviour at my university during courses.

Ah yes Duane, I should have known that you'd know better than me what I do with my life Personally, I don't care if you think I have relevant Astronomy qualifications or not. I know I have, and that's all that matters. File all the complaints you want Duane, I am filing them right back. Duane, I don't care about what you think about the Apollo record. I don't actually care about CT's much. The truth is there are not MILLIONS as claimed, only a select sad few who peddle their propoganda because of ignorance/profit. The rest have a passing interest bordering on the majority of people not caring. Pot calling the kettle black, Duane. Reported (again) Duane, it's a good job I don't get on at you for spelling and grammar as I would be here till 2028 correcting all your mistakes. Pot calling the kettle black again Duane? You expect me to take grammar advice from someone who puts a SPACE BEFORE A COMMA?

Duane, I will ignore your 'mocking' about me being an Astrophysicist because you probably don't know what one is. I find it amusing that you assume I am basing my Physics knowledge on flying a simulated mission to the moon. I am not. I am basing it on my study at degree level for Physics. Not that I expect you to understand this, seeing as though you won't even pick up a camera to do one simple test. EDITED: There was more here, but your just not worth the calories I expend pressing keys on this keyboard. EDIT: I'd also like to complain about Duanes last post to move; his posts are now just plain insulting.

I'd quite like to know: a) What pictures were used to create this How they were created

I don't think so Duane, many of the worlds scientists weren't around or were barely children when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I am a scientist, and the reason I won't 'blow the whistle' is because there is no whistle to blow. I may not know much about photography (other than basic common sense which is pretty much what is needed to debunk the majority of CT photo claims) but when It comes to my area of expertise (Astrophysics) I have reviewed Apollo in extraordinary detail and have not yet found one thing which didn't make scientific sense. Why would a scientists reputation be tarnished if what he presented was actual, verifiable, peer reviewed evidence that the moon landing didn't exist? Far from it, they would be hailed a hero for uncovering such an 'elaborate hoax'. It is not mere coincidence that the majority of CT's don't have any formal science training whatsoever. This isn't bad at all really, most people aren't scientifically trained. It's when those people start with extraordinary claims about a subject they know nothing about that those people start to become 'bad'. People are free to have their own opinion, but unless someone presents me with HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the moon landing didn't exist, I will never change my mind. It will be funny to see how your conspiracy expands when the LRO pictures the Apollo sites Duane, I look forward to it! You claim that I am character assassinating the CT's, but you know I am right. Most of you don't have any kind of science training whatsoever.

I think the question here is really why they did such a bad job of it that hundreds of thousands of professional scientists/photographers/geologists/astronomers/chemists/physicists haven't blown the whistle on the hoax yet people with no relevant qualifications and access to youtube can apparently see it!

As usual you have deleted your insult to me before a moderator could read it .... Same old sly tactics I see . I already reported your insults , including the word you used to describe what I post here . Why don't you grow up Gavin ? .... You would gain a lot more respect on this forum if you discussed the topics that are posted here instead of constantly insultimg me .... The moderators here are aware of my past problems with you on other forums and realize that the only reason you joined this one was to attack me . I posted something and then edited it literally a minute afterwards. Don't flatter yourself. The fact you are on this forum is not the reason I joined; how self important do you think you are? As for respect, practice what you preach Duane, practice what you preach.

Meh *Edited by myself*

So Duane, you agree; in the pictures/screengrabs that Dave provided, you agree that the lightsource as reflected in the visor is not a true representation of the light sources actual size?

Duane, You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever come across in my entire life. If the site owner wasn't under as much stress as he is now, I'd PM him directly and complain. Classic Duane, attack the poster not the content.

Dave, May I suggest you post this excellent piece on a new thread to stop the "this is my thread and I'll post what I want to" attitude

Well bugger me, I could have sworn the title of this thread was "One Giant Spotlight for all Mankind". You've paraded on about this spotlight for years now Duane, including reflections in the astronauts visors and you chose to completely ignore Dave's excellent post. Why don't you answer his question? How is it possible for the thin handle to almost shade the visor from the lightsource, it the size of the lightsource is comaprable to the size of the reflection?

I see what you did there, good sir. *scribbles down for future reference*

I remember these, that does look like the kind of way I would label Apollo images. I can't vouch I have them at that brightness though. I could check but unfortunately my PC is down and I'm on my laptop at present. Will be getting a new PC delivered this week then I can restore all my files and I'll check then. I don't know what this argument is about but there does seem to be two different scans/photos in existence; for example: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/i...7/134/20478.jpg http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20478.jpg

Duane, I'm not being funny but instead of posting absolute rubbish, how about dealing with the evidence instead? I've been reading through a lot of posts on this forum and all you conspiracy theorists seem to say is "Lamson this" and "Lamson that" and "Lamson stole my lunch box in the playground" and "Lamson is the reason that kittens die everyday" but how many times have I actually seen you try to debunk his evidence? That's right; NONE. Why? Because you can't. You talk and complain of character assassination and to be honest it's the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black. This leads me to ask you a direct question. Can you actually tell me why the findings presented by Craig here www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm are false? Why is this not a legitimate reason for the effects observed?

Dave, that's obviously a fake picture. You claim it was taken a year ago, yet at this time a year ago it was dark. Your picture is light. Normal peoples arms hang down beyond their waist line, yet your arm seems to appear above the waist. Debunker becomes whistle blower, or freak accident with the beach CIA squad? It's obvious the sun is behind you, yet your shadow is not completely black. There was obviously a spotlight. You can do better than this Dave!

This has reared its head recently on another site and I concur with Dave Greers analysis. Gif I made for archive purposes:

I think the problem here Evan is that you are expecting a hoax believer to do actual research!