One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Dave Greer]

Dave, there is also the fact that great video exists (and that I am too lazy to find just now) that shows this situation as it haqppens and shows EXACTLY where the shadows fall. Duane could not be more wrong.

But the bigger question here is WHY Duane has shifted the argument away from the sunlight reflections from the visors? Has he conceeded the argument?

Craig

I had a look at this last night - you can find them here.

No sign of any "furry horns" unfortunately. Plenty of craters, shadows, a couple of astronauts, a flag. Pretty much what you'd expect on the moon. How dull.

The interesting thing about these clips, is that you can pretty much work out when each of the following photos was taken, and surprise surprise there are no discrepancies between the TV and the Hasselblads (providing you have sufficient spatial judgement to be able to work from opposing viewpoints).

AS17-134-20378 - AS17-134-20387.

[Duane Daman]

You are right about one thing at least Dave ... The "gentle reader" will be able to see that this reflected anomaly looks EXACTLY like a black horn covered with feathers and NOTHING like the shadow of an astronot .

It's usually not like you to be so insulting ... but maybe that's the way you act when you have lost the argument .

As for "shifting the argument away from the sunlight reflections" , that's exactly what Dave wanted when he posted this faked photo shown below.

[Duane Daman]

As for your "bonus" photo showing the three specular light reflections ...

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6790HR.jpg

it is no proof of it being a Sun reflection , because as you can see in this photo below , a spotlight reflection also causes the same type of specular light reflections .

Edited November 2, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

As for "shifting the argument away from the sunlight reflections" , that's exactly what Dave wanted when he posted this faked photo shown below.

Oh straydog, you should really tell the truth. The one who shifted the argument WAY away from the original topic of this thread was none other than STRAYDOG! Alll the proof one neeeds to figure that one out is right in this thread.

Now back on topic, you asked for examples of starburst images from the lunar surface...are you STILL going to stand by your (or is that St. Marks) claims?

In other words is it still your contention that only sunlightt can cause starburst reflections and that the shape of the highlights must mimic the shape of the light source?

[Duane Daman]

As for what the Apollo "Sun" really looks like , here is a photo of the Apollo 14 "Sun" compared to two photos of spotlight lights .... As you can see , they look the same ... and nothing like the real Sun .

[Duane Daman]

So once again we come full circle around ...

Here is a picture of a real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor .

and here is a photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space .

And NONE of the Apollo photographs allegedly taken on the Moon have a "Sun " that looks like either .

[Craig Lamson]

As for what the Apollo "Sun" really looks like , here is a photo of the Apollo 14 "Sun" compared to two photos of spotlight lights .... As you can see , they look the same ... and nothing like the real Sun .

Actually they don't look ANYTHING alike.

Your first borrowed image...we don't have a CLUE what is creating the circular object you claim are spotlight. In fact they look computer generated. Why? Because there is no reflection on the floor, which WOULD be there if the 'lights" were actally lights.

In your second borrowed image we are seeing the REFLECTION of a light from a white surface, which is nowhere near a similar situation as looking into the direct sun.

Try again some other time straydog.

[Duane Daman]

As for what the Apollo "Sun" really looks like , here is a photo of the Apollo 14 "Sun" compared to two photos of spotlight lights .... As you can see , they look the same ... and nothing like the real Sun .

Actually they don't look ANYTHING alike.

Your first borrowed image...we don't have a CLUE what is creating the circular object you claim are spotlight. In fact they look computer generated. Why? Because there is no reflection on the floor, which WOULD be there if the 'lights" were actally lights.

In your second borrowed image we are seeing the REFLECTION of a light from a white surface, which is nowhere near a similar situation as looking into the direct sun.

Try again some other time straydog.

My name is Duane on this forum ... I would appreciate you using it .

The spotlight images I posted look EXACTLY like the Apollo "Sun" ... Anyone can see that , except for of course you and Dave and the rest of the Apollo apologists .

[Dave Greer]

You are right about one thing at least Dave ... The "gentle reader" will be able to see that this reflected anomaly looks EXACTLY like a black horn covered with feathers and NOTHING like the shadow of an astronot .

We'll let the gentle reader decide for themselves then!

It's usually not like you to be so insulting ... but maybe that's the way you act when you have lost the argument .

Duane, I'm sorry you think I'm being insulting, but I put this latest study in the same category as that of Dr Hawkins or whatever his name was. The one who claimed he had a think tank of super-intelligent whizz kids who'd discovered cats and dogs in Apollo photos. I thought you might actually have been having a little leg-pull, because to me the claim about the "feathery horn" can't possibly be expected to be taken seriously by ANYONE, regardless of their views on Apollo? At least with the "light fixture" you have an argument almost worth addressing since if the landings WERE staged, then you might be expected to see that kind of hardware, but come on: do you really think anyone should be wasting their time on hairy horns?

As for "shifting the argument away from the sunlight reflections" , that's exactly what Dave wanted when he posted this faked photo shown below.

Sorry old bean, you'll have to take the blame for that one yourself. You clearly introduced the study of that image in this post. My study showed a close up of the three images of Cernan taken close together, AS17-134-20385-20387. A dark patch on the ground that falls on the opposite side of the lightsource and leads up to subjects feet is generally known as a shadow, especially when you have three photos showing the astronaut at different distances, with the dark patch moving. Expecting each shadow to have a cartoon-lime resemblance of the astronauts profile is a little simplistic: the ground is pockmarked, not flat; the visor is curved which introduces distortion; the visor clearly has dirty scratches which obscure parts of the shadow.

You even admitted in your study that the object you highlighted in red was in the wrong place to be Cernan's shadow. That's because it ISN'T Cernan's shadow! It appears to be a crater or other surface feature. It's not an example of whistle-blowing, it's an example of the lunar surface not being like a billiard table. Strangely, the "dark patch" that I claim to be Cernan's shadow IS where you'd expect it to be, and changes with the position of the astronaut in each photo.

Here's another image that shows this more clearly (yes, we've seen this before, I've covered up the scratches so you don't think I'm having a dig at you).

I'm working on something that should put the whole issue about scracthes and dust on the visor to bed with any luck.

[Craig Lamson]

As for what the Apollo "Sun" really looks like , here is a photo of the Apollo 14 "Sun" compared to two photos of spotlight lights .... As you can see , they look the same ... and nothing like the real Sun .

Actually they don't look ANYTHING alike.

Your first borrowed image...we don't have a CLUE what is creating the circular object you claim are spotlight. In fact they look computer generated. Why? Because there is no reflection on the floor, which WOULD be there if the 'lights" were actally lights.

In your second borrowed image we are seeing the REFLECTION of a light from a white surface, which is nowhere near a similar situation as looking into the direct sun.

Try again some other time straydog.

My name is Duane on this forum ... I would appreciate you using it .

The spotlight images I posted look EXACTLY like the Apollo "Sun" ... Anyone can see that , except for of course you and Dave and the rest of the Apollo apologists .

I prefer straydog...and I'll use what pleases me.

I'm just LMAO that you would post such a CRUDE computer image and then claim it has "spotlights. Sheesh, did you LOOK at the shadows? Oh wait, how would you know what a real shadow looks like? Sorry straydog.

[Craig Lamson]

So once again we come full circle around ...

Here is a picture of a real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor .

and here is a photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space .

And NONE of the Apollo photographs allegedly taken on the Moon have a "Sun " that looks like either .

No quite true stray...

Dave posted quite a list of images and I posted one as well. Did you miss them? Oh wait, when they were posted YOU CHANGED THE SUBJECT! Bad doggy!

But you are skipping the hard question, why?

"Now back on topic, you asked for examples of starburst images from the lunar surface...are you STILL going to stand by your (or is that St. Marks) claims?

In other words is it still your contention that only sunlight can cause starburst reflections and that the shape of the highlights must mimic the shape of the light source?"

[Duane Daman]

You are right about one thing at least Dave ... The "gentle reader" will be able to see that this reflected anomaly looks EXACTLY like a black horn covered with feathers and NOTHING like the shadow of an astronot .

We'll let the gentle reader decide for themselves then!

It's usually not like you to be so insulting ... but maybe that's the way you act when you have lost the argument .

Duane, I'm sorry you think I'm being insulting, but I put this latest study in the same category as that of Dr Hawkins or whatever his name was. The one who claimed he had a think tank of super-intelligent whizz kids who'd discovered cats and dogs in Apollo photos. I thought you might actually have been having a little leg-pull, because to me the claim about the "feathery horn" can't possibly be expected to be taken seriously by ANYONE, regardless of their views on Apollo? At least with the "light fixture" you have an argument almost worth addressing since if the landings WERE staged, then you might be expected to see that kind of hardware, but come on: do you really think anyone should be wasting their time on hairy horns?

As for "shifting the argument away from the sunlight reflections" , that's exactly what Dave wanted when he posted this faked photo shown below.

Sorry old bean, you'll have to take the blame for that one yourself. You clearly introduced the study of that image in this post. My study showed a close up of the three images of Cernan taken close together, AS17-134-20385-20387. A dark patch on the ground that falls on the opposite side of the lightsource and leads up to subjects feet is generally known as a shadow, especially when you have three photos showing the astronaut at different distances, with the dark patch moving. Expecting each shadow to have a cartoon-lime resemblance of the astronauts profile is a little simplistic: the ground is pockmarked, not flat; the visor is curved which introduces distortion; the visor clearly has dirty scratches which obscure parts of the shadow.

You even admitted in your study that the object you highlighted in red was in the wrong place to be Cernan's shadow. That's because it ISN'T Cernan's shadow! It appears to be a crater or other surface feature. It's not an example of whistle-blowing, it's an example of the lunar surface not being like a billiard table. Strangely, the "dark patch" that I claim to be Cernan's shadow IS where you'd expect it to be, and changes with the position of the astronaut in each photo.

Here's another image that shows this more clearly (yes, we've seen this before, I've covered up the scratches so you don't think I'm having a dig at you).

I'm working on something that should put the whole issue about scracthes and dust on the visor to bed with any luck.

How typically disingenuous of you to switch to another photograph .... Nice try , but we are not discussing the one you posted here ... We are discussing the one below ... And that still is NOT the shadow of an astronaut , no matter how much you would like it to be .

I don't care if you want to make fun of what I call it but to me it looks very much like a horn ... and I think everyone can see that .... Even you , though you would rather die than admit that one Apollo photograhed was faked .

[Kevin M. West]

So once again we come full circle around ...

Here is a picture of a real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor .

and here is a photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space .

And NONE of the Apollo photographs allegedly taken on the Moon have a "Sun " that looks like either .

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?

[Craig Lamson]

So once again we come full circle around ...

Here is a picture of a real Sun's reflection in an astronaut's visor .

and here is a photo of the real Sun taken in the vacuum of space .

And NONE of the Apollo photographs allegedly taken on the Moon have a "Sun " that looks like either .

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?

He should, I fully explained it upthread.

[Jack White]

My sincere appreciation to the participants in this thread who made

possible my new study attached; it will soon be uploaded to my Aulis

website.

I await speculation concerning the identity of the "mystery object"

reflected in the visor. I don't think the standard "scratches" excuse

will work. It looks a little like a camera, but I am interested in what

others think it is. Surely nobody will deny that it is a reflection of

some actual object. And please don't say it is PhotoShop trickery.

Jack

FOR SOME REASON THE GRAPHIC FAILED TO UPLOAD. I WILL

TRY AGAIN.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Jack White