Gavin Stone Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 It looks flat to me ... and it looked flat to Neil Armstrong ... He even stated that it was flat ... So since he was there and you and I weren't Based on your own logic you have debunked (by yourself) every picture on here. http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_5.html As you have already stated, the lunar surface must be perfectly flat because Armstrong made a vague reference to it being relatively flat, thus the idea that there are craters at the Apollo landing site is flawed, thus these two analyses should be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 Try not to so blatantly misrepresent what I said , or what Armstrong said while describing the immediate vicinity of the TRAIN-QUILITY Base moonset . He said the ground was FLAT around where the LM was parked , not flat on the entire set .... Of course the set designers created "craters" and "slopes" ... Just not where Neil and Buzz bounced around in the slow motion special effects of 1/6 g . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Try not to so blatantly misrepresent what I said , or what Armstrong said while describing the immediate vicinity of the TRAIN-QUILITY Base moonset .He said the ground was FLAT around where the LM was parked , not flat on the entire set .... Of course the set designers created "craters" and "slopes" ... Just not where Neil and Buzz bounced around in the slow motion special effects of 1/6 g . No the one doing the misrepresenting is you Duane. Armstrong said " We're essentially on a very level place here." essentially: IN BRIEF: Basically. These times of ours are serious and full of calamity, but all times are essentially alike. — Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882). So the area was BASICALLY very level. Please tell us how that statement rules out the evidence that shows the non-level terrain at the flag location? You should really be careful. Your fantasy world is getting the best of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 9, 2008 Author Share Posted January 9, 2008 Do the red letters mean that you are being typically loud and obnoxious , or that you think they will appear to have more meaning than they really do ? Don't forget that this all is just for "fun" now and no reason to become angry . The ground was level where "Mutt and Jeff" pretended to stroll around on the Moon ... The only "slope" is the one in the fantasy world of your own creation . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Do the red letters mean that you are being typically loud and obnoxious , or that you think they will appear to have more meaning than they really do ?No, simply a way to define the truth I speak from your fantasy. Perhaps I should use green as you appear to be 'green with envy" because the truth escapes you. Don't forget that this all is just for "fun" now and no reason to become angry . Why I'm not angry at all. Why should I be, watching your antics here is better than the best sitcom on tv. The ground was level where "Mutt and Jeff" pretended to stroll around on the Moon ... The only "slope" is the one in the fantasy world of your own creation . Well the dac and the still photos tell another tale. Sorry but you lose AGAIN! Edited January 9, 2008 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Do the red letters mean that you are being typically loud and obnoxious , or that you think they will appear to have more meaning than they really do ? Don't forget that this all is just for "fun" now and no reason to become angry . The ground was level where "Mutt and Jeff" pretended to stroll around on the Moon ... The only "slope" is the one in the fantasy world of your own creation . Duane See my earlier post - here's the image again. Quite clearly there are minor variations in terrain, though it does appear to be essentially flat, as described by Arstrong. No steep slopes, no rolling hills. Essentially flat, with a smattering of craters, slight depressions, undulations, whatever you want to call them. Let's get away from an argument of semantics, and discuss the evidence itself. You claim there is a problem with the shadows in the DAC footage, namely that the shadow lengths aren't compatible with a single light source. Leaving alone the reality that if there were two light sources each astronaut would cast two shadows, you yourself said you agreed that shadows being cast onto a slope would change the length of the shadows. We have direct evidence both from the DAC footage and the Hasselblad images that the flag shadow does fall on a slight slope (the part nearest the flagpole is on a slight downslope, the part furthest away is on an upslope). Can you state whether you agree or disagree with that, rather than getting bogged down in a discussion about what Armstrong meant by "essentially flat"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Good news! From: Gentry, G M. (JSC-AP)[TES] [g.m.gentry@nasa.gov] Please contact me if you have any questions. ThanksMike Gentry Media Resource Center Bldg. 423, Rm. 106 Johnson Space Center Houston, TX 77058 From: White, Maura (JSC-IS4) Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:20 AM To: Gentry, G M. (JSC-AP)[TES] Subject: FW: Image reference S66-40127 From: Stone, Gavin Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:09 AM To: White, Maura (JSC-IS4) Subject: Image reference S66-40127 Hi Maura, I'm wondering if you could help me! I'm currently trying to track down an image reference number; I'm not even sure it exists! The image reference is S66-40127 and any help you could provide in finding it would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Gavin Stone Image In full resolution and original file name: http://www.landingapollo.com/S66-40127(HiRes%20Scan).jpg Edited January 9, 2008 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Thanks, Gavin. So the image number provided is not for the image claimed. It belongs to a series of images showing Collins undergoing EVA training in the C-135. Yet no image number for the mysterious image that seems to have been taken out of every copy on the planet. Why have you been unable to show at least one copy of the book where it says it is an official NASA image? Would that be because there is no such admission because NASA has never said it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Duane, I know you are probably busy at the moment answering the other questions, but when you get a chance: René’s book shows several other interesting photos which indicate various anomalies. On a splashdown photo of Gemini 6A there is a whip antenna in excellent condition clearly shown, with no burn marks or scorching (5000 degrees F on re-entry). No other Gemini had this antenna, and simple logic indicates that it would have burned off during re-entry. Such an antenna is designed for frequencies not used in space. Do you know if this would be the image? NASA S65-61886 Unless otherwise advised, I'll assume it is. You can clearly see a big white... something at the front of the spacecraft. However, when aboard the recovery carrier, it is not there: NASA S65-61859 Nor is it visible when the spacecraft was in orbit: NASA S65-63220 NASA S65-64040 NASA S65-63189 Now, for the moment assuming there is no fakery involved in the images, why do you think it might be that it was visible only in one image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Duane, to supplement Evans question, I've taken a screen shot from the Gemini Familiarization Manual to help you I've highlighted areas that may be of interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Thanks, Gavin.So the image number provided is not for the image claimed. It belongs to a series of images showing Collins undergoing EVA training in the C-135. Yet no image number for the mysterious image that seems to have been taken out of every copy on the planet. Why have you been unable to show at least one copy of the book where it says it is an official NASA image? Would that be because there is no such admission because NASA has never said it? What silly, transparent games you Apollo apologists play on these forums . NASA obviously had already switched the ID number of the faked Collins photo to a different picture a very long time ago , which is quite typical of what they do when being busted out with an obvious fake photo . Rene' has mentioned several times how they would switch photo numbers that he had referenced to try to make it look as if he was being somehow deceptive and to hide their obvious mistakes ... So it comes as no surprise that they did this with a picture they probably wish they had never tried to pass off as the real deal in the Collins book . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 Do you know if this would be the image? I have no idea if that's the image because I never read his book... But if that's the whip antennia , then my guess would be that's what he was referring to . It also comes as no surprise that the antennia is missing in the photos it should have been in, taken in LEO , and shows up in a photo it shouldn't have been in, the spashdown ... NASA has obviously made many mistakes with their phony photos , even on the Gemini missions . If your implication is that the antennia only shows up in the one photo because Rene'put it there , then you guys are more desperate to defend NASA than I realized ... Rene' only worked with NASA photos as they were presented to the public ... Like the faked photo of the Collins spacewalk ... So it's not his fault if the pictures with and without the antennia don't jive ... It's NASA's fault for never being able to get their stories or their photos straight . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It also comes as no surprise that the antennia is missing in the photos it should have been in, taken in LEO , and shows up in a photo it shouldn't have been in, the spashdown ... NASA has obviously made many mistakes with their phony photos , even on the Gemini missions It was extended AFTER splashdown. See the documentation. Can we consider this issue closed now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Do the red letters mean that you are being typically loud and obnoxious , or that you think they will appear to have more meaning than they really do ? Don't forget that this all is just for "fun" now and no reason to become angry . The ground was level where "Mutt and Jeff" pretended to stroll around on the Moon ... The only "slope" is the one in the fantasy world of your own creation . Duane See my earlier post - here's the image again. Quite clearly there are minor variations in terrain, though it does appear to be essentially flat, as described by Arstrong. No steep slopes, no rolling hills. Essentially flat, with a smattering of craters, slight depressions, undulations, whatever you want to call them. Let's get away from an argument of semantics, and discuss the evidence itself. You claim there is a problem with the shadows in the DAC footage, namely that the shadow lengths aren't compatible with a single light source. Leaving alone the reality that if there were two light sources each astronaut would cast two shadows, you yourself said you agreed that shadows being cast onto a slope would change the length of the shadows. We have direct evidence both from the DAC footage and the Hasselblad images that the flag shadow does fall on a slight slope (the part nearest the flagpole is on a slight downslope, the part furthest away is on an upslope). Can you state whether you agree or disagree with that, rather than getting bogged down in a discussion about what Armstrong meant by "essentially flat"? The ground looks pretty flat to me on both sides of the flag ... but then maybe the still photos were taken on a different moonset perhaps ? I really like that WHISTLE-BLOWER SPECIAL BOOT PRINT in this faked photo also.. The one going SIDEWAYS right in the middle of the bootprints going towards the rear of the set .... I don't mean to go off topic again , but Jack did a study which brought up an interesting question that maybe one of you Apollo detectives can answer .... The photo I posted above is labeled BUZZ SALUTES THE FLAG, yet if you look at the photo , he is NOT saluting the flag .... but if we look at the DAC images , it is obvious that Neil photographed him really saluting the flag ... but as Jack has pointed out in his study , those two photos are missing ... Does anyone know why or where they might be found ? ... Or have they been possibly "lost" like those 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from all of the Apollo missions ? Edited January 10, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 It also comes as no surprise that the antennia is missing in the photos it should have been in, taken in LEO , and shows up in a photo it shouldn't have been in, the spashdown ... NASA has obviously made many mistakes with their phony photos , even on the Gemini missions It was extended AFTER splashdown. See the documentation. Can we consider this issue closed now? Oh sorry Gavin .. I have your posts on "ignore user" so I missed your little chart explaination the first time around . Nice excuse ...I wonder if NASA dreamt that one up after Rene' wrote his book ? At least you had to decency to post the excuse instead of setting me up in the sneaky manner that moderator Burton does ... I do believe he's as nasty as Lamson is ... just in a different way . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now