Interesting Apollo Picture (Small Astronaut)

[Craig Lamson]

So, whats not true?

I already stated what's not true in your insulting, confrontational post to me ... All of it . ... My one year old post was dead on accurate as to what you are and why you do what you do on this forum .

Well did you or did you not start the thread that I linked, and did that thread title include you calling me a nazi?.

Were you or were you not posting links to St. Marks photobucket pages and acting as his proxy on this forum?

If you WERE posting his links and acting as his proxy, were you or were you not responsible for the content you posted in his behalf as is the rule on this forum?

Did St. Mark post attacks on the owners of this forum, on the photobucket pages posted by you as his proxy?

Did this posting by proxy have ANYTHING to do with your moderation?

You have been insulting me ever since I first started posting here and that old post to you was NOT unprovoked ... So that's another untrue statement .

WHo threw the first insult in the linked thread? If the answer is you , the insult was unprovoked.

The A17 video proves how close the astronots were to each other when that phony still photo was taken .... Which make the reflected astronot either a fake or a dwarf ... Take your pick .

I'll ask again, just how close were they for the photo in question? Distance in feet will do just fine. No handwaving allowed.

Show me where I called you a "xxxx" .... Another UNTRUE STATEMENT ... You seem to be full of them lately .

"and completely dishonest so many of the people" , "every comment you posted above about me is NOT TRUE " and "Another UNTRUE STATEMENT"

Edited January 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Duane Daman]

So, whats not true?

I already stated what's not true in your insulting, confrontational post to me ... All of it . ... My one year old post was dead on accurate as to what you are and why you do what you do on this forum .

Well did you or did you not start the thread that I linked, and did that thread title include you calling me a nazi?.

Were you or were you not posting links to St. Marks photobucket pages and acting as his proxy on this forum?

If you WERE posting his links and acting as his proxy, were you or were you not responsible for the content you posted in his behalf as is the rule on this forum?

Did St. Mark post attacks on the owners of this forum, on the photobucket pages posted by you as his proxy?

Did this posting by proxy have ANYTHING to do with your moderation?

You have been insulting me ever since I first started posting here and that old post to you was NOT unprovoked ... So that's another untrue statement .

WHo threw the first insult in the linked thread? If the answer is you , the insult was unprovoked.

The A17 video proves how close the astronots were to each other when that phony still photo was taken .... Which make the reflected astronot either a fake or a dwarf ... Take your pick .

I'll ask again, just how close were they for the photo in question? Distance in feet will do just fine. No handwaving allowed.

Show me where I called you a "xxxx" .... Another UNTRUE STATEMENT ... You seem to be full of them lately .

"and completely dishonest so many of the people" , "every comment you posted above about me is NOT TRUE " and "Another UNTRUE STATEMENT"

Craig Lamson , the bully of the Education Forum, has really done his homework in the use of several of the '25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION'

I don't believe Mr. Lamson conducts himself this way on this forum because he is a governmet agent or a NASA shill, but rather because he is an unhappy, angry, miserable, nasty individual who enjoys confrontation for sport.... Instead of discussing the subjects here, he provokes, goads, flame baits and personally insults everyone he disagees with, because his closed minded conservative worldview will not allow him to accept the obvious corruption within his own government .... He perceives all conspiracy researchers as the "enemy" and will use any despicable tactic including character assassinations and calling them derogatory names, to try to stop them from posting certain conspiracy information on this forum .

Here are some of 'THE 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION' tactics that he uses on a daily basis here, in an attempt to stop all conspiracy evidence from being posted or accepted on this forum.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

You really should try to learn a new rule Craig ... Like maybe , "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

Judging by the Apollo 17 video, the two astronots were standing very close to each other ... The distance was no more than several feet apart .... Possibly six to ten feet at the most , if that .

Using a 60mm Hassleblad camera , the astronot in the visor reflection should have looked much larger ... The reflection should have looked similar to the photos posted at the beginning of this thread , where we see what a real person's reflection looks like, compared to that ridiculous faked Apollo still photo , where the astronot looks like a silly little dwarf and other anomalies look like a backwards spotlight and a "feathery horn" .

Like I said before ... It was obviously one of the Whistle-Blower specials that slipped past NASA's quality control department .

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

So, whats not true?

I already stated what's not true in your insulting, confrontational post to me ... All of it . ... My one year old post was dead on accurate as to what you are and why you do what you do on this forum .

Well did you or did you not start the thread that I linked, and did that thread title include you calling me a nazi?.

Were you or were you not posting links to St. Marks photobucket pages and acting as his proxy on this forum?

If you WERE posting his links and acting as his proxy, were you or were you not responsible for the content you posted in his behalf as is the rule on this forum?

Did St. Mark post attacks on the owners of this forum, on the photobucket pages posted by you as his proxy?

Did this posting by proxy have ANYTHING to do with your moderation?

You have been insulting me ever since I first started posting here and that old post to you was NOT unprovoked ... So that's another untrue statement .

WHo threw the first insult in the linked thread? If the answer is you , the insult was unprovoked.

The A17 video proves how close the astronots were to each other when that phony still photo was taken .... Which make the reflected astronot either a fake or a dwarf ... Take your pick .

I'll ask again, just how close were they for the photo in question? Distance in feet will do just fine. No handwaving allowed.

Show me where I called you a "xxxx" .... Another UNTRUE STATEMENT ... You seem to be full of them lately .

"and completely dishonest so many of the people" , "every comment you posted above about me is NOT TRUE " and "Another UNTRUE STATEMENT"

Craig Lamson , the bully of the Education Forum, has really done his homework in the use of several of the '25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION'

I don't believe Mr. Lamson conducts himself this way on this forum because he is a governmet agent or a NASA shill, but rather because he is an unhappy, angry, miserable, nasty individual who enjoys confrontation for sport.... Instead of discussing the subjects here, he provokes, goads, flame baits and personally insults everyone he disagees with, because his closed minded conservative worldview will not allow him to accept the obvious corruption within his own government .... He perceives all conspiracy researchers as the "enemy" and will use any despicable tactic including character assassinations and calling them derogatory names, to try to stop them from posting certain conspiracy information on this forum .

Here are some of 'THE 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION' tactics that he uses on a daily basis here, in an attempt to stop all conspiracy evidence from being posted or accepted on this forum.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

You really should try to learn a new rule Craig ... Like maybe , "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm

Whats the matter Duane, can't answer the simple questions?

So lets get back to basics,

www.infocusinc.net/apollo.htm

How many of your "25 rules" have you used to try NOT to deal with this evidence?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Judging by the Apollo 17 video, the two astronots were standing very close to each other ... The distance was no more than several feet apart .... Possibly six to ten feet at the most , if that .

Great, please show how you computed this distance.

Using a 60mm Hassleblad camera , the astronot in the visor reflection should have looked much larger ... The reflection should have looked similar to the photos posted at the beginning of this thread , where we see what a real person's reflection looks like, compared to that ridiculous faked Apollo still photo , where the astronot looks like a silly little dwarf and other anomalies look like a backwards spotlight and a "feathery horn" .

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

Like I said before ... It was obviously one of the Whistle-Blower specials that slipped past NASA's quality control department .

Please supply the names of these "whistle blowers"

[Duane Daman]

Great, please show how you computed this distance.

I watched the video footage where the A17 astronots were stading only a few feet away from each other when that silly still photo was allegedly taken .

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

Please supply the names of these "whistle blowers"

So now Craig employs RULE # 14 !

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Great, please show how you computed this distance.

I watched the video footage where the A17 astronots were stading only a few feet away from each other when that silly still photo was allegedly taken .

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

Please supply the names of these "whistle blowers"

So now Craig employs RULE # 14 !

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

No I'm not demanding a complete solution, just asking you to back up your claims with something other than handwaving. You can do that... right? As to avoiding the issues, the only one on this thread doing that is you.

The questions to you stand as unanswered. Can you answer them or will you admit your opinion is simply not backed by fact?

Edited January 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

Getting back to Jack's study... the question he asked was what are the features visible in the astronaut's visor. Any feedback as to why he disagrees?

[Duane Daman]

The questions to you stand as unanswered. Can you answer them or will you admit your opinion is simply not backed by fact?

I have already answered the question several times now .... The A17 astronots were standing only a few feet away from each other in the video when the still photo with that ridiculous visor reflection was allegedly taken ... Can I measure the distance exactly ? ... No ... Can you ?

Please tell us all exactly how many feet apart they were standing in that video and then explain why the reflected astronot would look that tiny and unrealistic looking ?

Sorry Dave but I don't understand the point of your new gif ... The "features" in that faked visor reflection are ;

1. Something that looks like a stagelight , that you always attempt to explain away as being "a smudge on the visor".

2. Something that looks like a "feathery horn", which you attempt to explain away as being the dwarf "astronaut's shadow" .

3. Something that looks like a dwarf astronot , which you attempt to explain away as being a real astronaut's reflection .

4. Possibly a bank of stage lights, which of course is ALWAYS explained away by being "scratches on the visor ".

Did I miss any "features" ? ... Or does that about cover the various anomalies in Cernan's visor reflection ?

Hey , you remember Cernan's interview with Sibrel right ? ... The one where he kept swallowing hard, sweated bullets , screamed at his dogs and stuttered and stammered when lying about how he "lived on the Moon for three days" .

While we're discussing Cernan's faked visor reflection , how about let's all watch his body language again, when asked pointed questions about his trip through the Van Allen Radiation belts , on his way to 'The Apollo Simulation Project 'moonset .

MOON LANDING HOAX - Faked Moon Landing Footage . Cernan

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ByqHJnT0iVg

Edited January 15, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

The questions to you stand as unanswered. Can you answer them or will you admit your opinion is simply not backed by fact?

I have already answered the question several times now .... The A17 astronots were standing only a few feet away from each other in the video when the still photo with that ridiculous visor reflection was allegedly taken ... Can I measure the distance exactly ? ... No ... Can you ?

Please tell us all exactly how many feet apart they were standing in that video and then explain why the reflected astronot would look that tiny and unrealistic looking ?

Using a 60mm Hassleblad camera , the astronot in the visor reflection should have looked much larger ... The reflection should have looked similar to the photos posted at the beginning of this thread , where we see what a real person's reflection looks like, compared to that ridiculous faked Apollo still photo , where the astronot looks like a silly little dwarf and other anomalies look like a backwards spotlight and a "feathery horn" .

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Sorry Dave but I don't understand the point of your new gif ... The "features" in that faked visor reflection are ;

1. Something that looks like a stagelight , that you always attempt to explain away as being "a smudge on the visor".

2. Something that looks like a "feathery horn", which you attempt to explain away as being the dwarf "astronaut's shadow" .

3. Something that looks like a dwarf astronot , which you attempt to explain away as being a real astronaut's reflection .

4. Possibly a bank of stage lights, which of course is ALWAYS explained away by being "scratches on the visor ".

Did I miss any "features" ? ... Or does that about cover the various anomalies in Cernan's visor reflection ?

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Hey , you remember Cernan's interview with Sibrel right ? ... The one where he kept swallowing hard, sweated bullets , screamed at his dogs and stuttered and stammered when lying about how he "lived on the Moon for three days" .

While we're discussing Cernan's faked visor reflection , how about let's all watch his body language again, when asked pointed questions about his trip through the Van Allen Radiation belts , on his way to 'The Apollo Simulation Project 'moonset .

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

MOON LANDING HOAX - Faked Moon Landing Footage . Cernan

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ByqHJnT0iVg

Edited January 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Dave Greer]

I have already answered the question several times now .... The A17 astronots were standing only a few feet away from each other in the video when the still photo with that ridiculous visor reflection was allegedly taken ... Can I measure the distance exactly ? ... No ... Can you ?

The point is, the visor in the A12 photo was measurably larger than the A17 photo. Hence, the astronauts were closer together in that image. Hence, the reflection of the astronaut is larger. Your position was that they were closer together in the A17 photo, a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

Please tell us all exactly how many feet apart they were standing in that video and then explain why the reflected astronot would look that tiny and unrealistic looking ?

No need to calculate the exact distance, your original claim has already been proven to be false. You also need to remember that in the A17 photo, the astronaut taling the photo is bending down and at an angle, so his reflection will seem even smaller than if he was standing upright (as in the A12 image).

You say the reflection looks unrealistic? That's very subjective. My subjective opinion is that it looks very realistic. Viewers can judge for themselves, here's a crop of the ultra-high resolution scan of the film roll itself.

Sorry Dave but I don't understand the point of your new gif ...

The author of this study you posted, presumably either you or Jack, didn't know what the features were, so I explained it!

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l12/stra...photooddity.jpg

The "features" in that faked visor reflection are ;

1. Something that looks like a stagelight , that you always attempt to explain away as being "a smudge on the visor".

2. Something that looks like a "feathery horn", which you attempt to explain away as being the dwarf "astronaut's shadow" .

3. Something that looks like a dwarf astronot , which you attempt to explain away as being a real astronaut's reflection .

4. Possibly a bank of stage lights, which of course is ALWAYS explained away by being "scratches on the visor ".

I'll address these issue individually in another post.

Did I miss any "features" ? ... Or does that about cover the various anomalies in Cernan's visor reflection ?

The author of the study didn't say what features he couldn't make out, only that he needed help figuring out what they were.

[Duane Daman]

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Sorry , but Cernan's visor reflection IS the subject , so watching Cernan lie to Bart Sibrel , only supports the fact that the fake A17 still photo taken of Cernan , was NOT PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE MOON .

Using the 25 Rules of Disinformation to try to describe my post comments here would just be more PROJECTION on your part .

You really do need some new material .

So I will ask you this question once again to see if you are capable of answering it , or if you can only wave your hands around and hope no one notices that you haven't answered it .

Please tell us all exactly how many feet apart they were standing in that video and then explain why the reflected astronot would look that tiny and unrealistic looking ?

BTW , this is not an answer below ... It's just another distraction tactic question .... So since I'm not a photographer and you are , how about you answer this, since you're the "expert ".

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

That's TWO QUESTIONS you need to answer now, to defend the authenticity of that ridiculous Apollo 17 visor reflection .

[Duane Daman]

The point is, the visor in the A12 photo was measurably larger than the A17 photo. Hence, the astronauts were closer together in that image. Hence, the reflection of the astronaut is larger. Your position was that they were closer together in the A17 photo, a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

How was it proven false ? .. I haven't seen any evidence yet to show how close the A12 astronots were standing to each other .

No need to calculate the exact distance, your original claim has already been proven to be false. You also need to remember that in the A17 photo, the astronaut taling the photo is bending down and at an angle, so his reflection will seem even smaller than if he was standing upright (as in the A12 image).

The astronot "bending down" would not turn him into a DWARF !

The author of this study you posted, presumably either you or Jack, didn't know what the features were, so I explained it!

It was Jack's study and you haven't explained anything ... You have only offered your subjective opinion , as usual .

[Craig Lamson]

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Sorry , but Cernan's visor reflection IS the subject , so watching Cernan lie to Bart Sibrel , only supports the fact that the fake A17 still photo taken of Cernan , was NOT PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE MOON .

No, Sibrels video has nothing to do with the reflection. Try again.

Using the 25 Rules of Disinformation to try to describe my post comments here would just be more PROJECTION on your part .

You really do need some new material .

So I will ask you this question once again to see if you are capable of answering it , or if you can only wave your hands around and hope no one notices that you haven't answered it .

Please tell us all exactly how many feet apart they were standing in that video and then explain why the reflected astronot would look that tiny and unrealistic looking ?

I've no need to figure the actual distance because it is not part of any of my rebuttals. Thats your problem to solve because you were sill enough to make the claim. And who says the reflection is "unrealistic" A detailed size comparison between the A12 reflection of a standing astronaut and the A17 kneeling astronaut look quite realistic and the sizes compare nicely for images tha show a marked camera to subject distance change, with the A12 image having a closer subject to camera distance as proven by the size normalized photographs.

BTW , this is not an answer below ... It's just another distraction tactic question .... So since I'm not a photographer and you are , how about you answer this, since you're the "expert ".

Please supply us with your method for reaching the this conclusion. Did you use a math formula, hands on practice with a Hasselblad and a 60mm? What lens was used in the comparison photo you cite? What whas the camera to subject distance? WHat was rhe sensor size? How do you factor in the kneeling astronaunt in the A17 image? Solid facts please, no handwaving.

It was never intended to be an answer, it was the unanswered questions to you based on YOUR claim. Again its your claim, you answer the questions. You have made substantial claims about the Hasselblad camera nad 60mm lens and yet you claim no experience in photography. WHy should we give your claim ANY consideration without some evidence to back up your opinion...an opinion I might add that even YOU admit has no basis.

That's TWO QUESTIONS you need to answer now, to defend the authenticity of that ridiculous Apollo 17 visor reflection .

[Dave Greer]

The point is, the visor in the A12 photo was measurably larger than the A17 photo. Hence, the astronauts were closer together in that image. Hence, the reflection of the astronaut is larger. Your position was that they were closer together in the A17 photo, a claim which has been demonstrated to be false.

How was it proven false ? .. I haven't seen any evidence yet to show how close the A12 astronots were standing to each other .

You don't need evidence showing how close they were to each other. You just need to know whether they were closer together in the A12 photo, or the A17 photo. The helmet is bigger in the A12 photo, ergo they were stood closer together.

No need to calculate the exact distance, your original claim has already been proven to be false. You also need to remember that in the A17 photo, the astronaut taling the photo is bending down and at an angle, so his reflection will seem even smaller than if he was standing upright (as in the A12 image).

The astronot "bending down" would not turn him into a DWARF !

No, it made him appear smaller. Bending down has that effect on most people. Here is a screen shot from the video of the A17 being taken. You can download the video here.

Dwarf, or astronaut bending down to take photograph?

The author of this study you posted, presumably either you or Jack, didn't know what the features were, so I explained it!

It was Jack's study and you haven't explained anything ... You have only offered your subjective opinion , as usual .

I guess Mr Pot has already met Mr Kettle then!!!