John Månestjärna Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Again I repeat my challenge. Show me actual research that proves there is a unexplainable anomaly in any Apollo picture. Here are a few claims, and how to actually prove them right/wrong: Claim: "those shadows are impossible, they are not paralell" This is a typical claim, assuming that shadows should in fact be paralell when the objects are only lighted by one light source, from far away. Which is true, EXCEPT that to see the paralell shadows you would have to look from ABOVE the scene. Not the side, not the front, not the rear, but above. Oh, did they fail to tell you that? To show that the shadows are in fact wrong, you could recreate the scene, which means finding overview maps that show height differences, slopes, craters, and so on, and light it by the sun. Which means calculating the sun's angle by finding out when the picture was taken, or if you're lucky, read the transcripts and see if they mention the sun angle at the time. OR you could skip recreating the scene, if the transcripts and sun angle calculations didn't match. So far, nobody has shown sun angle calculations which don't match the transcripts. And nobody has recreated a scene, let it be lit by the sun, and taken pictures to show that the shadows should be different. Remember, the sun's angle changes by about half a degree per hour on the moon, and the later missions spent DAYS on the surface. Of course you could blindly trust Jack White when he says the pictures were taken minutes or seconds apart, but that's not always what you'll find in the transcripts. In other words, Jack hasn't done his research. Claim: "the documentation shows that the rover was deployed from that side, whileas this image shows the rover being deployed from the other side!" Problem here is that Jack has no idea how the rover was deployed, or stored. How about some actual research to know what's what Jack? The MESA is not where the rover was stored or deployed from. Ignorance of the highest magnitude. Do you even know what the MESA is Jack? Do you, Shanet Clark? Claim: "there should be stars in the pictures" Should there? Fine, here are a few ways of proving it. Look up space shuttle pictures, or ISS pictures, or any other space mission pictures and show stars in them. Except you won't find any stars in them either, unless longer exposures have been used. I guess all space travel is fake. To prove there should be stars, find out how much light reaches the moon from said star. Then simulate the light with any kind of light source that will give you a correct lighting, put it in a vacuum chamber without any other lights, and start taking pictures with the camera set to the exposure settings used on the moon by Apollo astronauts, and show that it should be caught on film. Or, you could simply go out during the night, and try taking pictures of the stars. I have done so myself, and you need longer exposures. A lot longer. We're talking seconds here. Yes the atmosphere dims them, but not by a factor of 50! Go ahead, prove that there should be stars in those pictures. Claim: "multiple lights in visor, when the sun was supposedly the only light source! they used a large light rig to simulate the sun!" How can you prove that there shouldn't be multiple lights in the visor? By actually getting your hands on one, and placing it in the sun in the correct angles where the multiple lights could be seen in the pictures. And showing that there are no multiple lights. It's a known effect which you just don't know about. Because you don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go read about it, and try it. Otherwise you're just making an empty claim. Claim: "the flag patch has disappeared! whistleblower in action!" Has it really? Find the hires version, not the lores version Jack supplies, but wait, did he give you a image id number? or a link? No? Guess you're off to look through a few hundred images again. Have the hires version? Ok, look closely. Oh, there it is. See it? I do. I guess Jack needs new glasses. Claim: "same scene, but the shadows have changed radically! that's not possible!" As I said before, half a degree per hour. How long passed between those two pictures? Oh that's right, Jack didn't say. He didn't give you image id numbers either, did he? No, I guessed so. Oops, turns out they were taken 17 hours apart. And doing the actual calculations, the shadow lenght has increased by 33%. Oh boy, can you say lack of research? I can. Lack of research Jack. Geometry can be hard, IF you failed maths in high school. Is that enough to go on? Now, who wants to be first to actually prove that one of Jack's (or their own) claims is in fact a real anomaly? Come on, don't be shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now