Evan Burton Posted January 20, 2007 Posted January 20, 2007 The Apollo 12 photo is merely a smudge or scratch on the visor of Pete Conrad. It appears in a couple of images. Now, this is the one we are talking about: It also appears later on the same roll. All images are of Pete Conrad during the same EVA:
Duane Daman Posted January 22, 2007 Author Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Thanks for posting those three photos of the ceiling fan / stage light anomaly ... You just proved my point .... Smudges do NOT change shape or position ON the visor but reflected objects IN the visor DO change shape and position with the position of the convex visor .... Plus , as I have mentioned before , smudges do not have the geometric shape of an object with four blades .... So if you really believe this object is a smudge then you are either a fool or a xxxx ... or possibly both . Edited January 22, 2007 by Duane Daman
Craig Lamson Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Thanks for posting those three photos of the ceiling fan / stage light anomaly ... You just proved my point .... Smudges do NOT change shape or position ON the visor but reflected objects IN the visor DO change shape and position with the position of the convex visor .... Plus , as I have mentioned before , smudges do not have the geometric shape of an object with four blades .... So if you really believe this object is a smudge then you are either a fool or a xxxx ... or possibly both . Great, put your money where your mouth is and PROVE your statements on how smudges and objects react by producing some proof of concept...like making some photographs. Your words mean nothing because , as you have shown, they are based on nothing. So prove it instead of spewing more disinforamation.
Duane Daman Posted January 22, 2007 Author Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Sorry pal .... but I am not the one who spews disinformation about Apollo ... That job belongs to you and your Apollo apologist friends .... You know damn good and well the Apollo photos are studio fakes but for whatever reason you choose to defend nasa's lies ..... I bet you are not only a moon nazi but a Freemason also .... Don't you guys all stick together when it comes to Apollo ? ... As a professional photographer you should know that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ... Yet you continue to claim they were really taken on the moon ... That would make you not only a moon nazi but a xxxx also ... So don't accuse me of spreading disinformation when that is so obviously what you are doing every time you defend the phony Apollo moon set photos . Edited January 22, 2007 by Duane Daman
Craig Lamson Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Sorry pal .... but I am not the one who spews disinformation about Apollo ... That job belongs to you and your Apollo apologist friends .... You know damn good and well the Apollo photos are studio fakes but for whatever reason you choose to defend nasa's lies ..... I bet you are not only a moon nazi but a Freemason also .... Don't you guys all stick together when it comes to Apollo ? ... As a professional photographer you should know that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ... Yet you continue to claim they were really taken on the moon ... That would make you not only a moon nazi but a xxxx also ... So don't accuse me of spreading disinformation when that is so obviously what you are doing every time you defend the phony Apollo moon set photos . Wow! now you have become a mind reader as well? Amazing? Come on Duane, put up or shut up. You made the silly claims now PROVE THEM. Its pretty simple , just take some photographs. You claim you know enough about photography to tell the moon photos are fakes so it seem sit would be now problem for Duane Daman, Moon Hoax disinformationist to create some simple emperical photographic evidence to back up his claims as to how smudges or reflections react on a convex surface. If you CANNOT we will all know just how ignorant you are as it relates to the subject matter. Put up or shut up Duane! Oh and btw, as a professionial STUDIO photographer I am fully aware the Apollo images WERE NOT SHOT IN A STUDI. Only a fool would claim otherwise...
Duane Daman Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 I don't know why you lie for nasa and I don't care ... but I am very tired of you calling me ignornant all the time ... You have no proof that the Apollo photos were taken on the moon .... In fact , none of you who defend the bogus Apollo Program have any proof that any Apollo astronots ever really walked on the moon or that the crap they allegedly flew to get there could even really fly .... I'm sure you all must have your own reasons for coming to nasa's rescue here against the big , bad , ignorant conspiracy theorists , but if I were really such an ignorant fool , then none of you would be working so hard to try to shut me up ... or working so hard to suppress the conspiracy evidence in the first place .
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) I don't know why you lie for nasa and I don't care ... but I am very tired of you calling me ignornant all the time ... You have no proof that the Apollo photos were taken on the moon .... In fact , none of you who defend the bogus Apollo Program have any proof that any Apollo astronots ever really walked on the moon or that the crap they allegedly flew to get there could even really fly .... I'm sure you all must have your own reasons for coming to nasa's rescue here against the big , bad , ignorant conspiracy theorists , but if I were really such an ignorant fool , then none of you would be working so hard to try to shut me up ... or working so hard to suppress the conspiracy evidence in the first place . Ah, the victim once again. One more time, and maybe it will work its way into your brain....YOU are not ignorant , but you are ignorant in regards to the facts about Apollo and about the subject of photography. Now if you are not capable of understanding the difference then maybe you actually ARE. What I KNOW, based on careful inspection and YEARS OF HANDS ON EXPERIENCE is that the Apollo photographic images were NOT produced in a studio. I also know , based on years of HANDS ON EXPERIENCE that he Apollo images are not composites. I also know that no one is trying to suppress your "evidence" but rather we all seek to have it see the light of day so it can be totally destroyed IN PUBLIC for all to see. No one wants to shut you up Duane, simply because your posting do so much damage to the CT cause...so much in fact you actually HELP ours. Now back to the task at hand...are you going to provide ANY emperical evidence to back up your silly claims? Or will you just continue to post more disinformation? Edited January 23, 2007 by Craig Lamson
Duane Daman Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 "Ah, the victim once again " .... Spoken by a true moon Nazi , who's only real pleasure in life is abusive confrontation with conspiracy researchers .... I'm not the one posting disinformation ... That would be your job. I haven't "damaged" any of the CT's claims ... That is only more of your typical insulting tactics of shooting the messenger because you don't appreciate the message .... You are so pathetically transparent lamson .... I don't know why I even waste my time replying to your nonsense .
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) "Ah, the victim once again " .... Spoken by a true moon Nazi , who's only real pleasure in life is abusive confrontation with conspiracy researchers .... I'm not the one posting disinformation ... That would be your job. I haven't "damaged" any of the CT's claims ... That is only more of your typical insulting tactics of shooting the messenger because you don't appreciate the message .... You are so pathetically transparent lamson .... I don't know why I even waste my time replying to your nonsense . So pony up the emperical proof Duane. Quit blowing hot air and actully provide emperical proof of your claims. Talk about seeing right through you....you shuck and jive simply because you can't produce the emperical proofs to back up your claims. It DOES damage your CT claims when you can't back up your silly claims with simple proofs. This is photography 101 stuff Duane. The great thing about these photography ct claims is that they can be tested. No need for endless "opinion" for ct's...we want fact.. Just do the experiments and prove your point. You have painted yourself into a corner...how are you planning on escaping? ROFLMAO! Edited January 23, 2007 by Craig Lamson
Duane Daman Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) Exactly what emperical proof are you asking for ? .... The Apollo 12 photo anomaly speaks for itself , don't you think ? .... It's clearly an object being reflected in the visor ... It clearly has a geometric shape which has four equal parts which resembel fan blades ... The object changes position in the visor and also elongates with the convex surface of the visor ... If you look at the three photos that Evan posted you can clearly see that the same object is being reflected in the visor and the object even casts a shadow on the ground beneath it ... And none of this would occur with a smudge on the visor . You are ROFLMAO again ? ... From the looks of your photo here I would think that would just a tad difficult for you to accomplish ... The rolling on the floor part anyway . Tell me Herr lamson , exactly what was your role in working on nasa's ALSJ ? .. Besides writing an e-mail to one of nasa flunky's ... ROFLMAO !!! Edited January 23, 2007 by Duane Daman
Evan Burton Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Duane, You have a strange interpretation of the images I provided. The scratch (it could be a smudge but to me it looks like a scratch so that is how I will refer to it) remains in the same position on the LEVA even though the angle with respect to the astronaut and camera is different - radically so in the last one. Additionally, I can't see any shadow cast by it. I know what you think is a shadow cast by it in one of the images, but a closer look would explain why you are wrong. Off topic here, but are you ever going to provide some of that original work? You know, not just parroting claims of others or doing cut & paste jobs, but original work?
Duane Daman Posted January 23, 2007 Author Posted January 23, 2007 If you can't see the shadow of the fan shaped object it's because you don't want to see it .... It's very obvious where it is ... Just look below the object and to the left a bit , in the third photo you posted .. What kind of original work did you have in mind ? ... And what is wrong with posting articles of other peoples opinions and evidence , as long as it gets the point across ?.. Other members here do it all the time .
Evan Burton Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 If you can't see the shadow of the fan shaped object it's because you don't want to see it .... It's very obvious where it is ... Just look below the object and to the left a bit , in the third photo you posted .. If you look at the FULL image, you'll see what it is. What kind of original work did you have in mind ? ... And what is wrong with posting articles of other peoples opinions and evidence , as long as it gets the point across ?.. Other members here do it all the time . Well, you gave the impression (to me if no-one else) some time ago that you had original work. I wanted to see it. Nothing wrong with posting others work (with attribution). Just repeating others claims, however, and being unable to support them, makes your own case look pretty weak.
Craig Lamson Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Exactly what emperical proof are you asking for ? .... The Apollo 12 photo anomaly speaks for itself , don't you think ? .... It's clearly an object being reflected in the visor ... It clearly has a geometric shape which has four equal parts which resembel fan blades ... The object changes position in the visor and also elongates with the convex surface of the visor ... If you look at the three photos that Evan posted you can clearly see that the same object is being reflected in the visor and the object even casts a shadow on the ground beneath it ... And none of this would occur with a smudge on the visor .You are ROFLMAO again ? ... From the looks of your photo here I would think that would just a tad difficult for you to accomplish ... The rolling on the floor part anyway . Tell me Herr lamson , exactly what was your role in working on nasa's ALSJ ? .. Besides writing an e-mail to one of nasa flunky's ... ROFLMAO !!! Simple Duane, show us how reflections and smudges react on a convex surface. I other words make some phorographs that recreate what we see in the Apollo images. PROVE your points .
Dave Greer Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) "Shadow" of Artefact It has been proposed that the artefact under discussion must be a reflection of an object, since it casts a shadow in some of the photos under discussion. I don't believe that the geometry of the shadow, artefact and light source (sun) support this claim, and will attempt to demonstrate this. (I don't have any photoanalysis training and can only be considered a layperson in this field, so invite constructive criticism from those equally or better qualified to comment on any aspect). Proof of concept. Before looking at the Apollo 12 photos, I'm going to refer to 2 Apollo 17 photographs to prove a concept I will use later. The two photos will be familiar to most people who have studied the Apollo record:- as17-34-20385 and as17-34-20387. I'm using these photos because they both show quite clearly the reflection of the astronaut taking the photo (in this case Jack Schmitt) in the subject's (Gene Cernan's) visor, together with the light source and the shadow of the astronaut taking the photo. The version of both images I've used are the high resolution images available here:- Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. 26 Aug. 2005. "Large Image Request Results." http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/Larg...7-134-20385.JPG (23 Jan. 2007). Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. 26 Aug. 2005. "Large Image Request Results." http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/Larg...7-134-20387.JPG (23 Jan. 2007). Each image has had the colours auto-adjusted for clarity in Photoshop, and has been cropped to show the area of interest (Cernan's helmet). I propose that is should be possible to show a geometric relationship between a light source, object and it's shadow reflected in an Apollo helmet. (Error margins will increase as the incident angle of the visor increases relative to the observer, i.e. the camera). As such, we should be able to correlate all three (light source, object, shadow) in any Apollo photo that contains all three. Straight-line correlations will be less accurate the closer any of the three data points are to the edge of the visor. AS-17-20385 Here is a crop of Cernan's visor. The lightsource, astronaut taking the photo, and his shadow, are all clearly visible. They are highlighted for clarity in this crop. Notice that there is a very good straight line fit between the centre of the light source, the top of the astronauts helmet, and the righthand edge of the shadow. This GIF is composed of the top two images. (Slight lack of clarity is due to the GIF software). AS-17-20387 Here is the next crop of Cernan's visor. Again, the lightsource, astronaut taking the photo, and his shadow, are all clearly visible. I'll provide links to save space in the thread. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...adows/20387.jpg Again, there is a very good straight line fit between the centre of the light source, the top of the astronauts helmet, and the righthand edge of the shadow. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70...ows/20387ii.jpg This GIF is composed of the top two images. (Slight lack of clarity is due to the GIF software). EDIT I just want to clarify my position re straight lines on the convex visor. Obviously, not all straight lines reflected in the visor will appear straight. Some lines can appear straight ( or very close to it) depending on the angle relative to the viewer. The closer the reflection of a straight line is to the part of the visor closest (i.e. orthogonal) to the Hasselblad, the straighter it will appear on film. The diagrammes showing straight lines may be better represented using thicker lines to represent error bars. In the 2 Apollo 17 photos any discrepancy is marginal, since the line passes very close to the orthogonal part of the visor. I'll annotate the other posts accordingly where required. Continued... Edited January 24, 2007 by Dave Greer
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now