Duane Daman Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Here's the spotlight that made the Apollo 12 photo shoot shadows look so strange !! And it's just where I told you it would be too ... Right down on the moon set floor ! ... No wonder Pete and Al's shadows looked so big and almost as tall as the LM !!! Hey, would there be a halo around the spotlight , er , I mean the sun , if it were really photographed in a vacuum ? AS12-46-6767 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Here's the spotlight that made the Apollo 12 photo shoot shadows look so strange !! And it's just where I told you it would be too ... Right down on the moon set floor ! ... No wonder Pete and Al's shadows looked so big and almost as tall as the LM !!! Hey, would there be a halo around the spotlight , er , I mean the sun , if it were really photographed in a vacuum ? AS12-46-6767 You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 AS12-46-6716 So what does your nasa Debunker's Manual say about this one ? .... Why isn't actor Pete upside down ? If this was a still shot taken from the TV image , he would be upside down ! ... and if it was taken with a camera , is that alien invisible or air brushed out of the visor reflection ? Really don't know where you're going with this one. Upside down? Huh? The "alien" is facing toward the camera - why would you expect that side to be reflected in Conrad's visor? That would defy some pretty basic laws of physics. I'm surprised you suggested it. You can of course see the "rear" of the "alien" (Kapton tape) in the visor - right where you'd expect to. Dave ... I'm not sure if we are speaking the same language here ... Okay , let me out this in simple terms for you . If Pete was the first guy out on the moon set , then who took the picture ? If it was taken by Houston , then it would have to be a still shot from the TV camera . If it was taken from the TV camera , then the image would have been upside down , because it wasn't turned right side up until the Beano climbed down the LM ladder , and then deliberately turned it to face the 'sun' , so nasa could pretend that the camera lens burned out . I guess they didn't want the whole world to watch them fake the second moon landing , huh ? I do believe the people of planet Earth were more interested in watching re-runs of 'I Love Lucy' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Here's the spotlight that made the Apollo 12 photo shoot shadows look so strange !! And it's just where I told you it would be too ... Right down on the moon set floor ! ... No wonder Pete and Al's shadows looked so big and almost as tall as the LM !!! Hey, would there be a halo around the spotlight , er , I mean the sun , if it were really photographed in a vacuum ? AS12-46-6767 You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer... More smudges on the visor ?? .. Er, I mean , more lens flare ?? But I thought those very expensive Hassleblad moon cameras with their regular Kodac LAND film would not have taken so many photos of lens flare ..... So let me get this straight ... You mean to say that "smudges on the visors" and "lens flare" account for all the anomalies in the faked Apollo photographs ? Well why didn't you just say so in the first place ? .. Then I might have believed the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , and wouldn't have wasted all this time thinking they were all staged on moon sets !! Edited February 1, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Dave ... I'm not sure if we are speaking the same language here ... Me neither! Okay , let me out this in simple terms for you .If Pete was the first guy out on the moon set , then who took the picture ? I'll try to respond in kind.Al Bean took the picture. From inside the LM. Through the egress hatch. Just like it says on th ALSJ here. AS12-46-6715 (OF300) ( 118k or 838k ) 115:21:24 Pete is on the ladder. We can see his RCU, hose connections and checklist. Note that his OPS antenna is up. The porch and the luanr surface below are reflected in his visor. Al is taking the picture by holding the camera upside-down, at knee height, and is guessing at the pointing. The frame is slightly sunstruck. AS12-46-6716 (OF300) ( 107k or 844k ) 115:20:07 Similar to 6715 but aimed higher. Kipp Teague has produced a detail which shows Pete's name written in red lettering on his RCU. AS12-46-6717 (OF300) ( 128k or 892k ) 115:20:07 Pete on the ladder. AS12-46-6718 (OF300) ( 122k or 934k ) 115:20:07 This is probably Al's best picture of Pete on the ladder. Ulli Lotzmann and Ken Glover call attention to the pull handle for the Contingency Sampler that can be seen is a detail ( 67k ), probably sticking out of Pete's pocket. If it was taken by Houston , then it would have to be a still shot from the TV camera .It was Al Bean.If it was taken from the TV camera , then the image would have been upside down , because it wasn't turned right side up until the Beano climbed down the LM ladder , and then deliberately turned it to face the 'sun' , so nasa could pretend that the camera lens burned out . Strange - here is some video (the right way up) of Conrad coming down the ladder. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1152124.rm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks for the answer to that one ... I didn't know that Bean was in a position to take that shot of Conrad . Strange indeed .... I have watched the video footage of Bean egressing the LM ladder and his image is upside down because of the way the TV camera was positioned ... and before the camera allegedy broke , he turned it right side up . So since Conrad was the first one off the LM and on the ground , then how was a TV video made of him coming down the ladder right side up ? ... Have you seen the video of Bean coming down the ladder upside down ? Is there a mundane answer for this one or .... could it be !?!? ... Another nasa .... opppsss .. clanger !! I don't have time now but I will check out some Apollo 12 videos tomorrow to see if I can find the one of Bean coming down the ladder upside down .... I know I have seen this footage on one of the hoax sites before .... Weird . Or possibly you will beat me to it ... If so , please post it here ... Thanks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 weak Agreed. I'd point out the obvious flaws in Duane's various arguments, but they are so.... obvious. Besides, this thread is rapidly becoming akin to spamming by Duane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks for the answer to that one ... I didn't know that Bean was in a position to take that shot of Conrad .Strange indeed .... I have watched the video footage of Bean egressing the LM ladder and his image is upside down because of the way the TV camera was positioned ... and before the camera allegedy broke , he turned it right side up . So since Conrad was the first one off the LM and on the ground , then how was a TV video made of him coming down the ladder right side up ? ... Have you seen the video of Bean coming down the ladder upside down ? Is there a mundane answer for this one or .... could it be !?!? ... Another nasa .... opppsss .. clanger !! Nope. It's another mundane answer. The TV was deployed the correct way up on an arm attached to the LM that was deployed after landing. After he descended the ladder (TV image right way up), Conrad started to remove the camera in order to deploy it on the tripod before Bean started his descent - you can see it happen here. View from around the 1 min 35 sec mark. He didn't finish deploying the TV onto the tripod, as Bean had the Hasselblads ready to lower down on the LEC, and Conrad wanted to have his camera to take some stills. Pretty mundane huh? And right there on the ALSJ for anyone who wants to check their claims before posting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Here's the spotlight that made the Apollo 12 photo shoot shadows look so strange !! And it's just where I told you it would be too ... Right down on the moon set floor ! ... No wonder Pete and Al's shadows looked so big and almost as tall as the LM !!! Hey, would there be a halo around the spotlight , er , I mean the sun , if it were really photographed in a vacuum ? AS12-46-6767 You didn't bother reading that link I gave you about lens flare did you? No need to respond, I think I know the answer... More smudges on the visor ?? .. Er, I mean , more lens flare ?? But I thought those very expensive Hassleblad moon cameras with their regular Kodac LAND film would not have taken so many photos of lens flare ..... So let me get this straight ... You mean to say that "smudges on the visors" and "lens flare" account for all the anomalies in the faked Apollo photographs ? Well why didn't you just say so in the first place ? .. Then I might have believed the Apollo photos were really taken on the moon , and wouldn't have wasted all this time thinking they were all staged on moon sets !! Uh Dunae...that would be Koda"K" film. Once again, the name Land Film is the property of the Polaroid Corp, so named because of the inventor Edwin Land. The devil is in the details, Duane. If you had a clue about quality camera optics it would be clear to you that regardles of the brand or expence, ANY lens will be subject to flare when pointed directly at the light source. You posted example offers one more nail in the coffin of the idea that all the Apollo images were picture postcard perfect. Edited February 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks for the answer to that one ... I didn't know that Bean was in a position to take that shot of Conrad .Strange indeed .... I have watched the video footage of Bean egressing the LM ladder and his image is upside down because of the way the TV camera was positioned ... and before the camera allegedy broke , he turned it right side up . So since Conrad was the first one off the LM and on the ground , then how was a TV video made of him coming down the ladder right side up ? ... Have you seen the video of Bean coming down the ladder upside down ? Is there a mundane answer for this one or .... could it be !?!? ... Another nasa .... opppsss .. clanger !! Nope. It's another mundane answer. The TV was deployed the correct way up on an arm attached to the LM that was deployed after landing. After he descended the ladder (TV image right way up), Conrad started to remove the camera in order to deploy it on the tripod before Bean started his descent - you can see it happen here. View from around the 1 min 35 sec mark. He didn't finish deploying the TV onto the tripod, as Bean had the Hasselblads ready to lower down on the LEC, and Conrad wanted to have his camera to take some stills. Pretty mundane huh? And right there on the ALSJ for anyone who wants to check their claims before posting them. Yes , very mundane ... In fact , just about as mundane as the lack of enthusiam of all the the Apollo astronots while visiting the moon . The reason I thought the cameras were mounted upside down on the side of the LM came from a discussion I had with a nasa defender a few years ago ... I can't remember his reasons for the why the camera was positined upside down on the side of the LM , but he seemed to be pretty sure about his claims ... and who am I to dispute the impeccible knowledge of the typical defender of nasa's great lie of landing men on the moon ? So a vintage 1970's TV camera was able to video tape and broadcast images from 240,000 miles out into deep space, from the radioactive lunar surface , before the TV dish was even assembled for broadcasting ?.... Maybe the mundane explanation for this one is that nasa had magical powers and didn't need to use the conventional TV broadcasting equipment or conventional video technology of the time ... And the mundane explanation for why they never pre-tested any of their LM landing and launch capabilities was becasue they just knew it would work perfectly for the TV camera ... Right . Getting back to fake photos and faked images from the 'moon' .. I found this one today on a German web site that had a whole lot to say about nasa and their entire faked space program ... I have read several pages of this site , and even though I find it difficult to beleve all of their information , a lot of it makes perfect sense .. Especially the parts about the murder of the Apollo 1 astronauts , the murder of whistle blower Tomas Baron , and the fact that no one has ever been to the moon because of deep space radiation , the intense radiation of the Van Allen belts and the completely radioactive lunar surface ... Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie DukeAstronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." 1. Not if the package was left open or sealed a vacuum 2. So what? 3. No that makes an unproven assumption of the surface temp at the time the package was placed on the surface. PS. Why are you afraid to let people see your name when you log into this forum? Edited February 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html 1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion. Edited February 1, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 (edited) Well we are all entitled to our own opinions ... I agree with this claim because of the intense heat of the radioactive lunar surface ... I think his estimate of 100 degrees C . would do what he said it would ... Do I have any evidence to prove this ? ... No ... But then neither do you have any evidence to prove it wouldn't do what he claimed either . Edited February 2, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Well we are all entitled to our own opinions ... I agree with this claim because of the intense heat of the radioactive lunar surface ... I think his estimate of 100 degrees C . would do what he said it would ... Do I have any evidence to prove this ? ... No ... But then neither do you have any evidence to prove it woudldn't do what he cliamed either . Of course there's proof - the photograph of the family portrait laying there not in flames! “It is perfectly obvious, why can’t you see that?”(paraphrasing Duane “straydog” Daman) 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