Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anomalous object in A17 moonscape


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ? :)

No, just tough to figure out what drugs to take to have my vision distorted like yours. I have no friggin clue how you can make the claims you do seriously. If you really believe it you should have no problem illustrating it by labeling the parts of the shadow, in either image since they are the same, one just has a different vertical scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ? :)

No, just tough to figure out what drugs to take to have my vision distorted like yours. I have no friggin clue how you can make the claims you do seriously. If you really believe it you should have no problem illustrating it by labeling the parts of the shadow, in either image since they are the same, one just has a different vertical scale.

To be fair, I can understand why Duane could think the shadow is reversed; it's just that I think he is wrong, and Dave's illustration reinforces that belief to the point of certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ? :)

No, just tough to figure out what drugs to take to have my vision distorted like yours. I have no friggin clue how you can make the claims you do seriously. If you really believe it you should have no problem illustrating it by labeling the parts of the shadow, in either image since they are the same, one just has a different vertical scale.

To be fair, I can understand why Duane could think the shadow is reversed; it's just that I think he is wrong, and Dave's illustration reinforces that belief to the point of certainty.

That's why I vertically stretched the image - to make it easier to see the shadow since the viewing angle is shallow.

Strange thing is, I was expecting to see the shadow of a herd of wildebeest galloping across the Serengeti. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be the shadow of an astronaut with a PLSS on his back. What were NASA thinking of with that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A member of the UM forum called Pericynthion has been following these threads for some time but isn't a member so can't post here. He PMed me some photos of a model he used to recreate the Apollo 15 photograph in question, and has given me permission to post it here. I think it demonstrates quite well that there is nothing anomalous about the astronauts shadow.

The figure in these photos is a 1/6 scale replica of an Apollo 11 suit made by Dragon Models. As you well know, the Apollo 15 suits were slightly different, but this figure is generally a very close match to the overall size and shape of Dave Scott's suit. I positioned the figure to match as closely as possible to Scott's pose in AS15-85-11437. I then positioned a single spotlight at about 20 deg above the horizon and moved it so that the shadow direction matched that of the original photo. This should approximately replicate the lighting conditions for EVA 1 as found here (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html). Since the PLSS on my scale figure isn't weighted, I couldn't quite balance the figure by itself in this pose and had to use an extra support which is visible in the photos.

Here's a cropped version of the original photo:

as158511437hrcropyz2.jpg

And here's my recreation of the shot:

sideviewpd6.jpg

To help clarify the situation, here's a shot of the same setup from directly overhead. Hopefully this will help to show that the shadow in the original photo is just as it should be:

overheaddm4.jpg

I think the shadows match extremely well, especially considering that the lunar surface in the original photo isn't completely level.

I think that pretty much puts the "inverted shadow" theory to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done! If the unevenness of the lunar surface could have been recreated, it would have been just about perfect.

It's a fantastic demonstration showing why you should recreate the shots if there appears to be an anomoly.

Great work Peri!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ... That's quite some 'evidence' that Pericynthion image shacked together here ... He used to come to postbaguk Dave's rescue on the UM also when he got into jams .

Other people might fall for your tag team , think tank BS , but not me ... If I remember correctly Pericynthion is the same Apollo propagandist that image shacked some scratches on Cernan's visor to 'win' the argument about the reflected lights in his visor also.

I don't know how you got the shadow to be such a close match to that phony A15 anomalous Scott shadow , but congrats on being one of the best when it comes to the ... "let's do whatever it takes to prove all the hoax evidence wrong" gang .

So why not become a member here Pericynthion ? ... Don't want anyone to know your real identity perhaps ? ... I guess you're just like some of the other propagandist members of nasa's think tank when it comes to that .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just what agency supplies this guy with expensive fullsize models

of astronauts to take photos of? Looks to me like the same "astronaut"

manikin used for the Apollo photography. How does a non-nasa photographer

get one of these expensive manikins?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ... That's quite some 'evidence' that Pericynthion image shacked together here ... He used to come to postbaguk Dave's rescue on the UM also when he got into jams .

Other people might fall for your tag team , think tank BS , but not me ... If I remember correctly Pericynthion is the same Apollo propagandist that image shacked some scratches on Cernan's visor to 'win' the argument about the reflected lights in his visor also.

I don't know how you got the shadow to be such a close match to that phony A15 anomalous Scott shadow , but congrats on being one of the best when it comes to the ... "let's do whatever it takes to prove all the hoax evidence wrong" gang .

So why not become a member here Pericynthion ? ... Don't want anyone to know your real identity perhaps ? ... I guess you're just like some of the other propagandist members of nasa's think tank when it comes to that .

Duane,

That is one of the best examples of how you are completely unwilling to alter your views, regardless of empirical evidence. You seem to lack the ability to reassess your theories when presented with new information.

If Pericynthion does not wish to become a member here, then that is their prerogative - though I would welcome their presence. I'm guessing that if they did decide to join, you would then claim it was just another example of people 'ganging up' on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just what agency supplies this guy with expensive fullsize models

of astronauts to take photos of? Looks to me like the same "astronaut"

manikin used for the Apollo photography. How does a non-nasa photographer

get one of these expensive manikins?

Jack

Jack,

If you read the accompanying text instead of casting dispersions on the person, you'll see it is a 1/6th scale model available to anyone through a company called Dragon Models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider this new information to be empirical evidence or to be correct .... I consider it to be contrived trickery to protect nasa's phony Apollo photos .... Like Jack , I wonder where he got the mini Apollo astronot manikin ? ... Off of one of nasa's old small scale moon sets probably ... This is just another game played by those who will do anything to 'win' this game.

The Apolo 15 anomalous , whistleblowing photograph is not one of my "theories" ... It happens to be one of the best examples of photo fakery ...From the lunar buggy tracks going right through the middle of that fake crater , to the upright , backwards ridiculous looking shadow ... It is as fake as they come and no amount of photo trickery , provided by one of nasa best trickster's will change that .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go right on believing that, Duane.

I'm sure the lurkers on this and other threads will make their own logical assumptions with regard to your 'examples'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ... That's quite some 'evidence' that Pericynthion image shacked together here ... He used to come to postbaguk Dave's rescue on the UM also when he got into jams .

Other people might fall for your tag team , think tank BS , but not me ... If I remember correctly Pericynthion is the same Apollo propagandist that image shacked some scratches on Cernan's visor to 'win' the argument about the reflected lights in his visor also.

I don't know how you got the shadow to be such a close match to that phony A15 anomalous Scott shadow , but congrats on being one of the best when it comes to the ... "let's do whatever it takes to prove all the hoax evidence wrong" gang .

So why not become a member here Pericynthion ? ... Don't want anyone to know your real identity perhaps ? ... I guess you're just like some of the other propagandist members of nasa's think tank when it comes to that .

Duane - he clearly stated how he got the shadow to be such a close match. He arranged the figure into the same pose as the Apollo 15 photo, looked up the sun angle from that EVA on the ALSJ, shone a light at the figure - lo and behold, similar looking shadow.

Yes, he did find a photo on Flickr posted by someone in 2001 IIRC, clearly showing the scratches that you were convinced were stagelights. You had the guts back then to admit your error. Seems things have changed since then. "Mr Head, allow me to introduce you to Mr Sand."

If you refuse to re-examine your position on this photo given this simple evidence which you could easily replicate for yourself to prove it's veracity, I'm afraid there really is no hope for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider this new information to be empirical evidence or to be correct .... I consider it to be contrived trickery to protect nasa's phony Apollo photos .... Like Jack , I wonder where he got the mini Apollo astronot manikin ? ... Off of one of nasa's old small scale moon sets probably ... This is just another game played by those who will do anything to 'win' this game.

Did you or Jack actually bother to read the post? He clearly stated what size the model was, and where he got it from.

The Apolo 15 anomalous , whistleblowing photograph is not one of my "theories" ... It happens to be one of the best examples of photo fakery ...From the lunar buggy tracks going right through the middle of that fake crater , to the upright , backwards ridiculous looking shadow ... It is as fake as they come and no amount of photo trickery , provided by one of nasa best trickster's will change that .

Duane - I've heard the track-in-crater theory before, but only you could dream up a backwards shadow, refuse point blank to provide any other evidence to support your claim other than "it's-obvious-to-me-therefore-it's-definitely-true" and then simply refuse to accept any evidence that counters your claim. So I'm afraid it's nothing more and nothing less than one of your "theories" - one which you can't or won't back up with evidence, and continue to espouse even when very strong evidence to counter your "theory" is spoon-fed to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tracks in the crater " theroy" ? .... Are you completley blind ? ... The moon buggy tracks go right though the middle of the crater , which of course would have been completely impossible had the buggy really done that in 1/6 g. on the moon .... and for anyone who is not wearing pro Apollo blinders , it is obvious that the shadow in no way matches the object allegedly causing it .

The A15 Scott photo is a complete fake , so don't lecture me about having my head in the sand about this .. It's quite a clever game that you and your friends play on these forums , trying to constanly turn the tables with your psychological projection .... The only one who can't see the truth about Apollo would be you and the one's who defend the crudely faked Apollo photographs .

I don't give a rip where your friend got the miniture Apollo astronot ... The only thing that he proved with his ridiculous experiment is that he either altered the shadow to try to match the original phony photo, or the original phony photo was taken using a small scale astronot model on a moon set with artificial lighting .

I have known for quite some time now that you will do whatever it takes to 'win' the argument ... Including running to your pro Apollo , think tank friends for help when you can't prove your side of the argument .

Oh , and speaking of clever games ... I contacted the YouTube management to find out why I can no longer post comments on their web site ... I received their answer this morning ... Apparently a member of that site hit the spam feature repeatedly on my comments , to where my account went into their spam filter and stopped my ability to post comments there ... Funny how I didn't have any problems with anything on that forum until you showed up , isn't it ?

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...