1970 replies to this topic

[DONTEATUS]

 1531_452811431447370_281193334_n.jpg   34.02K   0 downloads See They were there First !

[Obviousman]

Czero 101, on 31 December 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Again... ANYONE who cites Jarrah "Grandson of the Moon Hoax Theory" White as their source and / or as "proof" of anything is not worth the time to argue with.

flyingswan, on 31 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

But of course, they don't reckon with Jarrah White, who can unmask any conspiracy from the safety of his parents basement.

Exactly; I don't take seriously anyone who uses Jarrah as a source of information; you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

Edited by Obviousman, 02 January 2013 - 05:04 AM.

[rambaldi]

Obviousman, on 02 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

FWIW, I would give more credit to that "guy at the pub", at least he doesn't have JW history of being wrong...

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 29 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

You already accept that the heel can reflect light photons from that distance back to the camera. You accept that a spacesuit can reflect light sufficient to be re-reflected off another surface. Yet you seem to be saying that light reflected off a spacesuit can't be reflected back to the camera, but light from a source dim enough not to cast shadows can be reflect back?


The spacesuit reflects light. The heel reflects light. What's to prove?

You still need to prove it reflects from 15-20 feet away.

That is your claim for the Apollo photo. Not an inch or two.  

postbaguk, on 29 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

So he says. Problem is, he never even examined the possibility that the light source could be Armstrong's suit. You seem to be dismissing this possibility simply because you want Groves to be right, as well as trying to reverse the burden of proof. After all, Grove's being wrong about extra lighting being used doesn't disprove a hoax. Does Groves analysis prove that Armstrong's suit cannot be the cause of the highlight in Aldrin's heel? If not, why are you dismissing it as a possibility?

You've failed to prove that the spacesuit IS a possibility for the light source, so that's where it stands now..

I've already cited my reasons for dismissing it..

postbaguk, on 29 December 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I addressed this in an earlier post. The obvious and sensible way to ensure complete congruity between the photos and the film/TV footage is take the photos at the same time as the scene is being filmed. In addition, you only want one light source to simulate the sun. If I can understand the stupidity of using extra lighting, then the people involved in the filming of the scene must also have known that.

As I've said before - whether or not it's 'stupid'....is merely a lame-o excuse .

It's very easy to find such mistakes, in 20/20 hindsight. Who would be so 'stupid' to go blasting a bunch of nukes within our upper atmosphere? You know who did that, right? So how is that for 'stupid', in hindsight? How much more 'stupid' is it to try it again?

As for Apollo - they may have seen it as the better option. Lighting for both at once is much trickier than just one at a time. Many more reasons like that. Sure there are problems with doing it one at a time - continuity, etc. But it's certainy a feasible option.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 05 January 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

As for Apollo - they may have seen it as the better option. Lighting for both at once is much trickier than just one at a time. Many more reasons like that. Sure there are problems with doing it one at a time - continuity, etc. But it's certainy a feasible option.

Why are you arguing when the facts have proven you wrong? In addition, countries have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed and confirmed the Apollo landing sites.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 January 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[turbonium]

Obviousman, on 02 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Exactly; I don't take seriously anyone who uses Jarrah as a source of information; you might as well claim your source as "a bloke I met at the pub" since they would hve the same level of credibility.

To be taken seriously, and to show credibility....

....you display the complete opposite of it?....

Who cares about your personal opinion of Jarrah White, or whoever else??

Quite childish, is it not?  

If there's an actual issue of his you dispute, then explain your case...

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 05 January 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Why are you arguing when the facts have proven you wrong? In addition, countries have tracked the Apollo moon flights and even photographed and confirmed the Apollo landing sites.

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 05 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

Speaking of which, you probably missed this as we were attacked by a flock of seagulls last week.




In the LHS bottom image above, the slight increase in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 05 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Speaking of which, you probably missed this as we were attacked by a flock of seagulls last week.




In the LHS bottom image above, the slight increase in brightness from the previous image is due to the astronaut blocking less of the lunar surface (remember, he is in shadow so not reflecting a great deal of light yet). The fourth image is the killer.

Since when did we need sunglasses to look at the moon?

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

Do you have anything else?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 05 January 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

I'd prefer you address the issue at hand, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen someday...

You have been making things up as you go and I was just trying to bring that to your attention.

[flyingswan]

turbonium, on 06 January 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

How are you comparing the spacesuit with the sun when the sun is out of frame in those pictures?  The sunlit spacesuit is overexposed because the exposure setting also takes account of the shadowed objects only lit by reflected light, such as the LM ladder and the spacesuit in three of the four frames.

Quote

And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

Strange, to me it looks very much as if it proves exactly that.  Once the spacesuit is in direct sunlight it becomes the brightest object in the frame.  How is it not reflecting the sunlight?

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 06 January 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Since when did we need sunglasses to look at the moon?

Really now, this video is so overexposed, everything is too bright than it should be. The lighting has no basis in reality, which also explains how the spacesuit is almost brighter than the Sun itself!

The lighting has "no basis in reality"? Really? But you are claiming this was filmed in a studio set, using, presumably, real lights? Whether it was filmed on the moon or not, it is indeed based in reality. Over-exposed perhaps, but still real.

Quote

And it certainly doesn't prove that a spacesuit can reflect from 15-20 feet away.

You clearly haven't read, or understood, the captions in the four frames. Look at the screenshots agin, and pay attention this time as I spell it out for you.

1. Look at the highlight I've circled in blue on the LM ladder. Think about what it's reflecting. It's pretty clear that it's reflecting the sunlit lunar landscape directly opposite from the camera. AGree or disagree?

2. There is a small but noticeable reduction in the brightness of the reflection as the astronaut passes behind the ladder. He is obviously standing in the shadow of the LM. So why the reduction in the brightness of the reflection? Simply, his body is blocking some of the reflected sunlight coming off the lunar soil. Yes, there is light reflected off his suit, but it's much less bright than that being reflected back by the surface (since he is still in the shadow of the LM). AGree or disagree.

3. There is a slight increase in brightness in the reflected highlight from the previous frame, as the astronaut moves away from the LM ladder. His body is blocking less of the bright surface from being reflected the further away from the ladder he gets. Agree or disagree?

4. He crosses the LM shadow boundary, and is in full sun. Look at the reflected highlight on the LM ladder. Compare how bright it is now, to how bright it was in the first frame. It is noticeably brighter. The only change in the scene is the addition of the astronaut. The increase in the brightness of the reflection is only explained by the reflected sunlight off the astronaut's suit. Agree or disagree?

Conclusion: the spacesuit can indeed reflect sunlight sufficiently brightly to be reflected off another surface from the distance seen in the Apollo photograph (making the assumption that both astronauts are a similar distance away from the LM ladder).

QED.

[postbaguk]

More evidence that the suit does reflect off the LM ladder. See how the reflection changes as the astronaut changes position.

http://picasion.com/...55a803b1841.gif

Edited by postbaguk, 06 January 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[Czero 101]

postbaguk, on 06 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

The lighting has "no basis in reality"? Really? But you are claiming this was filmed in a studio set, using, presumably, real lights? Whether it was filmed on the moon or not, it is indeed based in reality. Over-exposed perhaps, but still real.



You clearly haven't read, or understood, the captions in the four frames. Look at the screenshots agin, and pay attention this time as I spell it out for you.

1. Look at the highlight I've circled in blue on the LM ladder. Think about what it's reflecting. It's pretty clear that it's reflecting the sunlit lunar landscape directly opposite from the camera. AGree or disagree?

2. There is a small but noticeable reduction in the brightness of the reflection as the astronaut passes behind the ladder. He is obviously standing in the shadow of the LM. So why the reduction in the brightness of the reflection? Simply, his body is blocking some of the reflected sunlight coming off the lunar soil. Yes, there is light reflected off his suit, but it's much less bright than that being reflected back by the surface (since he is still in the shadow of the LM). AGree or disagree.

3. There is a slight increase in brightness in the reflected highlight from the previous frame, as the astronaut moves away from the LM ladder. His body is blocking less of the bright surface from being reflected the further away from the ladder he gets. Agree or disagree?

4. He crosses the LM shadow boundary, and is in full sun. Look at the reflected highlight on the LM ladder. Compare how bright it is now, to how bright it was in the first frame. It is noticeably brighter. The only change in the scene is the addition of the astronaut. The increase in the brightness of the reflection is only explained by the reflected sunlight off the astronaut's suit. Agree or disagree?

Conclusion: the spacesuit can indeed reflect sunlight sufficiently brightly to be reflected off another surface from the distance seen in the Apollo photograph (making the assumption that both astronauts are a similar distance away from the LM ladder).

QED.

C'mon, Posty... you should know better by now than to hope that Turbs will accept logic and facts.*SNIP*



Cz

Edited by Lilly, 12 January 2013 - 10:49 AM.
removed ad hom remarks

[postbaguk]

Czero 101, on 06 January 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

C'mon, Posty... you should know better by now than to hope that Turbs will accept logic and facts .*SNIP*

You never know, he may one day have a moment of clarity!

Edited by Lilly, 12 January 2013 - 10:51 AM.
fixed quote