87 replies to this topic

[Snozzberry]

 helmetla.jpg   25.59K   335 downloads

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Most of the arguments both for and against "artefacts" such as this being evidence of a hoax have already been presented in this thread: Apollo 17 Photo Anomalies, Proof of a Hoax ?.

Although this image looks to me to be from a different mission (Apollo12?) this thread is likely to go no where fast unless substantially different arguments can be presented than what has gone before.

It would also be helpful if you could present some reasons as to why you think this picture constitutes evidence that Apollo is a fake. After all if I just post a picture and say "this proves it isn't" would you accept that as an argument?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 14 January 2007 - 10:36 AM.

[flyingswan]

As usual, it is difficult to comment without a NASA photo reference number that allows one to examine a decent hi-res copy of the photo in question.  However, as waspie suggests, it appears to be the well-known Apollo 12 helmet smudge.

[Trinitrotoluene]

I've seen this before, that shadown is part of the astronaut and part of the flag.

PS: What the hell happened to the way replies are now displayed because I hate it

[Raptor]

Quote

PS: What the hell happened to the way replies are now displayed because I hate it

The display hasn't changed, not for me at least.

Does this help?

[Trinitrotoluene]

That fixed it thank you

[MID]

Quote

Most of the arguments both for and against "artefacts" such as this being evidence of a hoax have already been presented in this thread: Apollo 17 Photo Anomalies, Proof of a Hoax ?.

Although this image looks to me to be from a different mission (Apollo12?) this thread is likely to go no where fast unless substantially different arguments can be presented than what has gone before.

It would also be helpful if you could present some reasons as to why you think this picture constitutes evidence that Apollo is a fake. After all if I just post a picture and say "this proves it isn't" would you accept that as an argument?

Hmmm...

This sounds suspiciously familiar doesn't it?


Anyway, Waspie, you're right, it's a highly cropped version of AS12-48-7071:




That's Pete Conrad, as photographed by Al Bean (the guy in the helmet visor reflection). They're downhill to the South of the LM during EVA-2, and as flyingswan suggested, that is indeed the all-too-thouroughly fleshed-out smudge of dirt on Pete's hat.

The "artifact shadow", which appears on Al's left, is of course the shadow created by his arm and the camera mounted to his chest.   The Sun is roughly at Pete's 8:30-8:45 position, Al's 2:30-2:45 position, and about 16.5 degrees above the horizon when this photo was taken.

The guys were actually taking tourist shots of each other.  This is Pete's photo of Al (AS12-49-7281)....same location, photos taken within seconds of each other...




Here, you can see where the shadow from Al's arm and that camera would be cast...when he had his hand up on the camera and oriented the lens toward Pete, right where it appears in Pete's visor.


Gav...

Hi there!

Listen, I believe the flag was way up there by the LM, some 600 feet North of where the guys were when this picture was taken!


But wait...in that second photo, there is the unmistakable rack of arc lights reflected right there!

...NOTE:   No, I'm not serious, if any of you folks were wondering.   That statement was a joke, really.   Probably not a wise thing to say at any rate, and completely out of character, but it was a joke.   There aren't any arc lights there!!!!!

[Snozzberry]

you can say its a smudge but it doesn't really look like it to me. it seems to be a reflection of some object that shouldn't be there. and it also seems to cast a shadow which also goes against it being a smudge.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

you can say its a smudge but it doesn't really look like it to me. it seems to be a reflection of some object that shouldn't be there. and it also seems to cast a shadow which also goes against it being a smudge.

The key expressions here are "looks like it to me" and "seems to". In other words what we have is opinion and conjecture not evidence. As evidence, personal opinion is worthless. However the image used is part of the hoax believers usual modus operandi, never use a high quality image when you can use a low quality image. I'll let people draw their own conclusions as to why such claims are always accompanied by a photograph which does not show what is actually visible in the original.

Here is the AS12-48-7071 photograph cropped to show the same as in the original post, except this is cropped from a high resolution version. Let's compare the two:

Snozzberry's version:
.
High resolution version:


It is clear from the high resolution version that there is no shadow being cast by the "artefact" and what is claimed as shadow is in fact detail on the other astronaut's (Al Bean's) reflection. In the high resolution version the "artefact" looks far less solid and more like a smudge on the visor (only opinion admittedly). Without a shadow there is no evidence that the artefact is anything other than a smudge (this isn't opinion this is fact).

So, far from being an "unexplained reflection," the only unexplained about the image at all is why hoax believers should chose to use such a deceptively poor quality image when far better versions are available.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 15 January 2007 - 04:49 AM.
relabeled images - they appeared sisde by side in the draft version.

[Redtail]

Quote

The key expressions here are "looks like it to me" and "seems to". In other words what we have is opinion and conjecture not evidence. As evidence, personal opinion is worthless. However the image used is part of the hoax believers usual modus operandi, never use a high quality image when you can use a low quality image. I'll let people draw their own conclusions as to why such claims are always accompanied by a photograph which does not show what is actually visible in the original.

Here is the AS12-48-7071 photograph cropped to show the sam as the original, except this is cropped from a high resolution version. Let's compare the two:

Snozzberry's version:
.
High resolution version:


It is clear from the high resolution version that there is no shadow being cast by the "artefact" and what is claimed as shadow is in fact detail on the other astronaut's (Al Bean's) reflection. In the high resolution version the "artefact" looks far less solid and more like a smudge on the visor (only opinion admittedly). Without a shadow there is no evidence that the artefact is anything other than a smudge (this isn't opinion this is fact).

So, far from being an "unexplained reflection," the only unexplained about the image at all is why hoax believers should chose to use such a deceptively poor quality image when far better versions are available.

You might want to say top and bottom.

[Obviousman]

I think that claim is also discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5911&st=60#

[Snozzberry]

Quote

You might want to say top and bottom.

why?  do you not know the difference between cropped and high resolution pictures?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

why?  do you not know the difference between cropped and high resolution pictures?

Look at my "reason for edit" Snozzberry. My post originally said left and right when the pictures were one above the other. Redtail was caught out because I was already editing it before he posted.

As it was you that posted a low resolution claiming it as some sort of proof I suspect that Redtail believed it was you that couldn't tell the difference. His belief is rather backed up your post as both of the images in my post are cropped.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 15 January 2007 - 07:40 AM.

[Mr Black]

Smudge

[Snozzberry]

WaspieDwarf, first of all the title of the topic I posted is "Unexplained reflection in astronauts visor MAY be proof of a hoax".  Nowhere did I ever say anything about it being "facts".  After ripping me for stating my opinions, it is a free country by the way, you go on to state that it is your opinion that it is a smudge. And yes there is still what appears to possibly be a shadow even in your high quality pic.