273 replies to this topic

[Pericynthion]

Quote

I notice that pericynthion's picture includes a few extra bright spots on the visor apart from the main reflection of his lamp.  These are plausibly reflections from small scratches in the visor, the same phenomena that now seems the most likely explanation for straydog's "footlights" in the other photo.

Good catch, flyingswan.  Those are indeed scratches on the model visor.  I had noticed the large curved scratch when I was shooting the pictures. I was annoyed because it ran right through the "sun" reflection.  The bright highlight that appears just to the left of my head is caused by a tiny pit in the surface of the visor.  I just checked the figure and verified that it's there.  It's visible in that photo, but not in some of the others I shot from slightly different positions.  None of these scratches are very visible unless the light hits them just right.  FYI, the blueish highlights on the right side of the reflection are cause by my computer monitor and by light leaking around a window shade.  Other than those (and the lamp, of course), there are no other light sources in the room.

And now, I'm off to work.  Talk to you later ...

[straydog]

I gotta hand it to you Pericynthion , because when it comes to nasa disinformation you are one of the best ... Better than MID in fact !    

I will accept your explaination of the camera angle being the same in both pictures , but not the explaination about the scratches causing the three lights in the Apollo photo .... and as far as your photo goes with the alleged scratches on your visor of the Buzz model , I guess we will just have to take your word for it , because I didn't see any scratches on the visor .... Unless you decide to make some after the fact to "prove " your point .

If none of you can see that the Apollo photos are studio fakes , then you can't see it ... and unfortunaltely I don't have the analytical skills to prove it to you .... Aquatus said that my case COULD be objectively proven but that I just don't know HOW to prove it .

It has been accepted , even among some members of the scientific community , that the Apollo photos were not taken on the moon , but were staged instead ....  and of course the many anomalies in the Apollo photos prove that fact ....  The mountain backdrops that are too smooth and usually a different color and texture from the foreground .... The total lack of depth perception in almost all of the photos ( proving that Apollo was filmed and photographed on moon sets instead of on a large planet  )....  except for the photos that were staged using small scale models , such as was used here to "prove" a point ....

And then of course the many stage light anomalies in the visor reflections , incuding the large spotlight used to represent the sun , which reflected a light source so large in the visors of all of the motion pictures,  that it took up almost half of the visor area ...

The lunar buggy sitting on the moon set with no tire tracks anywhere in sight behind it  .... and the list just goes on and on as to why the Apollo photos are fakes ....  

But proving this fact is almost impossible .... At least for me it is , as it has been pointed out to me here on this forum that I don't understand how to even go about accomplishing this in a scientific manner .

So in that respect , you all have "won" the debate .... because I have no idea how to support my claims with empirical evidence the way all of you have done .... and even if your "evidence " is incorrect , at least it is done with the proper debate technique .

I don't accept your explaination of the lights being caused by scratches on the visor , but if any other evidence is presented that is more plausable , I wouldn't just rule it out because I have made up my mind that these light reflections are definately footlights ....

To me , they resemble spike lights more than do specular light reflections from scratches .... but that is not to say that there isn't some other explaination as to what they could be either ... I just don't buy the scratches as being the reason these lights are in this visor reflection .

Study this picture again ... These lights are part of solid objects , and if not spike lights , then what ?

Speaking of alternative explainations , I would like to return to the video of this scene that Gavsto posted here on one of the first pages of this thread ....  I don't have the time right now to find it , but if he could please post it here again , I was wondering if anyone could identify the object that the camera zooms in on and explain what it is , as there might be a possiblity that this object could be causing these light reflections ....  The object is laying down instead of spiked into the ground , but it appears to be elongated black objects with light reflections on the ends of them ....  I may be wrong and may have misidentified something like rocks on the ground or something else , but it's worth a look to try to find another reason for these three lights to be in the visor reflection , instead of scratches , which I don't believe could have caused this very strange anomaly .

Look at the photo again to see that these are SOLID OBJECTS and could not be created by specular lights off of scratches on the visor .

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Quote

I gotta hand it to you Pericynthion , because when it comes to nasa disinformation you are one of the best ... Better than MID in fact !    

straydog, you are continuing to make unacceptable accusations about people. Take care, you are treading on very thin ice.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 02 October 2006 - 08:08 PM.

[aquatus1]

Quote

I gotta hand it to you Pericynthion , because when it comes to nasa disinformation you are one of the best ... Better than MID in fact !    

I really wish you understood that you aren't in a position here to pass off a mild jest without making it sound like an insult.

Quote

So in that respect , you all have "won" the debate .... because I have no idea how to support my claims with empirical evidence the way all of you have done .... and even if your "evidence " is incorrect , at least it is done with the proper debate technique .

The only reason this could be considered something like a win is because you have learned that the weakness of your argument does not lie in other people, but in your presentation techniques.  Hopefully you will take this opportunity to learn, and anytime someone learns something, that's a win, although I can't help but feel that you are only paying lip service, and inside your head, you are smiling smugly, convinced that you are not the one at fault.  In terms of the actual topic itself, it wasn't even a contest.

Quote

Speaking of alternative explainations , I would like to return to the video of this scene that Gavsto posted here on one of the first pages of this thread ....  I don't have the time right now to find it , but if he could please post it here again ,

Actually, no, I think it is fair to say that you have had your turn.  I said that I would only allow two or three threads open at a time, and it's time to give someone else a shot at opening a thread.