Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Apollo 17 Photo Anomalies


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
273 replies to this topic

#31    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 03:31 AM

Nice try , but the foot light reflections are SOLID OBJECTS unto themselves, NOT reflections off of another object .... I will post the negative of this photo later to prove this point .

Thanks for posting all of these other photos of spotlight number one ... Now I will have even more phony Apollo photos to do studies on and find more anomaly reflections in the visors....

The spotlight moves position in the visor reflections because the astronaut changes position ... Is that too difficult for you to understand also ?

And even though the visors are dirty with smudges , the smudges are not creating the image of the second spotlight ... It is not a smear or a smudge but the back of a spotlight .... Smears don't have Y shaped brackets or flat shaped ceiling mounts .

By the way , the photos you just posted are so obviously more spotlight reflections ... The real sun doesn't look anything like that ... The light reflections are not even the correct shape to be the sun .

Oh and part of the lunar buggy being the cause of the foot light reflections doesn't work either because the buggy was directly BEHIND the astronaut being photographed in AS17-134-20380 ... and therefore could NOT be the cause of any light reflection in the visor .

Look at the shape of the objects which are lit up on the moon set floor .... They are the shape of foot lights .... and as I stated before , the negative of this photo proves that they are solid object unto themselves .

Edited by straydog, 26 September 2006 - 03:42 AM.

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#32    Schutzengel

Schutzengel

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 03:33 AM

Quote


The Apollo 17 photos had more anomalies in them than some of the other Apollo photo shoots .... Did nasa perhaps get sloppy during their last "mission" ?  Or did maybe some "whistle blowers" leave these clues behind in these crudely faked moon set pictures on purpose ?

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image



I spent 6 years of my lif as an Aircrew Life Support Tech in the USAF ... i can tell you conclusively that those are oil marks from fingers while they were putting the equipment on in the LEM ....

i have to LOL to think anyone thinks it is something else

those visors are gold plated and pick up finger prints and smudges from just small amounts of oil... let alone being in a 10 X 10 capsule for 6 days with your 2 closest frineds without shower facilities...


trust me ... they may have touched their face before putting down the visor anf then put on thier gloves because it is easier to manipulate the visor with bare hand than it is with the EVA suit gloves on ...


#33    Schutzengel

Schutzengel

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 03:38 AM

Quote


Nice try , but the foot light reflections are SOLID OBJECTS unto themselves, NOT reflections off of another object .... I will post the negative of this photo later to prove this point .

Thanks for posting all of these other photos of spotlight number one ... Now I will have even more phony Apollo photos to do studies on and find more anomaly reflections in the visors....

The spotlight moves position in the visor reflections because the astronaut changes position ... Is that too difficult for you to understand also ?

And even though the visors are dirty with smudes , the smudes are not creating the image of the second spotlight ... It is not a smear or a smuge but the back of a spotlight .... Smears don't have Y shaped brackets or flat shaped ceiling mounts .

By the way , the photos you just posted are so obviously more spotlight reflections ... The real sun doesn't look anything like that ... The light reflections are not even the correct shape to be the sun .

Oh and part of the lunar buggy being the cause of the foot light reflections doesn't work either because the buggy was directly BEHIND the astronaut being photographed in AS17-134-20380 ... and therefore could NOT be the cause of any light reflection in the visor .

Look at the shape of the objects which are lit up on the moon set floor .... They are the shape of foot lights .... and as I stated before , the negative of this photo proves that they are solid object unto themselves .



HAVE you actually SEEN the sun ???????




HAVE YOU ???

have you seen it without 3 miles of atmosphere obscuring it ... coloring it ... or diffusing it ...


if you say yes i would like to see your user posted image




#34    Schutzengel

Schutzengel

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 03:40 AM

user posted image


I am sure i see the studio floodlights in this one ...


#35    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 04:19 AM

Schutzengel .....  The back of the spotlight reflection is an oil mark from a dirty finger ??  ... Complete with a Y bracket and a flat ceiling mount bracket ?? .... I'm sorry but I never knew a dirty , oily finger print could cause such a weird anomaly ...  Not even on the 'moon' !    ... Yes, I have seen the sun .. but not from the moon ... but then I highly doubt that any of the Apollo astronauts have ever seen that particular view of the sun either .  wink2.gif  

Gavsto ....  Here is the negative of photo AS17-134-20380 ..... The foot lights are three seperate SOLID OBJECTS .....  They are the shape of FOOT LIGHTS , and the negative shows this fact even more clearly  .... Therefore they are NOT specular lights reflected off of the lunar buggy which is situated BEHIND the astronaut being photographed .... but rather three seperate solid objects , just as solid as the astronaut standing behind them .

user posted image

Edited by straydog, 26 September 2006 - 04:26 AM.

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#36    Mysterious Molecules

Mysterious Molecules

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 622 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2006
  • Location:Behind my eyes...

Posted 26 September 2006 - 08:20 AM

Quote


Schutzengel .....  The back of the spotlight reflection is an oil mark from a dirty finger ??  ... Complete with a Y bracket and a flat ceiling mount bracket ?? .... I'm sorry but I never knew a dirty , oily finger print could cause such a weird anomaly ...  Not even on the 'moon' !    ... Yes, I have seen the sun .. but not from the moon ... but then I highly doubt that any of the Apollo astronauts have ever seen that particular view of the sun either .  wink2.gif  

Gavsto ....  Here is the negative of photo AS17-134-20380 ..... The foot lights are three seperate SOLID OBJECTS .....  They are the shape of FOOT LIGHTS , and the negative shows this fact even more clearly  .... Therefore they are NOT specular lights reflected off of the lunar buggy which is situated BEHIND the astronaut being photographed .... but rather three seperate solid objects , just as solid as the astronaut standing behind them .

user posted image

This is not a negative. This is a photoshop filter and it only uses the color of visible object and therefore is a useless way of prooving that those are solid footlights. All it does is turn light into dark and vice versa. The astronaut was was light or white like the reflections. It dosn't mean they are solid at all, it means they we're white untill you applied the filter.

IMO lots of reflections could be caused by alot of things, and again like others have already said : multiple lightsources project mulitple shadows.

I suggest you watch all the moonlanding vids and ask yourself how anyone is supposed to fake gravity and the movement of dust the way it is supposedly done. I'd like to see anyone who are able to reproduce the moonlanding videos with such a fine result using nothing but 60's tech here on earth.
Most people who think it's fake obviously didn't watch all the movies, but concentrate more on conspiracy documentaries.



#37    Trinitrotoluene

Trinitrotoluene

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2006 - 09:21 AM

Thank you Ykaedhi,

I was going to reply that this isn't the negative and you are indeed correct about it being a filter, hence it means nothing.

Straydog, you now have a number of questions to answer:

1) According to you, the 'footlights' are shining onto the astronaut. We know this because we can actually see the 'light' hitting the astronauts visor, ergo the light must be pointed at him. Why is this not creating multiple shadows?

2) Can you explain why the 'spotlight' would be in exactly the same position on multiple photos taken hours apart and in different locations - bearing in mind that you attribute to the fact that we can see the back that there are two spotlights, which must also be the case in these pictures if you are correct?

3) Can you even show that it looks anything remotely like a spotlight? I'd like for you to label the picture the picture to show exactly what common features are present to make you believe it's a spot light

4) According to you your 'footlights' upwards at the ceiling and not at the ground. Why would they point lights aimlessly upwards? What exactly would they be lighting?

5) Now that you have changed your theory from your original theory on the original thread, do you actually have any proof that it's actually a spotlight illuminating the astronaut and not the sun? Because I haven't seen any thus far

If you could address these one at a time, that would be good!

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

#38    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 September 2006 - 01:59 PM

Let's get this straight.  The photos are part of a sequence that show the astronaut saluting the flag.  Saluting involves bringing the right glove up to touch the right top of the visor.  After saluting there is a mark on the right top of the visor.

The mark is obviously a reflection of a spotlight.

Occam's Razor?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#39    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 04:01 PM

Quote


Thank you Ykaedhi,

I was going to reply that this isn't the negative and you are indeed correct about it being a filter, hence it means nothing.

Straydog, you now have a number of questions to answer:

1) According to you, the 'footlights' are shining onto the astronaut. We know this because we can actually see the 'light' hitting the astronauts visor, ergo the light must be pointed at him. Why is this not creating multiple shadows?

2) Can you explain why the 'spotlight' would be in exactly the same position on multiple photos taken hours apart and in different locations - bearing in mind that you attribute to the fact that we can see the back that there are two spotlights, which must also be the case in these pictures if you are correct?

3) Can you even show that it looks anything remotely like a spotlight? I'd like for you to label the picture the picture to show exactly what common features are present to make you believe it's a spot light

4) According to you your 'footlights' upwards at the ceiling and not at the ground. Why would they point lights aimlessly upwards? What exactly would they be lighting?

5) Now that you have changed your theory from your original theory on the original thread, do you actually have any proof that it's actually a spotlight illuminating the astronaut and not the sun? Because I haven't seen any thus far

If you could address these one at a time, that would be good!



Gavsto ....  As you see I debunked all of your "evidence" yesterday ... I don't think that posting different photos from Apollo 17 helped your cause very much , as they had nothing to do with the photos in question .... Also trying to pretend that part of the lunar buggy was responsible for the foot light reflections was absured , because the photo you posted showed that the buggy had been moved ....  and in the foot lights reflection photo , the buggy is DIRECTLY BEHIND THE ASTRONAUT being photographed , so it could not possibly have had anything to do with the light reflections in his visor .

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with faked Apollo photographs .... Nor is it the answer to everthing under the sun .... That is a very closed minded and easy way to attempt to explain away the unexplainable ...  but actually it's not that unexplainable , is it ? ...  The obvious explanation is that the reflections are SPOTLIGHTS and FOOT LIGHTS and that the photos were really taken on MOON SETS... but of course that is a concept that nasa defenders could never accept ... because to accept that fact means that nasa lied about where the Apollo photos were taken ... and if they lied about that , then they most likely lied about the rest of it too .

I will answer your questions , even though they are not what I stated ... Oh and the last photo I posted may not technically be a negative but it resembles one closely and it also proves that we are looking at SOLID OBJECTS being reflected in the visor .

1) Your question is deceptive .... I never said the "foot lights" were shining on the astronaut being photographed  .. I said that SPOTLIGHT NUMBER ONE was shining on the astronaut being photographed , causing the 'sunlight' reflection on his visor ...and one large light source does NOT cause multiple shadows .

2) The back of spotlight number two only appears in the TWO pictures I posted here , which were taken from the same angle ... It does NOT appear in the other photos taken from different angles which you posted ... So once again you are being intentionally deceptive.

3) Label the picture ? .... If you mean point to every feature on the back of the spotlight ? ...  Okay , no problem ... but I will have to do it a bit later .

4) From looking at the close up of the visor reflections , we can see that the three foot lights were pointed upwards and more towards the astronaut being reflected in the visor ( not the one being photographed )  and also the back drop behind him  .. So they were used to illuminate the scene in front of the subject , which has now shown up in his visor reflection .

5)  If by "changing my theory"  do you mean why didn't I mention that we were seeing the back of the spotlight before ? ... It's because I thought that was obvious by looking at the picture what we were seeing ...  THE BACK OF A SPOTLIGHT ...  If I didn't make that clear before , then I apoligize ....  I didn't mention that there was also a spotlight pointed towards the subject , as I thought that was obvious also .... There is a big difference between the front of a spotlight and the back of a spotlight ...

Spotlight # one , pointed at the subject created the 'sunlight' reflection on the visor ... Spotlight # two ( which I assume accidently got into the two pictures ) is facing away from the subject , illuminating the scene in front of the him.

You can address these one at a time if that would make it easier for you ... but I don't happen to like false accusations made by you , against me , to be left unanswered .

I will also label the spotlight picture for you later and describe every feature of it , if you think that will help you to understand this ....



I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#40    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,887 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 September 2006 - 04:59 PM

Quote


Occam's Razor has nothing to do with faked Apollo photographs .... Nor is it the answer to everthing under the sun .... That is a very closed minded and easy way to attempt to explain away the unexplainable ...  but actually it's not that unexplainable , is it ?

Occam's razor has everything to do with explaining anomalous features.  The "smear due to salute" is a very simple explanation that explains the mark on the helmet and requires no extra assumptions.  The "spotlight reflection" explanation makes an extra assumption about the existance of a spotlight, and in addition does not explain why the mark persists in the same position relative to the helmet while a reflection would move.


"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#41    Trinitrotoluene

Trinitrotoluene

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2006 - 05:52 PM

1) Your question is deceptive .... I never said the "foot lights" were shining on the astronaut being photographed  .. I said that SPOTLIGHT NUMBER ONE was shining on the astronaut being photographed , causing the 'sunlight' reflection on his visor ...and one large light source does NOT cause multiple shadows.

1a) This doesn't answer my question. The fact that we can see the lights mean that they are shining on him. Where are the multiple shadows?

2) The back of spotlight number two only appears in the TWO pictures I posted here , which were taken from the same angle ... It does NOT appear in the other photos taken from different angles which you posted ... So once again you are being intentionally deceptive.

2a) No. You can clearly see that the smear or 'spotlight' is on all the pictures that I posted -   it's clearest in the last one. Can you tell me how the same back of the spotlight appears in two seperate pictures taken hours, a distance apart and appears in exactly the same position on the visor?

3) Label the picture ? .... If you mean point to every feature on the back of the spotlight ? ...  Okay , no problem ... but I will have to do it a bit later .

3a) I shall await the diagram!

4) From looking at the close up of the visor reflections , we can see that the three foot lights were pointed upwards and more towards the astronaut being reflected in the visor ( not the one being photographed )  and also the back drop behind him  .. So they were used to illuminate the scene in front of the subject , which has now shown up in his visor reflection.

4a) So you admit the lights are facing the astronaut? Where are the multiple shadows that would occur because of this

5)  If by "changing my theory"  do you mean why didn't I mention that we were seeing the back of the spotlight before ? ... It's because I thought that was obvious by looking at the picture what we were seeing ...  THE BACK OF A SPOTLIGHT ...  If I didn't make that clear before , then I apoligize ....  I didn't mention that there was also a spotlight pointed towards the subject , as I thought that was obvious also .... There is a big difference between the front of a spotlight and the back of a spotlight ...

5a) This is not what you stipulated in the previous thread, you never ever said there was two spotlights and always infered there was one


"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

#42    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 September 2006 - 07:08 PM

Tone it down a bit.  This will remain a civil and reasoned discussion.


#43    Redtail

Redtail

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2006
  • Location:Tallahassee FL

Posted 26 September 2006 - 08:20 PM

Quote



And even though the visors are dirty with smudges , the smudges are not creating the image of the second spotlight ... It is not a smear or a smudge but the back of a spotlight .... Smears don't have Y shaped brackets or flat shaped ceiling mounts .


What are the "flat shaped ceiling mounts" mounted to?




And Frankie kicked a mine
The day mankind kicked the moon
God help me... he was goin home in June...

#44    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 26 September 2006 - 11:57 PM

Redtail .....  You asked ... "What are the "flat shaped ceiling mounts" mounted to? "

An overhead stagelight rack .

Gavsto ....  I have answered all of your questions repeatedly ... If you choose not to understand them or want to pretend not to understand them , then you are just playing games and wasting my time .

3a) I shall await the diagram!

Okay , here it is ...   I have outlined the basic features of it ... and it doesn't look like any  smudge or a smear that I've ever seen before .... but what it DOES look like is the back of a ..... SPOTLIGHT !

user posted image


I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#45    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,169 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 27 September 2006 - 12:03 AM

Quote


Redtail .....  You asked ... "What are the "flat shaped ceiling mounts" mounted to? "

An overhead stagelight rack .


Which is not visible why exactly?

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users