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 ?

The opening post of this topic is a little vague, but not so much that this topic needs to be closed. However, if a whole slew of other pictures are suddenly presented, without any conclusion made towards this first picture being made, the topic will be closed. First finish the discussion of this specific picture, then and only then can other pictures be submitted for analysis.

Aquatus ... I didn't mean to be vague in the post topic .

These photos are all related ... They are official nasa photos from the same photo shoot of Gene Cernan and Jack Schmidt during Apollo 17 .. and the anomalies in the visor reflections clearly show lights and objects that should not have been on the moon .

We can discuss one photo at a time if that would be easier ... Thanks for not closing the thread .... I don't pretend to know how to "formally debate" but I will post with respect to everyone's opinion , no matter what their belief is about Apollo .

Straydog I posted these in the previous threads but they weren't addressed.






In short, a few arguments and facts regarding these particular pieces:

1) If a spotlight was pointing directly at the astronaut (and if Straydog was correct then it must be) - the back would never be visible. EVER. It would always be behind the light.

2) If Straydog was correct and that is a spotlight the light would not be visible at all as it would be shining directly to the left.

If you could, will you post an overhead diagram like mine of where you think the spotlight is placed

If those bright spots are footlights then each object in the photo




should be casting four shadows - one strong one and three weak ones.

Where are they?

Gavsto ... If you read the description on the second picture being discussed, you will see that I clearly state that TWO spotlights are in use .... Therefore we see the one facing the astronaut being photographed , as a spot of light ( representing the sun ) reflected in the visor , and the BACK of the second spotlight , which is facing AWAY from the astronaut being photographed , used to illuminate the scene if front of him ( the astronaut taking the picture and the backdrop behind him ) ....

The reflection in the visor shows the BACK of the second light , facing AWAY from the astronaut being photographed ..... and that is why we see the body of it ... and only the light reflection of the first spotlight facing him ( representing the sun )

Thus your diagram does not apply to this particular situation ... I hope I made this clear enough .

Yes Straydog you did, sorry about that. Do you have the facilities to draw the diagram of where you think the spotlights are?

Ta,

Gav

AtomicDog ... Why would three foot lights , being used to illuminate the scene being reflected in the astronauts visor, cast four shadows ? .. Shadows of what ? .... It is usually several overhead lights pointed in the same direction which would cause multiple shadows , not foot lights .

Facilities ? .... Like in abilities or software ? .... No, I just learned how to use MS paint and have no idea how to draw a diagram ... But what would a diagram prove ? ... The reflection clearly shows the back of a spotlight .... So it's position should be obvious from the position of the reflection it has created in the visor ... and the fact that is has caused a shadow on the ground shows that it is indeed a solid object and not "smears on the visor" , as has been incorrectly claimed before .

Why would the fact that a light is coming from overhead or underneath determine wheter it casts a shadow or not? If a light is pointed at something, that something casts a shadow.

AtomicDog ... The foot lights would not effect the subject being photographed , as in the photo you just posted ... The foot lights are pointed AWAY from the astronaut being photographed , to illuminate the scene being reflected in his visor ( ie: the astronaut taking the picture )

The picture you posted is useless in this discussion , as it is too dark and the visor reflection is too far away .... That's why I posted the close up shot of the high resolution photo , so we could all see the foot light reflections in the visor more clearly .

Straydog,

I refer you to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182336.mov



According to your diagram, the spotlight is directly facing the astronaut, could you therefore explain why his shadow is not being cast behind him but actually to his front left?

Here's a link to the full frame

I was trying to keep from posting huge photos. The point I was making with the full frame is that everything in the scene would cast mutliple shadows with multiple lights. There should be multiple shadows all over the place.

If those spots were lights the fact that you see them at all means that they were pointed at Cernan to be reflected back to the camera - else, why have them on at all? The purpose of a light is to illuminate a scene. Otherwise, why bother?



Anyway, straydog, the real question is do you have any evidence that thest bright spots are stage lights and not reflections of equipment on the moon? Some of that stuff is pretty reflective, you know.

I watched the motion film of this scene but don't see where the video at all correlates to the still photograph in question .... A problem nasa had with several of their photo shoots ....

Could you be more specific in what you are asking ? ... It's looks to me like his shadow is behind him in the still photo , as it should be with the first spotlight pointed directly at him , causing the pretend sunlight being reflected in his visor .

If you are asking about the second spotlight , facing away from the subject , then your question is meaningless .

Straydog you can't make an assumption that the video is not the same as the picture without providing evidence to prove it. In the video his shadow is going to slightly his front left and not behind him. This is conclusive with the pictures as well



As you can see (think about this in perspective of the astronaut) his left hand side isn't lit, his right side is. If he was being lit from the front then he would be evenly lit.

AtomicDog ..... I have studied this photo very carefully to make sure that the lights were nothing else but what they are ... foot lights on a moon set .

The LM and the lunar buggy were directly behind the subject , thus could not be reflecting anything in the visor .... and if you look closely at the light reflections in the visor , you can even make out the entire shape of the foot lights .... They are black and elongated , with the lights pointed upwards ... Therefore causing NO SHADOWS on the objects or ground around them .

Gavsto ... Regardless of what directions the shadows of the subject may or may not be going in , it is obvious that the spotlight is shining directly at him , as you can see the light reflection in his visor comes from in front of him .... If his shadow does not match where the light is coming from , then that would be just one more anomaly in this photo, among many .

No his shadow is fine, because the light is coming from his right, slightly behind him. You're forgetting that the Apollo EVA helmet is convex

Like so :

Can we agree that the light is coming from his right?

Gavsto and AtomicDog ..... Why are you both focusing on shadows when what we are looking at are spotlights reflected in the visor that shouldn't be there, if these photos had really been taken on the moon ?

Are these perhaps diversion tactics being used by both of you to get away from the objects that are being reflected in the visor ?

Look at the bank of stage lights being reflected in the right side of the visor .... They are dim , but they can be clearly seen as well .

Then look at the black object at the bottom of the visor .... That is not the shadow of the astronaut being photographed ( as MID tried to claim ) but rather another anomaly which looks very much like the same shape of the other objects reflected in the other photos of this same photo shoot .... It looks like an un-lit foot light , right near subject's feet .

*edited to add .. Yes , the light is shining to his right . ... Does this answer your question about the shadow then ?

OK, so we agree the light is coming from his right. Straydog you are trying to claim that there are multiple spotlights on the picture, we are proving to you this is incorrect by analysis of the shadows. There are no diversionary tactics being used.

1) If the 'footlights' are visible in his helmet then the light from the 'footlights' is hitting him and should be casting multiple shadows, yet this isn't the case - do you care to explain why?

2) If you agree the light is coming from his right then can you explain two things for me? What is the back of the spotlighti spotlight lighting and what is lighting the back of the spotlight to make it visible if both lights are facing in opposite directions?

Because lights cause shadows. If there are lights, there must be shadows.

I thought I made this clear before ....

1) The foot lights are facing AWAY from the subject being photographed ... Therefore NO SHADOWS would be in the photo of him .... They are also POINTED UPWARDS , which answers AtomicDog's question as to why there are NO SHADOWS on the ground in the visor reflection .

2) The back of spotlight two is seen so clearly because the first spotlight , pointing to the right , front , facing the subject ( representing the sun ) has illuminated it enough to show it's reflection in the visor .... and spotlight two ( the one facing away from the subject ) is shining on the scene that is being reflected in the visor ( the astronaut taking the picture and the surrounding moon set behind him )

So if they are lights needed to illuminate the "stage",

Why aren't they in this photo?




Or this one?

If we go on your theory, the fact we can see them is fact that light from them is hitting the visor. The fact that we can see them is fact enough to prove that they are shining at the astronaut.



I'm sorry I can't visualise what you mean. You've said you know paint, so can you draw where these are and upload them

Do you mean draw where they are in the visor reflection or draw where they are on the moon set ? ... I have already circled and pointed to where they are in the visor reflection .

I have no idea where their exact location would be on the set , except for above and to the right of the subject , as you can clearly see from the reflected image.... Spotlight one , facing the subject ( representing the sun ) is obviously further away from spotlight two , which is much closer, judging by the size of it's reflection in the visor .... but I would have no way of knowing the precise distance or height they were positioned away from the subject .

Maybe you could draw a diagram of where the two spotlights are located, by looking at the photo .... Or do you not see them at all , like your friend MID ?

Do an overhead diagram like I did, that's all I want. I can't draw a diagram with two spotlights, because there isn't two spotlights. You've still failed to answer the question at why the light's shining at the astronaut (what you call footlights) are not creating a shadow (as can be seen on the video).

I already told you that I don't know how to draw a diagram ...Sorry ...

Forget the video .. It was obviously staged at a different time than the still photos were .

You seem to be confusing the different photos ... The spotlight reflection is photo # AS17-134-20837 and the one showing the foot light reflections is # AS17-134-20380.

Perhaps we should discuss one or the other as Aquatus suggested , so as not to confuse the issue anymore .

The foot lights would not cause any shadows on the ground , as they were facing away from the subject being photographed and were also pointed upwards ....

If any shadow is caused , it would be from the large spotlight that is creating the effect of the sun on the visor reflection , which is the first spotlight facing the subject being photographed .... So what looks like the sun in the right front part of the visor, is the FIRST SPOTLIGHT ... and the large reflected image in the visor is the BACK OF SPOTLIGHT NUMBER TWO , which is facing away from the astronaut being photographed ..

I can't make it any plainer than that and I have repeated this explanation several times now ... So I have no idea why you are having such a difficult time comprehending this simple concept .

It's this that aquatus was trying to stop. You've not provided any proof that it was faked, so please don't use it as a basis on a theory. Until you have proved that this video doesn't collate to the pictures then it's still viable evidence on our side.



If you want to discuss one image at a time, that's fine. But I will be coming back to all the images you posted after the discussion the first is complete.



This comment is seriously flawed. If the lights are pointed away from the astronauts and upwards, then how come we can see the lights. If they weren't shining towards the astronaut, we would not be able to see the light coming from them.





This is what I imagine your suggesting so can we confirm the following.

1) The 'footlights' must be pointed towards the astronaut otherwise the light from them would not be visible

2) You agree with the locations I presented in that diagram

I'm sorry but I can't make any sense out of your diagram or your explanation either ... but at least you admit to seeing the lights reflected in the visor , so that is a good start .

The lights are pointing upwards but can be seen clearly in the visor reflection .... so even though they are not pointed directly at the subject being photographed , they still are very visible .... The point I was making about them being pointed upwards was to explain why they were not causing any shadows on the ground ....

So what exactly is your point here ? ... If you admit to seeing the three light reflections in the visor , then you will have to admit that they can only be one thing ... FOOT LIGHTS ... and that is precisely the point .... It doesn't matter if there are shadows or not ... It doesn't matter which direction they are pointed in either ... because what matters is that they are THERE ... and if this photograph was really taken on the moon , they would NOT be there ....

So the entire point of this "debate" is to show that these light reflections are anomalies ... and if this picture had really been taken on the moon , they would not be there ..They are FOOT LIGHTS on a moon set .... Can you prove that they are not ?

Let's look at the photo again and then explain to me what you don't understand about these three foot light reflections in the visor ....



And saying that I haven't provided proof that the picture was faked on a moon set because I don't know how to draw the diagram you want , is totally incorrect ... The proof is the three light reflections in the visor . .... The only things on the moon were the LM the lunar buggy , the flag and the two astronauts .... and even if they had any other equipiment with them , I highly doubt it was three foot lights .

All

I'd like to present a comprehensive profile on why Straydog is wrong about the spotlight. Firstly if Straydog was right then the spotlight would only be in the same place in one picture, but as we can see:






This is perhaps the best picture compare against. You can clearly see that the smudges shown in this picture on the top left of the helmet are the same as whats on the picture claiming is a spotlight. These two images were taken hours apart and in different locations. I have compared both images below.



Further evidence that the salute was what caused the smudge, take a look at Gene's hands, they used to be white!!!! You can easily see how dirty the astronaut got, and why it would cause a smear on the front of his visor.



And finally, just to prove the dust went everywhere, this is a picture of the helmets at the end of the EVA.



I'd like to think this has disproven the spotlight theory once and for all.

As for the footlights



Is actually the sun reflecting off



Topped off with the fact the the 'footlights' which have light hitting the astronauts are not creating a shadow, I feel this has been answered as well.

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 .

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 ...

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

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

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 .

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 .

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.

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!

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?

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 ....

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.

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

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

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

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 !

Which is not visible why exactly?

An "overhead stagelight rack" that is less that 7 ft off the ground?

dude i want ome of what you are smoking ....


the mark IS oil from the hands or gloves of the astronaut... i have seen this literally thousands of times... oil of schmutz on the hands or glove leave a fingerprint which is smeared when the hand is taken away
or a streaky smudge like this when the fingertips or gloves are used to push open or closed the visor...

Seeing how reflecting something in a convex mirror makes it look a lot smaller, that spotlight is either enormous or placed very close to the helmet. So close that it should be visible in the full frame of the photo. Where is it?

This thread has now reached a point where you are not providing answers to extremely relevant questions, I'm going to drop Aquatus a line and see what he can do.

I just want to interject something here. Remember all people don't *see*the same things, we tend to interpret the things we see. Seeing all sorts of things in all sorts of other things is called pareidolia. Here's a site with lots of photos illustrating this phenomenon.

To one person the mark on the visor is just any oily smear, to those who hold strong beliefs it's something else entirely.