Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Snozzberry

Unexplained reflection in astronauts visor

93 posts in this topic

post-48625-1168765367_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That fixed it thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

linked-image

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...

linked-image

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! :cry:

...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!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

linked-image.

High resolution version:

linked-image

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
relabeled images - they appeared sisde by side in the draft version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

linked-image.

High resolution version:

linked-image

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that claim is also discussed here:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to say top and bottom.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why? do you not know the difference between cropped and high resolution pictures? :td:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smudge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sites owners and moderators decide what can and can't be posted here not the country you live in. They can even ban you just because they don't like you.

The only shadows I see are those of the astronauts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Actually in your original post you didn't say anything at all, which is not a good way to start a discussion. However it was your choice to us the word "proof" in the title. Proof requires facts not opinion so you were making a claim of fact. Some definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary to help you understand the concept of proof:

proof - n. evidence proving that something is true.

evidence - n. information indicating whether something is true or valid.

information - n. facts or knowledge provided or learned.

After ripping me for stating my opinions,

I did not rip you apart. I demonstrated that your evidence was flawed. Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum The only personal attack made so far in this thread has been by you against Redtail and that was because you didn't check the facts.

it is a free country by the way,

Good for you, so is mine. However here you are governed by the forum rules. Those rules include this one:

6. No flaming, flame baiting, mocking, verbal abuse or trolling

Members who derail topics with flaming, trolling, deliberate misquoting or the instigation of 'flame wars' will be removed from the forum. We ask that members stay open minded about opposing viewpoints. Don't ask for other people's opinions on something if the only opinion that matters to you is your own. Similarly, avoid being offensive towards other members that you disagree with; attack the viewpoint being presented, not the person who holds that view. Claiming that you 'know' you are right about something and that everyone who disagrees with you is 'ignorant' achieves nothing and is a close minded mentality that we strongly discourage in threads

I am not accusing you of "flaming, flame baiting, mocking, verbal abuse or trolling" but I would draw your attention to the sentence I have highlighted, "Don't ask for other people's opinions on something if the only opinion that matters to you is your own." In other words you are free to express your opinions but others are free to challenge them.

you go on to state that it is your opinion that it is a smudge.

No, I went on to state that it my opinion it wasn't a smudge. And yes I was differentiating between opinion and fact, something you failed to do.

And yes there is still what appears to possibly be a shadow even in your high quality pic.

Where?

I have taken an even tighter crop of the area you are claiming contains a shadow. I have enlarged it and slightly sharpened the image:

linked-image

So where is this shadow. I see an astronaut, but if the darker area in that picture is a shadow then it has formed in mid-air and shadows can't do that. (Yes I know there is no air on the moon, it's a figure of speech).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further evidence in favour of the "smudge camp" can be found here and http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg. These are two consecutive images, as12-48-7133 and 7134. You can see the same artefact on the visor, same size, same shape, same position. Highly unlikely for it to be a reflection in that case.

Maximise both images I've linked to, and centralise the helmet on the screen. Slowly swap from one to the other and back again. You can see for yourself that the artefact stays in the same position, doesn't change size or shape. Compare this with the row of dots near the upper rim of the helmet - they DO move slightly between images. Either they are a reflection of an object, or it's specular reflection off scracthes on the helmet. Re-visiting this image, I'm not certain at the moment what is causing this. (EDIT - possibly some other optical effect).

Incidentally, can someone show me where the alleged shadow cast by the artefact is in the initial image under discussion?

Cheers

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sites owners and moderators decide what can and can't be posted here not the country you live in. They can even ban you just because they don't like you.

Actually we moderators also have to follow rules. These include when we can and can't suspend someone. To be suspended (or banned which only the site administrator can do) someone has to break the rules.

Anyway, back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's talking about that dark spot on the chest of whoever that is. It would take some odd lighting to get those results for the shadows. I don't even think it's possible. The astronauts shadows are going slightly up an to the left but that dark spot would be sharply down and to the left from the smudge or whatever.

To be suspended (or banned which only the site administrator can do) someone has to break the rules.
Not if the admins are pretty liberal with the rules. Edited by Ashigaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he's talking about that dark spot on the chest of whoever that is. It would take some odd lighting to get those results for the shadows. I don't even think it's possible. The astronauts shadows are going slightly up an to the left but that dark spot would be sharply down and to the left from the smudge or whatever.

I see it now, but can't fathom how it could be a shadow cast by the artefact - some strange geometry would be involved. Especially when you look at where the main light source is reflecting on the helmet. A far more satisfactory explanation is MID's - it's just the shadow where the astronauts arm would be when he was operating the camera.

EDIT - typo change "can" to "can't" - sentence makes sense now! And change Waspie to MID.

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not if the admins are pretty liberal with the rules.

We can't be that strict, one of the rules is:

13. Please respect the decisions of the moderators

Topics and posts questioning or criticising a moderator's decision will be removed, these decisions are not up for public debate. If you wish to appeal a decision then you have the right to contact a moderator or administrator about any action that has been taken on your account. Attempts to circumvent a restriction imposed on your account by registering another account will be met with further action taken against both accounts.

and yet your posts are still here.

Now for a second time (and this is a moderators decision) let's get back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It kinda looks like he is holding something dark in his right arm. Because the "shadow" does indeed cast on some of his body as well.

I was just looking at the sun in both pics (Al & Pete), it seems like the shadows don't even match up correctly. I got confused trying to explain what I mean. I think the mirrored images might be playing a trick on my eyes.

MC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the refernces to the Oxford dictionary. Although I did already know that proof requires facts. But you see where you messed up is how I said MAY BE proof of a hoax, and here is the definition of may according to the Oxford dictionary......May- modal verb (3rd sing. present may; past might) 1 expressing possibility. Possibility of course meaning not certain, or not for a fact. It may be proof of a hoax, now if I had typed "is proof of a hoax" you might actually have a case here. Amazing how two little words can change the entire meaning of a sentence. You see a smudge, I see the possibility of an object being reflected. And please tell me, if the dark area in the photo is not a shadow, than what is it?? You have given no explanation as to what it could be or what caused it. So basically what you are saying is, you don't know what it is, but its definitely not a shadow. And the object, in your opinion, could be a smudge. Even though it does not appear on the visor in any pictures taken afterward.

Edited by Snozzberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the refernces to the Oxford dictionary. Although I did already know that proof requires facts. But you see where you messed up is how I said MAY BE proof of a hoax, and here is the definition of may according to the Oxford dictionary......May- modal verb (3rd sing. present may; past might) 1 expressing possibility.

Hence the meaning of your sentence being "possible proof" how does that change anything? If you are putting this picture forward as possible proof you are, by definition, presenting it as evidence.

And please tell me, if the dark area in the photo is not a shadow, than what is it?? You have given no explanation as to what it could be or what caused it. So basically what you are saying is, you don't know what it is, but its definitely not a shadow. And the object, in your opinion, could be a smudge. Even though it does not appear on the visor in any pictures taken afterward.
I do not need to prove what the dark patch is. This is your hypothesis and so the burden of proof is on you. I, on the other hand only have to demonstrate that it isn't what you say it is for your hypothesis to fail, that is the way these things work.

Even though it does not appear on the visor in any pictures taken afterward.
This is simply wrong as postbaguk has already shown (read his post above). In at least two later photographs there is a mark on the visor in exactly the same place as your artefact, despite the photographs being taken from a different angle. This rules out the artefact being a reflection as for it to remain the same shape and in the same position on the visor when viewed from a different angle it must actually be on the visor. If it is on the visor it can't be casting a shadow and so there is no need for me to explain what the dark object is.

Here is a crop of one of those images, AS12-48-7134, showing the mark (circled in red) which you claim does not exist on any other photograph.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.