Aldrins boot and other boo boo's (Apollo fakery)
Nathan Jones
photography that there is one large and glaring highlight to be seen on
the heel of his boot as he desends the ladder towards the ground. He is in
the shaded side of the LM and the only lighting source for this is
sunlight returned from the ground. There is no way on Gods Earth (or Moon)
that a hotspot type of reflection will be caused in such conditions. It
just had to have been point source lighting aimed up at Aldrin.
The astronots claimed they never did take any lighting with them to the
Moon so where did all that extra light come from? Close inspection reveals
that neither of Aldrins feet/boots are on any rungs as he descends the
ladder. He is thus falling downwards as the shot is taken. Capturing such
a scene nessecitates a reasonably fast shutter. At those speeds and under
the natural light conditions of the Moon and in the dark and shady side of
the LM the picture would have been grossly underexposed having used 160
speed film and yet we are subjected to an excellent studio quality peice of
photographic work! Remember that the surface of the Moon is a brown color
with a reflectance of only seven percent (NASA information). There are many
photographic shots where the shady side of large boulders are totally black
(as they should be) but the shady side of the LM was lit up like a christmas
tree. For a consistantly lit environment such as I would expect to find on
the Moon the photography was stunningly inconsistant, amateurish even.
That's not all, there are even instances where shadows are not parallel (they
should be) and that is in "close up" photography too so that lame excuse about
it being due to an effect of perspective does not apply. They even gave one
of the astronots matchstick legs (in shadow) when in reality they would have
been very wide and stubby due to the bulkiness of the suits they wore. There
are many "errors" in the NASA photography and anyone caring to give them some
independant thought will be laughing themselves off their chair at just how
absurd the photography really is.
For more excellent information concerning anomalous imagery in the Apollo
record the reader may visit www.aulis.com and for a brief roundup of many
of the troublesome questions that often get asked about Apollo you are invited
to download and print The Apollo Hoax FAQ which is posted to sci.astro and
alt.astronomy occasionally.
Yours sincerely
Nathan Jones.
Bobsprit
Let it die, dude and find a girl.
Capt RB
Wally Anglesea™
<natha...@physicist.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Natahn is an idiot infesting various astro groups. He's incapable of
thinking critically or being educated. Let's hope he never breeds.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
David Fields
www.fitpix.com I am the photographer and use reflectors (natural and
man-made) to achieve the effect I hope for. Take a long look, maybe this
will occupy at least one of your hands long enough to not bombard us with
your dribble.
David E Fields
David Fields
can see the darkroom person burning the dark side of suits, etc Also in the
"hot spot" picture of the astronaut coming down the lader, if their was
another source of light I would expect to see shadows on the LM ABOVE and to
the left of him as he descends, a light bright enought to illuminate and
create that hot spot they claim was caused by artificial light would be
bright enough to shadow the LM.......
"David Fields" <fit...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3Jeqb.34985$3N5....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
Starlord
Any FOOL who doesn't belive Man went to and landed on the Moon, should be taken
to the northpole, dropped off and let them walk back.
--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."
Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars
SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com
"Nathan Jones" <natha...@physicist.com> wrote in message
news:304efff7bca4d9b7...@remailer.frell.eu.org...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 11/1/03
Jay Windley
| My silliness aside, have these guys ever heard of "dodging and
| burning"?
Most conspiracists are completely unaware of most elements of the
photographic process.
I'm not sure there was any detailed dodging and burning going on, but I feel
that the print might have been pushed. Keep in mind that most conspiracists
don't work from transparencies or prints; they work from JPEGs they download
from the Internet. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, they consider a
JPEG downloaded from NASA to be an "official" copy of the photograph.
The digital images used by many conspiracists are scans of hardcopy prints
made for public relations or other purposes. It is quite common for these
to be pushed in development to correct for exposure problems. Scans of the
transparencies -- the dupe masters, actually -- can also be obtained, but
they are heavily processed in digital form. The transparencies for the
Aldrin egress photos seem to me to be darker than the prints. This is why I
propose that the prints have been pushed.
The short version of all of this is that not only are the conspiracists
utterly unaware of the quantitative nature of their argument, they are also
utterly unaware of the factors that affect the evidence they have in hand.
Even if we grant for the sake of argument that the JPEGs seem brighter than
they should, the conspiracists are unwilling to consider any argument other
than the alleged certainty of supplementary light.
| if their was another source of light I would expect to see shadows
| on the LM ABOVE and to the left of him as he descends...
This is the telltale error in their reasoning. If you follow David Groves'
computations all the way through, he claims an astounding degree of accuracy
in his results that place a light source just to the right of the
photographer. David Percy made the mistake of telling me in private that
the measurements were done on a contact copy of the 70mm transparency. If
we backtrack the computations we see that the location of the hotspot on the
boot is being located -- on the boot -- to a precision of about 0.02 inch,
and on the transparency to a precision on the order of 0.001 inch.
Unfortunately the feature in question is itself larger than this claimed
precision, and considering that these researchers worked with a photocopy of
an Apollo boot (not an actual book) you begin to see the conspiracy of
hidden assumptions.
If you put more reasonable limits on the precision, you get boundaries on
the light source location that include Armstrong, and boundaries on the
light source size that include an astronaut's space suit size.
The hot spot appears in more than one Aldrin egress photo. We have to
conclude it's a legitimate optical phenomenon in the scene. Keep in mind
that Aldrin's boots still had mold lubricant on them at this point, making
them more susceptible to specularity. And keep in mind the likelihood that
this print was pushed. But the lack of shadows in what, by any account, is
a highly complex scene is answerable only by significant post-processing, or
by a large area light source.
The conspiracists ignore the shadow data point and postulate a small point
light source. They have to do this so that the computations make sense.
They inflate the precision of the estimate so that it conveys the illusion
of rigor. But that comes at the expense of being able to postulate a large
light source, such as a diffused lamp or a reflector. Most readers won't
think to look for telltale near-phase shadows, as you've described, and so
the explanation seems solid.
But if you allow for the space suit to be the light source, by reflection,
then you not only get a position for the light source that's more consistent
with the size, shape, and position of the hot spot, you have an explanation
for the lack of well-defined near-phase shadows.
This is exactly parsimony at work. The Aulis theory fails to account for
all the data, makes exaggerated claims of precision, and at the same time
opens up many loose ends. Aulis presumes to close those loose ends with the
conspiracy conjecture, but you can't fix holes with conjecture. The space
suit theory fully accounts for all the data and leaves no loose ends.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Wally Anglesea™
I'm always amazed that these moon conspiracy-nuts seem to be utterly
clueless when it comes to actual photographic principles.
I doubt any of them could actually use a decent camera.
Jay Windley
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spigpondammersareparasites.net.au> wrote in
message news:dj2jqvgevuonajd1f...@4ax.com...
|
| I'm always amazed that these moon conspiracy-nuts seem to be
| utterly clueless when it comes to actual photographic principles.
It's especially sad when some of them claim to be photographers, and then
from that pedestal spew complete rubbish. It's also said when those who
claim photographic expertise then go on to assert that this, and this alone,
gives them expertise in photographic analysis and interpretation.
Photogrammetry, for example, is a *science*. It has formalisms and a basis
of non-intuitive knowledge. It applies to many of these arguments, yet the
proponents of the hoax theories are almost universally unaware of any of it.
There is one level of ignorance that derives from not being conversant and
competent in the sciences that apply to one's argument. There is a further
level of ignorance that derives from not knowing of the *existence* of
sciences that apply to one's argument.
Nathan Jones
Hash: SHA1
>Nathan, I believe you will find fascinating heavenly bodies at this site:
>www.fitpix.com I am the photographer and use reflectors (natural and
>man-made) to achieve the effect I hope for. Take a long look, maybe this
>will occupy at least one of your hands long enough to not bombard us with
>your dribble.
>David E Fields
1)No thanks I'm not interested in you or your pervie scheme.
2)Watchout Fields, I'll wager you broke some law with your suggestion.
3)I don't write dribble.
NJ
Original message:
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 <time deleted>
From: "David Fields" <fit...@columbus.rr.com>
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <3Jeqb.34985$3N5....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:20:47 EST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.210.224.70
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
References: <304efff7bca4d9b7...@remailer.frell.eu.org>
Subject: Re: Aldrins boot and other boo boo's (Apollo fakery)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@rr.com
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Priority: 3
X-Trace: fe3.columbus.rr.com 1068070847 204.210.224.70
(Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:20:47 EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Nathan, I believe you will find fascinating heavenly bodies at this site:
www.fitpix.com I am the photographer and use reflectors (natural and
man-made) to achieve the effect I hope for. Take a long look, maybe this
will occupy at least one of your hands long enough to not bombard us with
your dribble.
David E Fields
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/qYb6RWOn50Sx7XgRAjVMAJ9fhgxwqBX2WH3nTLAHyCG3paIHwQCeMSzu
nmAgE1YesA69HvypY+36Of0=
=JJws
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fred Garvin
> During Aldrins alleged outing to the Moon it may be observed from the
> photography that there is one large and glaring highlight to be seen on
> the heel of his boot as he desends the ladder towards the ground.
(lots of nonsense snipped)
(Sarcasm mode on)
I'd like to thank the parents and teachers of the world for doing such a
great job with the children.
(Sarcasm mode off)
Remember folks,
Nathan is a member of:
Association of Stupid Shitheads Heretofore And Thrombosis (ASSHAT)
dave conz
wrote:
>1)No thanks I'm not interested in you or your pervie scheme.
>2)Watchout Fields, I'll wager you broke some law with your suggestion.
>3)I don't write dribble.
Nice rebuttal. Of course it doesn't address a single issue regarding
the moon-sized holes in your "theory".
Like others in this thread, I'm amazed at the audacity of these
conspiracy theorists who claim to be photographic experts. The one
that irks me the most is that stupid documentary in which some guy
points out the missing stars. Now I can understand a conspiracy
theorist being too ignorant to understand the situation, but the
camera operator who shot the interviewer could not possibly have
fallen for this rubbish. Likewise, the editors, producers etc must all
have known that they were producing misleading information.
So it's not just ignorance, it's deliberate deception for the sake of
making a buck or getting your 15 minutes in the limelight.
Jay Windley
"dave conz" <n...@valid.addy> wrote in message
news:2i8jqvgvu0vuihst6...@4ax.com...
|
| So it's not just ignorance, it's deliberate deception for the
| sake of making a buck or getting your 15 minutes in the limelight.
Congratulations. You've discovered the *real* hoax.
I'm reminded of the scientist who was hired to scientifically verify Bart
Sibrel's video at the request of the people who funded it. The scientist
reported that the video was full of glaring holes and was considerably
scientifically unsound. The backers released it anyway.
Martin Lewicki
> My silliness aside, have these guys ever heard of "dodging and
> burning"? I can see the darkroom person burning the dark side of
> suits, etc Also in the "hot spot" picture of the astronaut coming down
> the lader, if their was another source of light I would expect to see
> shadows on the LM ABOVE and to the left of him as he descends, a light
> bright enought to illuminate and create that hot spot they claim was
> caused by artificial light would be bright enough to shadow the
> LM.......
Just had a look at the picture in question. I reckon the light source for
the hot-spot is Armstrong's bright white space suit as he stood in sunlight
to take the photo. To test this I took a white sheet of card about 1.0x1.5m
meter square out in the sun and was amazed to see how much light was
reflected into the the shadows under the veranda - and - also creating hot
spots on specular flower pots!
Martin Lewicki
Jay Windley
"Martin Lewicki" <mlew...@ozemaildotcom.ayoo> wrote in message
news:Xns942B7E8B2...@203.2.194.51...
|
| To test this I took a white sheet of card about 1.0x1.5m
| meter square out in the sun and was amazed to see how much light was
| reflected into the the shadows under the veranda
In fact, white is so strong a reflector that photographers don't always use
it. It's frequently *too* strong for fill, if sunlight is the key light.
That's where we get the 18% gray cards and so forth. I've even used my hand
as reflector when photographing, and you'll see me in the upcoming
television program demonstrating this on-camera under lunar-like lighting
conditions.
| ...also creating hot spots on specular flower pots!
I am also able to do this. Why do you supposed neither David Percy nor
Nathan Jones has performed this experiment?
David Fields
> In fact, white is so strong a reflector that photographers don't always
use
> it. It's frequently *too* strong for fill, if sunlight is the key light.
> That's where we get the 18% gray cards and so forth. I've even used my
hand
> as reflector when photographing, and you'll see me in the upcoming
> television program demonstrating this on-camera under lunar-like lighting
> conditions.
>
worked manually with a camera you may know another source of "18% grey "
here on earth....the grass, yes it isn't grey but it has the same
reflectivity as the grey card and often is used by photographers when
dealing with very light or very dark subjects in determining the proper
exposure.
Why do I bring this up? Simple, these so called experts talk about how dark
the moon is. In reality the moon is only one and a half stops darker than
grass. Using the sunny F16 rule which states at f16 your shutter speed is
1/filmspeed. I think the 'Blad shutter goes in full stops only so the proper
sunny exposure would be 1/250th at f13 (half stop between f11 and f16). Now
if I were to go out side and shoot my son climbing down the ladder on the
shadow side of my house, I would probably need to open up and shoot at
1/250th at f5.6 (opened up 2.5 f stops). Now to make the 1.5 f stop
compensation do to the less reflective surface of the moon that puts me at
1/125th at f4.5. In the moons lower gravity I believe that would still be
plenty fast enough to stop his descent on film.
David
PS Quick run down of "stops" in photography .....
Aperature 1,1.4,2.0,2.8,4.0,5.6,11,16,32,64 as the number gets larger the
lens allows less light. Half as much less as the previous fstop.
Shutterspeeds 1sec, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500th
etc etc each stop faster allows half as much light as before
same with filmspeeds 32,64,100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 with the 160 used by
NASA being 1 and 2/3rds stops faster than 100
Martin Lewicki
news:boca1o$bvo$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com:
>
> "Martin Lewicki" <mlew...@ozemaildotcom.ayoo> wrote in message
> news:Xns942B7E8B2...@203.2.194.51...
>|
>| To test this I took a white sheet of card about 1.0x1.5m
>| meter square out in the sun and was amazed to see how much light was
>| reflected into the the shadows under the veranda
>
> In fact, white is so strong a reflector that photographers don't
> always use it. It's frequently *too* strong for fill, if sunlight is
> the key light. That's where we get the 18% gray cards and so forth.
> I've even used my hand as reflector when photographing, and you'll see
> me in the upcoming television program demonstrating this on-camera
> under lunar-like lighting conditions.
>
>| ...also creating hot spots on specular flower pots!
>
> I am also able to do this. Why do you supposed neither David Percy
> nor Nathan Jones has performed this experiment?
>
They lack that kind of objective curiosity that makes scientific discovery
possible.
Martin
Stuart Chapman
"Nathan Jones" <natha...@physicist.com> wrote in message
news:304efff7bca4d9b7...@remailer.frell.eu.org...
snip
> Yours sincerely
> Nathan Jones.
>
>
Trolls may be identified by their lack of paragraph breaks.
Also, crossposting and lack of replies to threads started.
BTW what would it take this guy to think that the Apollo land <were not>
faked
Stupot
Wally Anglesea™
If we put him on a spacecraft, flew him to Tranquility Base and rubbed
his nose in the footprints, he'd say "Oh, sure, but you only put it
there yesterday".
These people perform mental acrobatics to keep their favorites notion
alive.
W K
"Nathan Jones" <natha...@physicist.com> wrote in message
news:304efff7bca4d9b7...@remailer.frell.eu.org...
> photography that there is one large and glaring highlight to be seen on
> the heel of his boot as he desends the ladder towards the ground. He is in
> the shaded side of the LM and the only lighting source for this is
> sunlight returned from the ground.
You didn't show the picture.
http://www.aulis.com/article2.htm
The point light source could easily be the person taking the picture?
If they were standing out of the shadow the light reflected off their white
space suit would have been enough to illuminate the picture in precisely the
way seen. (OK, they rekon 2 degrees to the right, but that could easily be
5-10 degrees out)
Tom Randy
>> In fact, white is so strong a reflector that photographers don't always
> use
>> it. It's frequently *too* strong for fill, if sunlight is the key
>> light. That's where we get the 18% gray cards and so forth. I've even
>> used my
> hand
>> as reflector when photographing, and you'll see me in the upcoming
>> television program demonstrating this on-camera under lunar-like
>> lighting conditions.
>>
> Jay I am very glad you brought this up....18% grey. For those who have
> ever worked manually with a camera you may know another source of "18%
> grey " here on earth....the grass, yes it isn't grey but it has the same
> reflectivity as the grey card and often is used by photographers when
> dealing with very light or very dark subjects in determining the proper
> exposure.
The palm of your hand is another 18% grey source as well. It's always
with you where as grass isn't always...
Tom Randy
> If we put him on a spacecraft, flew him to Tranquility Base and rubbed
> his nose in the footprints, he'd say "Oh, sure, but you only put it there
> yesterday".
>
> These people perform mental acrobatics to keep their favorites notion
> alive.
No,no,no, you're giving them far too much credit.
David Fields
>
>
> 1)No thanks I'm not interested in you or your pervie scheme.
> 2)Watchout Fields, I'll wager you broke some law with your suggestion.
> 3)I don't write dribble.
>
near as entertaining as this guy, first he tries to rewrite the laws of
physics, now he is just rewriting laws!
When you understand ANYTHING about photography you may speak to me, in
the mean time just keep cutting and pasting the crap you find to reinforce
your sad life, what happened did you try very very hard to be an astrnaut
and not make it? Did that trying very hard include any work? I doubt it pal,
heck half the time I don't know my butt from a Schmidt-Cassegrain but I do
know photography and you don't.
Jay Windley
"W K" <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:bod7if$4ha$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
|
|
| The point light source could easily be the person taking the picture?
...and almost certainly is. Most people are unaware of how bright a space
suit is in the sun.
They inflate the precision of their estimate to appear to eliminate the
astronaut himself as a source. It conveys an illusion of rigor to the lay
reader.
They conveniently forget to explain why the point light source they say was
used manages not to cast any shadows. This is why they don't attempt to
recreate the scene in a studio; it won't work.
Ron Miller
"Nathan Jones" <natha...@physicist.com> wrote in message
news:304efff7bca4d9b7...@remailer.frell.eu.org...
> photography that there is one large and glaring highlight to be seen on
> the heel of his boot as he desends the ladder towards the ground. He is in
> the shaded side of the LM and the only lighting source for this is
> sunlight returned from the ground. There is no way on Gods Earth (or Moon)
> that a hotspot type of reflection will be caused in such conditions.
What is your authority for this assertion?
>It just had to have been point source lighting aimed up at Aldrin.
Why?
> The astronots claimed they never did take any lighting with them to the
> Moon so where did all that extra light come from? Close inspection reveals
> that neither of Aldrins feet/boots are on any rungs as he descends the
> ladder. He is thus falling downwards as the shot is taken. Capturing such
> a scene nessecitates a reasonably fast shutter. At those speeds and under
> the natural light conditions of the Moon and in the dark and shady side of
> the LM the picture would have been grossly underexposed having used 160
> speed film and yet we are subjected to an excellent studio quality peice
of
> photographic work! Remember that the surface of the Moon is a brown color
> with a reflectance of only seven percent (NASA information). There are
many
> photographic shots where the shady side of large boulders are totally
black
> (as they should be)
Why should that be?
but the shady side of the LM was lit up like a christmas
> tree. For a consistantly lit environment such as I would expect to find on
> the Moon the photography was stunningly inconsistant, amateurish even.
Again, that is just an unsupported assertion on your part.
> That's not all, there are even instances where shadows are not parallel
(they
> should be)
That's one of the oldest and hokiest "arguments" the anti-Apollo nuts trot
out, and it is quoted endlessly by clones such as yourself who have never
stopped to actually think on your own. Shadows are very rarely parallel. In
fact, I can go outside right now and take a photo of two stakes in the
ground and have their shadows either converge or diverge as I please---with
an ordinary camera and no trickery. In fact, I have done this very thing in
order to demonstrate how utterly false the old "shadows should be parallel"
nonsense is.
and that is in "close up" photography too so that lame excuse about
> it being due to an effect of perspective does not apply.
It makes no difference. And before you start foaming at the mouth, I have
over thirty years' experience in dealing with light, shadow and perspective,
especially regarding space environments. And I've conducted actual
experiments replicating many of the light and shadow effects seen in the
Apollo photos. What have you done?
They even gave one
> of the astronots matchstick legs (in shadow) when in reality they would
have
> been very wide and stubby due to the bulkiness of the suits they wore.
There
> are many "errors" in the NASA photography and anyone caring to give them
some
> independant thought will be laughing themselves off their chair at just
how
> absurd the photography really is.
Independent thought? What would you know about that? All you've done is to
quote the same old arguments that have been rebutted over and over again.
RM
Ron Miller
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> >Nathan, I believe you will find fascinating heavenly bodies at this site:
> >www.fitpix.com I am the photographer and use reflectors (natural and
> >man-made) to achieve the effect I hope for. Take a long look, maybe this
> >will occupy at least one of your hands long enough to not bombard us with
> >your dribble.
> >David E Fields
>
>
Ah, but that you should only take your own advice!
RM
Ron Miller
of making. Good for you.
RM
"Martin Lewicki" <mlew...@ozemaildotcom.ayoo> wrote in message
news:Xns942B7E8B2...@203.2.194.51...
Nathan Jones
>> 1)No thanks I'm not interested in you or your pervie scheme. 2)Watchout
>> write dribble.
>>
>LMAO, I am so glad I found this NG! The trolls in other ng's are no where
>near as entertaining as this guy,
You obviously haven't much usenet experience. You should stick
to those pervie web boards/chatrooms or wherever it is you ply your trade.
>first he tries to rewrite the laws of
>physics,
Rubbish. you wouldn't know what physics is if it smacked you on your
grubby little nose.
>now he is just rewriting laws!
You want to test that Fields? Be my guest.
> When you understand ANYTHING about photography you may speak to me,
Speak to you? You have got to be crazy. I'm telling you how it is boy.
>in
>the mean time just keep cutting and pasting the crap you find to reinforce
>your sad life,
My sad life? Just what sort of a person wrote that filth you wrote
yesterday huh? You are more stupid than I had imagined.
>what happened did you try very very hard to be an astrnaut
>and not make it? Did that trying very hard include any work?
You are an utter moron Fields.
>I doubt it
>pal,
Pal? I'm not friends with the likes of you! You need to be put down.
>heck half the time I don't know my butt from a Schmidt-Cassegrain but
>I do know photography and you don't.
What you think is of little value. Can you get that thought into
your tiny mind Fields?
David Fields
>
> >now he is just rewriting laws!
>
> You want to test that Fields? Be my guest.
What law was broken? None.
>
> > When you understand ANYTHING about photography you may speak to me,
>
> Speak to you? You have got to be crazy. I'm telling you how it is boy.
Exactly, and it is easily debunked by anyone who understands that althought
the moon may "only" reflect 7% of the light, a yard of grass only reflects
18% of the light. That is ONLY 1 and a half stops difference! Next time you
go outside (we will wait , it may be a few months) go to the dark side of a
building, were you blind? Nope. In fact you can photograph in the shade
quite easily, during the day easily getting exposures of 1/125 at f8. So in
your "dark moon" an exposure of 1/125th at f4.5 would be the same. Fast
enough to stop the action of an astronaut descending a ladder in the moon's
gravity.
> >what happened did you try very very hard to be an astrnaut
> >and not make it? Did that trying very hard include any work?
>
> You are an utter moron Fields.
OOPS! I have hit a nerve here, sorry if Space-camp never replied to your
crayon scribbles. Didn't mean to bring those painful memories up.
> Pal? I'm not friends with the likes of you! You need to be put down.
You need friends, especially the type who know when its their turn to drive
you home.
> What you think is of little value. Can you get that thought into
> your tiny mind Fields?
Nope, I am new here and I love your posts, I even like replying to them even
more. Keeps me entertained. Keeps me coming back. Thanks Nathan, *sniff
sniff* you gave my life new meaning!
dave conz
wrote:
>David Field wrote:
[lots of personal insults and other irrelevant rubbish]
Again, you fail to address the enormous holes in your argument and
prefer to get personal (the first defence of someone with no tenable
argument).
Face it, your conspiracy theory simply doesn't hold water. There are
clearly a number of photographic experts here who can scientifically
demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.
---------------------------
http://www.mediacollege.com
Electronic Media Tutorials & Resources
Wally Anglesea™
>On 6 Nov 2003 19:05:11 -0000, Nathan Jones <natha...@physics.com>
>wrote:
>
>>David Field wrote:
>[lots of personal insults and other irrelevant rubbish]
>
>Again, you fail to address the enormous holes in your argument and
>prefer to get personal (the first defence of someone with no tenable
>argument).
>
>Face it, your conspiracy theory simply doesn't hold water. There are
>clearly a number of photographic experts here who can scientifically
>demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.
>---------------------------
One woders why Nathan doesn't go to one of the photography discussion
groups. The answer is obvious.
>http://www.mediacollege.com
>Electronic Media Tutorials & Resources
--
Ron Miller
"Nathan Jones" <natha...@physics.com> wrote in message
snip snip snip
We should really get you back onto track. You've not responded to any of the
serious critiques of your claims. Would you care to? Or can you?
RM
CL Vancil
--Chris Vancil
Jay Windley
"David Fields" <fit...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tSxqb.36477$3N5....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
|
| quite easily, during the day easily getting exposures of 1/125 at f8. So
in
| your "dark moon" an exposure of 1/125th at f4.5 would be the same. Fast
| enough to stop the action of an astronaut descending a ladder in the
moon's
| gravity.
I'm obliged to point out that Armstrong's shutter speed setting of 1/60
second for the egress photos is a matter of record, not a matter of
reconstruction or guesswork. Armstrong may, of course, have remembered
incorrectly, but that is the setting he said he used.
David Fields
D
"Jay Windley" <webm...@clavius.org> wrote in message
news:boetjb$3js$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
Ralph Hertle
[ TEXT OMITTED ]
>
> For more excellent information concerning anomalous imagery in the Apollo
> record the reader may visit www.aulis.com and for a brief roundup of many
> of the troublesome questions that often get asked about Apollo you are invited
> to download and print The Apollo Hoax FAQ which is posted to sci.astro and
> alt.astronomy occasionally.
The image of the boot print on the Lunar surface that was published on
the stamps issued be the U.S. Post Office was in fact a hoax.
I don't want to be called a Catholic Platonist Inquisitionist
Disseminator for telling the story, however, the image was truly a fake.
The image was a photograph, I understand, that was made from a staged
setting by New York City designer, Lance Wyman, specially for the
artwork for the U.S. stamp that he designed. You'd have to speak to him
directly for the entire story. Apparently, no photograph was available
from NASA at the time, and Lance created a faked image using some type
of plaster to represent the dusty Lunar material and a fake boot.
One can't really call that an example of image degradation.
However, the stamp looked great, and it properly celebrated the
marvelous historic adventure of landing on the Moon and returning to Earth.
Ralph Hertle
W K
"Ron Miller" <rmi...@crosslink.com> wrote in message
news:3faad10c$0$40...@dingus.crosslink.net...
It seems interesting that his FAQ has taken on many reasonable points.
Perhaps he could add this one:
If Armstrong was not in the shade of the lander then "Aldrins boot" is very
easy to explain.
Jay Windley
|
| If Armstrong was not in the shade of the lander then "Aldrins boot" is
very
| easy to explain.
The "if" is not in question. The lens flares prove that the camera lens was
in full sun. And on the television footage you can see Armstrong move into
sunlight to take the egress photos.
Armstrong *was* in full sun, and the Aulis authors have deliberately
manipulated their calculations to attempt to eliminate this as the cause for
the hot spot.
BenignVanilla
Quick! Someone make a refernce to Hitler so we can consider this thread
dead...again.
--
BV.
WebPorgmaster
www.IHeartMyPond.com
Help Support IHMP by shopping at Amazon.com thru our associates link,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/dcg8118-20.
Odysseus
>
> Quick! Someone make a refernce to Hitler so we can consider this thread
> dead...again.
>
--
Odysseus
J W
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>>Nathan, I believe you will find fascinating heavenly bodies at this
>>site: www.fitpix.com I am the photographer and use reflectors (natural
>>and man-made) to achieve the effect I hope for. Take a long look,
>>maybe this will occupy at least one of your hands long enough to not
>>bombard us with your dribble.
>>David E Fields
>
>
> 1)No thanks I'm not interested in you or your pervie scheme.
> 2)Watchout Fields, I'll wager you broke some law with your suggestion.
> 3)I don't write dribble.
Whaddaya know. It was stupid in November '03...it's stupid today, too.
Some things endure all too well :/
--
J W
*sig has expired. Go to alt.hacker and ask for a crack for it.*