Moon Landing

verycool

JJJJNR wrote: »

I answered it already. This is clearly a stage setup and the shadow was a poor attempt at a shadow of a space suit, using very old software. There are straight lines in the shadows similar to using a low grade editor like mspaint which back then when it was originally published would have been cutting edge.

It's so fake it's funny.

Again... prove it without opinion, with backed up research of this "very old software".

Edgarfrndly

JJJJNR wrote: »

I answered it already. This is clearly a stage setup and the shadow was a poor attempt at a shadow of a space suit, using very old software. There are straight lines in the shadows similar to using a low grade editor like mspaint which back then when it was originally published would have been cutting edge.

It's so fake it's funny.

What straight lines?



Please don't make the claim that anything is "clearly" a stage setup. Nobody in this thread agrees with your findings.

What I see as an objective viewer, with no intent of "trying" to see a certain image is the skewed reflection in a visor of another astronaut in a spacesuit.

Tzardine

JJJJNR wrote: »

I answered it already. This is clearly a stage setup and the shadow was a poor attempt at a shadow of a space suit, using very old software. There are straight lines in the shadows similar to using a low grade editor like mspaint which back then when it was originally published would have been cutting edge.

It's so fake it's funny.

You are laughable. Photo editor like MS Paint lol. The same year this photo was taken they invented the scientific electronic calculator.

The technology to edit photos was a long , long, long way off.

https://www.semicolonblog.com/?p=16973

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

The person in the reflection doesn't appear to be taking the photo though.

There likely to be a camera attached to his suit, it just a distorted out of focus image we looking at. You can trace the line of sight for this photograph and it matches up.

Will I Am Not

JJJJNR wrote: »

It's so fake it's funny.

Bit like this thread...

King Mob

JJJJNR wrote: »

I answered it already. This is clearly a stage setup and the shadow was a poor attempt at a shadow of a space suit, using very old software. There are straight lines in the shadows similar to using a low grade editor like mspaint which back then when it was originally published would have been cutting edge.

It's so fake it's funny.

No, you have not answered any of my questions.

You have not explained why they would edit the shadow, but not the person.
You have not explained why they would release an "obviously" fake picture.
You have not explained who they are.
You have not explained whether you not believe we went to the moon.
You have not explained why you are avoiding these questions.

mickdw

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The clue is with the main astronaut in the photo

I'm aware of the camera attached to torso however that seems reasonably fixed in the dead ahead position.
Person in reflection does not appear to be suitably lined up. I'm not offering an opinion either way but the person in the reflection does appear to be standing very casually/ more naturally that someone wearing the clumsy suit.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

I'm aware of the camera attached to torso however that seems reasonably fixed in the dead ahead position.
Person in reflection does not appear to be suitably lined up. I'm not offering an opinion either way but the person in the reflection does appear to be standing very casually/ more naturally that someone wearing the clumsy suit.

The Astronaut's head is turned it like a side view the second person in the visor is actually photographing him dead on, straight line of sight.

Edgarfrndly

Are you referring to the reticles in the image when you refer to the straight lines, OP? This is what they were used for.

The Data Camera used on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission and later Moon landings was a 500EL with additional modifications. A transparent glass Reseau plate, or register glass, engraved with grid markings was placed between the film magazine and the camera body, immediately in front of the film plane. The plate is engraved with crosses to form a grid and the intersections accurately calibrated to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. The crosses were recorded on every exposed film frame. From the markings, it is possible to calibrate distance and heights in photos taken either on the lunar surface or from space. Such markings were not new or unique to the space program. They were commonly used for large format scientific and aerial photography prior to the Moon landings, when the large size of the photographic negative could be distorted either during exposure or the printing process.

Dohnjoe

mickdw wrote: »

I'm aware of the camera attached to torso however that seems reasonably fixed in the dead ahead position.
Person in reflection does not appear to be suitably lined up. I'm not offering an opinion either way but the person in the reflection does appear to be standing very casually/ more naturally that someone wearing the clumsy suit.

It's a curved visor. I see nothing strange about his position.

JJJJNR

there are straight lines here on the shadow so I don't buy the distorted reflection theory.

Tzardine

JJJJNR wrote: »

there are straight lines here on the shadow so I don't buy the distorted reflection theory.

Are we sure that it is not actually Big Foot ? I mean, can we be certain.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw hopefully this explain sorry for crap drawn red line. The first Astronaut is near the rock so you tell the position is accurate. The Astronaut up ahead along the line near a rock face on the moon.

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

mickdw hopefully this explain sorry for crap drawn red line. The first Astronaut is near the rock so you tell the position is accurate. The Astronaut up ahead along the line near a rock face on the moon.

Okay, you might have a point however if the red line is reasonably representative of the way the guy taking the photo is facing, surely the shadow of his backpack is not right. I would expect, given the direction the others shadows that the shadow of backpack would be directly onto his own back.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

Okay, you might have a point however if the red line is reasonably representative of the way the guy taking the photo is facing, surely the shadow of his backpack is not right. I would expect, given the direction the others shadows that the shadow of backpack would be directly onto his own back.

I might be wrong about this but my feeling the second person it looking up along those red lines. We have to find out what camera they used was a wide angled lens



What shadow are you referring to, can you highlight it for me?

no.8

The Internet allows for far too many outspoken fools with opinions. I suppose they staged the launches of all those Saturn V's as well?

Edgarfrndly

JJJJNR wrote: »

there are straight lines here on the shadow so I don't buy the distorted reflection theory.

I don't see straight lines. Are we looking at the same image?

And it's not a "theory". It's an objective analysis. The visor is curved and as such its reflection will be distorted and not a true representation of the image it reflects.

You're just trying to see something that doesn't exist to support your bias.

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What shadow are you referring to, can you highlight it for me?

I'm talking about the shadow within the visor.
Your first red lone shows a general direction he is facing (the guy taking the photo). I don't believe we should then see the bulk of his backpack in the shadow.

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

mickdw hopefully this explain sorry for crap drawn red line. The first Astronaut is near the rock so you tell the position is accurate. The Astronaut up ahead along the line near a rock face on the moon.

This one. Going by your red line which appears reasonable and the shadow at his feet, you would imagine little to none of the backpack would be visible on shadow.

Cheerful Spring

mickdw wrote: »

This one. Going by your red line which appears reasonable and the shadow at his feet, you would imagine little to none of the backpack would be visible on shadow.

I have to go offline but this should help shadows are caused by a light source. See where the blue line the light is in that direction. So yes you would see a shadow of his backpack on the ground.

mickdw

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have to go offline but this should help shadows are caused by a light source. See where the blue line the light is in that direction. So yes you would see a shadow of his backpack on the ground.

If the guy in the visor was facing the visor square on, I would agree that his backpack would be shadowed onto ground when I consider the rest of his shadow. He appears to be standing at an angle roughly in agreement with your first red line though which would mean shadow isn't right.
Also if I agree with you re the way he is standing (red line), his backpack should be clearly visible on his person but it's not and considering these packs run to head height, it's odd.

Looking at it all again, I think guy in visor would have to be standing more square on towards his photo target meaning shadow looks right and backpack would be mostly hidden etc however the actual image does very much appear to be a guy standing at an angle to the shot.

pawdee

If the moon landings were fake don't you think that the Russians would have been all over it? They never said a word or questioned anything. What's so hard to believe about it anyway?

by8auj6csd3ioq

Full Buzz Aldrin interview https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

King Mob

Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

What alternate explanation is there?

Which is more likely: You are just wrong about your assumptions about a blurry, distorted image.
Or there is an elaborate NASA hoax to alter one photo for no discernable reason, but they are also so incompetent, that the edit it badly, but then also leave that photo in the public domain after having released it in the first place.

I know which I think is the more likely...

gerrybbadd

There are hundreds of moon landing photos that require questioning.

This is not one of them

Cheerful Spring

Mohammad Cold Mudslide wrote: »

Full Buzz Aldrin interview https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

I do not believe in the moon hoax but that small figure does not look like an astronaut to me.

Sounds to me he was just addressing the little girl question why we have not returned to the moon. His speech is slurred so it very hard to tell what he meant. There always been rumours they saw things on the moon and it was covered up.

King Mob

gerrybbadd wrote: »

There are hundreds of moon landing photos that require questioning.

This is not one of them

All of the ones that "require questioning" are exactly like this.
Some random person on the internet not understanding them, then assuming a vast nonsensical conspiracy from that misunderstanding.

gerrybbadd

King Mob wrote: »

All of the ones that "require questioning" are exactly like this.
Some random person on the internet not understanding them, then assuming a vast nonsensical conspiracy from that misunderstanding.

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

endacl

no.8 wrote: »

The Internet allows for far too many outspoken fools with opinions. I suppose they staged the launches of all those Saturn V's as well?

The internet has allowed village idiots to form associations.

King Mob

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Except they're not

Explain the matching backgrounds in separate photos


And how could the crosshairs, that were hard etched into the camera's glass plate, appear behind an image?

No, you first.
Why did NASA do these things? Why did they fake or alter these photos? Or if they were staged, why?
Why would the do such an obviously bad job of them? And why then would they release obviously badly done/faked/edited photos?
How were they edited/faked/staged?

How do you know that they are edited/fake/staged and it's not just a case of you misunderstanding stuff about the image?

If you can't or won't answer these questions, what would be the point in going into the minutiae of claims that are long debunked?