Author Topic: We never landed on the Moon (Read 16798 times)

Vandaler · « **Reply #75 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:50:29 PM »

Just to be clear NO... why does it bother conspiracy theorist that shadows are not parallel? In other words, why is it not possible?

SJB · « **Reply #76 on:** April 25, 2013, 07:57:25 PM »

Quote

As for the fuel, why not mention it? Do you know what temperature fuel
burns at? Do you know what temperature steel melts at? Are you aware
that many photos and numerous eyewitnesses and temperature checks
several weeks later all confirm that MOLTEN STEEL was seen pouring out
of the Towers BEFORE they collapsed? How does burning jet fuel generate
molten steel, ESPECIALLY 30 to 50 floors BELOW where the jet crashed?

I have never heard the molten steel story. I am aware however, that structural members yield at a significantly lower stress when they are heated. This is why building steel is many times fireproofed or encased in concrete. The steel will yield long before it melts. Bar Joists are the worst simply because they are designed to minimized the steel required. WTC had bar joist floor framing.

The question I have always had is why airplanes when a simple bombing could have just as easily been the story?

Vandaler · « **Reply #77 on:** April 25, 2013, 08:00:15 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

One of the convenient aspects of plane crashes is that the bodies of victims
are not recognizable for visual identification purposes, any more than the
product of a garbage disposal's normal action is recognizable as Iceberg,
Romaine or Batavian lettuce.

Uh... identification is done by DNA samples and nearly all passengers have been positively identified

Quote

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011027flight931027p5.asp

Could it be your not really on top of this ?

Vandaler · « **Reply #78 on:** April 27, 2013, 08:56:42 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Just to be clear NO... why does it bother conspiracy theorist that shadows are not parallel? In other words, why is it not possible?

No clever answer for this one uh? Because you very well know the complaint of conspiracy theorist does not take into account terrain topology. That's what I meant by trying to "confuse and impress"... You would have liked to draw the debate on the merits of the mythbusters video in to the minutia of achieving a very similar frame while the core of their argument adress the basic fact that topology is important, and enables the possibility of shadows projecting at varying angles with only one light source.

Your also silent on the backlit issue because you very well know that the ground acts as a diffused bounce light (thus seconday light source) lighting faces away from the primary light source (the sun).

I respect that you would be silent rather then plunge furhter, that's a sign of maturity and I actually like talking with you. Both challenging and funny.

brainglitch · « **Reply #79 on:** April 28, 2013, 01:26:43 PM »

Quote

The question I have always had is why airplanes when a simple bombing could have just as easily been the story?

I consider myself a Truther, in the sense that I strongly suspect government involvement in 9/11. That being said, airplanes do make sense to a certain degree. After the 1993 bombing at the WTC security was tightened, so getting enough explosives into the building to bring them down, or even to cause a large explosion, would have been extremely difficult. Hijacking a plane was a lot easier back then. Now with the new cabin doors, armed pilots etc., it would be extremely difficult to take over an airplane.

SJB · « **Reply #80 on:** April 30, 2013, 08:18:40 AM »

Quote from: brainglitch

Quote
The question I have always had is why airplanes when a simple bombing could have just as easily been the story?

I consider myself a Truther, in the sense that I strongly suspect government involvement in 9/11. That being said, airplanes do make sense to a certain degree. After the 1993 bombing at the WTC security was tightened, so getting enough explosives into the building to bring them down, or even to cause a large explosion, would have been extremely difficult. Hijacking a plane was a lot easier back then. Now with the new cabin doors, armed pilots etc., it would be extremely difficult to take over an airplane.

If it was an inside job, this could easily be accomplished. That's the entire point.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #81 on:** May 01, 2013, 02:33:07 AM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote from: Vandaler
Just to be clear NO... why does it bother conspiracy theorist that shadows are not parallel? In other words, why is it not possible?

No clever answer for this one uh? Because you very well know the complaint of conspiracy theorist does not take into account terrain topology. That's what I meant by trying to "confuse and impress"... You would have liked to draw the debate on the merits of the mythbusters video in to the minutia of achieving a very similar frame while the core of their argument adress the basic fact that topology is important, and enables the possibility of shadows projecting at varying angles with only one light source.

Actually, the "core" of their argument addresses the basic fact that they
presume ALL the critics of the lunar photos say there were two light sources
when that is patently FALSE. That's why I said they attack a STRAW MAN.

They did not BOTHER to touch on the DISTANCE to the light source, and that
is evidently BECAUSE acknowledging the sun at 90 million miles distant
would be inconvenient for their attack against the straw man of two studio lights.

Quote

Your also silent on the backlit issue because you very well know that the ground acts as a diffused bounce light (thus seconday light source) lighting faces away from the primary light source (the sun).

I respect that you would be silent rather then plunge furhter, that's a sign of maturity and I actually like talking with you. Both challenging and funny.

If I can be entertaining for you, that's great! Speaking of "challenging," I could
not respond to your post because it does not make sense to me. Perhaps it's a
language barrier. Example:

Quote from: Vandaler

Just to be clear NO... why does it bother conspiracy theorist that shadows are not parallel? In other words, why is it not possible?

Why does it bother conspiracy theorist =? why does it bother conspiracy theorists,
or, why does it bother you, who are a conspiracy theorist, or, why does it bother
a particular conspiracy theorist, who is unmentioned here?

"...that shadows are not parallel? In other words, why is it not possible?"

In other words, why is it not possible for some particular conspiracy theorist
who is not mentioned here that it is not possible for shadows to be parallel, or
for shadows to not be parallel? Or, in other words, why is it not possible for
shadows in reality to be not parallel, or why is it not possible for shadows
in real moon photographs to be parallel, or not parallel?

Do you have any experience with photography, Vandaler?

You say you respect that I would be silent, rather then plunge furhter.

Did you mean to say that you EXPECTED I would be silent rather THAN plunge
FURTHER? or, did you mean that you respect my silence, which you presume
to be intentional, rather than go into more detail, then more detail, then more
detail, then more detail, then more, then more, then so on?

Then means at a later time, or as a consequence, IF ... THEN... Than
means comparison THIS rather THAN that. A lot of uneducated
people make that mistake, mostly blacks from the southern USA. Now,
if you're an ignorant southern black, that's okay, just tell me so, and THEN
I can try to work around that, okay?? No hard feelings!

If I'm going to reply to your post, your post needs to be intelligible.
I went into quite a bit of detail in my previous posts that you seem to now
not be capable of understanding, so I'm not sure what more I can say.

I could quote to you what I already said. But it always bothers me when
someone gives the same answer they did the first time when it was not
satisfactory. Maybe you could ask a question about what you did not find
satisfactory before? Have you ever worked on a movie set? Are you
aware that every single aspect of the set is tightly controlled by the director
so as to achieve the desired result? Are you aware that when a stage grip
consistently fails to follow direction or to be in the right place at the right
time he can be fired for that? Are those things not important? IF not,
THEN (not than) the director is wasting his time on things that don't matter,
and the producer has hired people to do things that are not necessary. They
could have one light instead of two, or they could use one camera lens
instead of three. On and on.

Quote

Your also silent on the backlit issue because you very well know that the ground acts as a diffused bounce light (thus seconday light source) lighting faces away from the primary light source (the sun).

Uuuhh.. seconday? Lighting someone's faces away, or lighting that faces away?

You mean, "You're also silent..." correct? Or, do you not know the difference?

So you now presume to know my intentions? You're (not your) presuming to
know that I saw the backlit issue explained? Maybe you could post a link
for that. The link I followed only did the moon rock shadow thing. So all of
your presumption about reflection of light is of no use. Again, what is your
experience with photography? Have you ever used a remote flash or an
umbrella-shaped reflector? Do you know what I'm talking about? What is
the difference between direct and indirect lighting?

Vandaler · « **Reply #82 on:** May 01, 2013, 06:37:01 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Actually, the "core" of their argument addresses the basic fact that they
presume ALL the critics of the lunar photos say there were two light sources
when that is patently FALSE. That's why I said they attack a STRAW MAN.

It does not matter what they presume.... they demonstrate what everybody knows... topology affects shadow directions.

Quote from: MO

They did not BOTHER to touch on the DISTANCE to the light source, and that
is evidently BECAUSE acknowledging the sun at 90 million miles distant
would be inconvenient for their attack against the straw man of two studio lights.

Useless drivel, I posted photos from earth that demonstrate that shadows produced the suns light (in spite of it behing in a far distance), will produce diverging shadows based on topology of the terrain.

I ask you a simple question... What bothers CT about the shadows?

But you can't take a straight question it seems, you complicate, and hide the fact you don't have the answer since terrain topology is on the table. Once your conscious of the effect of topology, Arguments from CT quickly become childish and frankly embarrassing.

Jehanne · « **Reply #83 on:** May 01, 2013, 07:13:29 AM »

We landed on the Moon:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110908.html

There is ZERO doubt about this.

Vandaler · « **Reply #84 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:29:11 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

So you now presume to know my intentions? You're (not your) presuming to know that I saw the backlit issue explained? Maybe you could post a link for that. The link I followed only did the moon rock shadow thing. So all of
your presumption about reflection of light is of no use.

I was addressing this passage which you wrote.

Quote from: NO April23

Objects, such as the Lunar Module, seen from the shadow side should have been entirely black if photographed with the 70 mm Hasselblad
camera that had been allegedly attached to the chest of the astronauts'
space suits, but they were not; they were backlit as though some
accessory lighting was used to bring out the detail, even though NO
SUCH ACCESSORY LIGHTING was part of the Apollo equipment on the
moon, as testified by many interviews.

Clearly, you had not factored that the ground has a source of light in the form of diffused bounce light which backlits the LEM.

Quote

Again, what is your experience with photography?

Better then average

Quote

Have you ever used a remote flash or an umbrella-shaped reflector?

Never used them, but am perfectly aware of their purpose in providing diffused light.

Quote

Do you know what I'm talking about?

Perfectly, and am proficient in lighting 3D scenes with software such has Cinema 4D and have an extensive gallery, many of which using more sophisticated lighting techniques then diffused lights here: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=126390

Quote

What is the difference between direct and indirect lighting?

Indirect lighting has a diffused quality which does not project shadows (or very faint). This is why it's used intentionally in fashion.

The point is that if you had only a fraction of my knowledge and experience, you would not have written that the LEM should be pitch black on one side because of the ground effect.

Vandaler · « **Reply #85 on:** May 01, 2013, 04:45:09 PM »

Quote

Objects, such as the Lunar Module, seen from the shadow side should have been entirely black if photographed with the 70 mm Hasselblad
camera that had been allegedly attached to the chest of the astronauts'
space suits, but they were not; they were backlit as though some
accessory lighting was used to bring out the detail, even though NO
SUCH ACCESSORY LIGHTING was part of the Apollo equipment on the
moon, as testified by many interviews.

And by the way, are you not implying here that there is a secondary light source? Which is what you claim is a strawmen? If your not implying a second light source, your sentence makes no sense and leads nowhere.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #86 on:** May 01, 2013, 10:02:02 PM »

Quote from: Vandaler

Quote
Objects, such as the Lunar Module, seen from the shadow side should have been entirely black if photographed with the 70 mm Hasselblad
camera that had been allegedly attached to the chest of the astronauts'
space suits, but they were not; they were backlit as though some
accessory lighting was used to bring out the detail, even though NO
SUCH ACCESSORY LIGHTING was part of the Apollo equipment on the
moon, as testified by many interviews.

And by the way, are you not implying here that there is a secondary light source? Which is what you claim is a strawmen? If your not implying a second light source, your sentence makes no sense and leads nowhere.

You're all over the map, Vandaler. Now you're mixing topics. I was talking
about the rock shadows and the LM in the background, as that is the only
scene that the two fαɢs on Mythbusters were examining. I had a list of
questions and you have answered none, but harp on the same thing: terrain.

I was not saying that there was no secondary light for the closeups of the
LM with astronauts climbing the ladder and such. That is a different photo,
the discussion of which on Mythbusters I have not seen because you have
not provided any link for it --- AGAIN.

The addition of a little hump of dirt changes the shadow effect, yes, but it
does not change it enough to do what they show it would. That's why I say
they must have moved their studio light, changed camera lenses, and
got up closer with the camera and moved the LM closer, none of which
you want to acknowledge because then you'd have to admit that the two
fαɢs in your studio video are fakes and charlatans, while they accuse everyone
else of same.

So you have experience with software and shadowing. Guess what? You
can do ANYTHING with Photoshop, but in 1969 they didn't have that. All
they had was emulsion film (that was in a camera exposed to intense
radiation that would have darkened all the negatives to uselessness and the
cameras had no shielding to prevent that) and a CRT monitor that they
trained another TV camera on (facts that are verifiable) to get a substandard
broadcast image that was not LIVE even though they said it was. (They lied.)

Vandaler · « **Reply #87 on:** May 02, 2013, 06:21:14 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

I had a list of
questions and you have answered none, but harp on the same thing: terrain.

Please recap those questions you still find relevant to the topic and I will answer them.

The topic as re-ashed by Matthew is: "I watched some videos of the evidence, and it was convincing -- even compelling.

All the evidence point to the fact that it was staged somewhere on earth. There are shadows coming from multiple angles (like on a Hollywood set) when they claim the Sun was the only light source."

Yes, I harp on terrain because it's the answer that explains shadows coming from multiple angles.

In return for answering your questions, I'm waiting for yours.

What is it about the shadows coming from multiple directions that make Conspiracy Theorist tick?

I know you want to talk about something else, but this is the topic.... not the Mythbusters video.

Jehanne · « **Reply #88 on:** May 02, 2013, 11:09:40 AM »

Everyone needs to keep something important in mind:

Quote

Gravity on the Moon is one-sixth of what it is here on Earth, therefore, objects there fall with one-sixth of the acceleration.

Look at the videos -- objects are falling slowly, yet the astronauts are moving their hands, legs and arms normally, just as human beings do. Such an effect would be impossible to create here on earth, which means that the astronauts must have been on the Moon!

RbM · « **Reply #89 on:** May 22, 2013, 05:57:29 PM »

No one has eve been to the moon.

Buzz Aldrin Jr. is Kirk Douglas.

Just look at their wives.

http://www.wellaware1.com/artwork/large/rocketboy.jpg

http://www.wellaware1.com/artwork/large/liesallylie.jpg

http://www.wellaware1.com/artwork/large/liar.jpg

...