Can anyone spot the error?

I've never claimed to be a moon dirt expert, so I can't tell you.

You don't need to be an expert. Does it look like sand?

If you aren't sure, I'll find some shots of different types of sand on the internet and you can claim they look completely different.

Starman will pipe up saying "I know it isn't sand." Because that's how his belief system works. He has been told that lunar regolith and sand are nothing like each other. It'll be fun!

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 04, 2014, 07:10:36 AM

I've never claimed to be a moon dirt expert, so I can't tell you.

You don't need to be an expert. Does it look like sand?

If you aren't sure, I'll find some shots of different types of sand on the internet and you can claim they look completely different.

Starman will pipe up saying "I know it isn't sand." Because that's how his belief system works. He has been told that lunar regolith and sand are nothing like each other. It'll be fun!

you are diverting the subject again. What about your two pictures.

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 07:49:02 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 04, 2014, 07:10:36 AM

I've never claimed to be a moon dirt expert, so I can't tell you.

You don't need to be an expert. Does it look like sand?

If you aren't sure, I'll find some shots of different types of sand on the internet and you can claim they look completely different.

Starman will pipe up saying "I know it isn't sand." Because that's how his belief system works. He has been told that lunar regolith and sand are nothing like each other. It'll be fun!

you are diverting the subject again. What about your two pictures.

"As I have given up being proven wrong on my A to F anomaly..."

You guys have lost that one. Angles, simulations, etc. All sorts of waffling, but no proof. I'm actually disappointed. Didn't expect it to be so easy.

Care to comment on the sand pit shot? Am I not looking at it correctly? Your comments are sure to be amusing.

Quote from: Starman on May 04, 2014, 07:54:22 AM

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 07:49:02 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 04, 2014, 07:10:36 AM

I've never claimed to be a moon dirt expert, so I can't tell you.

You don't need to be an expert. Does it look like sand?

If you aren't sure, I'll find some shots of different types of sand on the internet and you can claim they look completely different.

Starman will pipe up saying "I know it isn't sand." Because that's how his belief system works. He has been told that lunar regolith and sand are nothing like each other. It'll be fun!

you are diverting the subject again. What about your two pictures.

"As I have given up being proven wrong on my A to F anomaly..."

You guys have lost that one. Angles, simulations, etc. All sorts of waffling, but no proof. I'm actually disappointed. Didn't expect it to be so easy.

Care to comment on the sand pit shot? Am I not looking at it correctly? Your comments are sure to be amusing.

You still don't get it and you never will. There is a phrase: "if you have to ask you will never get it" I will play with my Apollo program for the fun of it. For now do you know what mission did the pictures come from?

"As I have given up being proven wrong on my A to F anomaly..."

You guys have lost that one. Angles, simulations, etc. All sorts of waffling, but no proof. I'm actually disappointed. Didn't expect it to be so easy.

Care to comment on the sand pit shot? Am I not looking at it correctly? Your comments are sure to be amusing.

You're asking questions about photography on the flat earth site. Maybe you should ask them on a photography forum, the probability of someone talking with knowledge would be much bigger. I didn't even try to answer you, because i lack knowledge about photography and i don't care about debating the apollo supposed hoax. Do you expect someone to answer you if you ask information about gardening on a forum about cars?

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 07:59:25 AM

"As I have given up being proven wrong on my A to F anomaly..."

You guys have lost that one. Angles, simulations, etc. All sorts of waffling, but no proof. I'm actually disappointed. Didn't expect it to be so easy.

Care to comment on the sand pit shot? Am I not looking at it correctly? Your comments are sure to be amusing.

You're asking questions about photography on the flat earth site. Maybe you should ask them on a photography forum, the probability of someone talking with knowledge would be much bigger. I didn't even try to answer you, because i lack knowledge about photography and i don't care about debating the apollo supposed hoax. Do you expect someone to answer you if you ask information about gardening on a forum about cars?

I'm trying to understand how indoctrination works. And, by the way, this entire thread has been about the Apollo project. So I'm right on topic. You, however are not.

Edit: "Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. from Wikipedia.

Yes, all this entire thread is kinda out of topic, imho. Or at least, this is a poor choice of a site to get an answer to your doubts about apollo photos.

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

Yes, all this entire thread is kinda out of topic, imho. Or at least, this is a poor choice of a site to get an answer to your doubts about apollo photos.

What's the matter? Are you panicking or something?

Quote from: bravimone on May 04, 2014, 08:22:23 AM

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 07:59:25 AM

"As I have given up being proven wrong on my A to F anomaly..."

You guys have lost that one. Angles, simulations, etc. All sorts of waffling, but no proof. I'm actually disappointed. Didn't expect it to be so easy.

Care to comment on the sand pit shot? Am I not looking at it correctly? Your comments are sure to be amusing.

You're asking questions about photography on the flat earth site. Maybe you should ask them on a photography forum, the probability of someone talking with knowledge would be much bigger. I didn't even try to answer you, because i lack knowledge about photography and i don't care about debating the apollo supposed hoax. Do you expect someone to answer you if you ask information about gardening on a forum about cars?

I'm trying to understand how indoctrination works. And, by the way, this entire thread has been about the Apollo project. So I'm right on topic. You, however are not.

I did find some distances of some of the object. Finding data on rocks of small craters can't be done . It will take time but I will try to make a 3d video of what the astronaut was seeing. It will take time so you will have to way. By the way what did you expect to see the moon?

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

If the moon does exist like it is said what would the soil be made of. You seem to say what is not. What is made of?

I have to go on what they say it is made of. Either way, there's no boot print to be made.

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

Isn't it funny how RandomREalist, bravimone, starman and others cannot be honest and say:

"Yep, looks like sand to me!"

The indoctrination is strong in this thread.

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

Someone begs to differ:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2014, 08:33:17 AM

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

Isn't it funny how RandomREalist, bravimone, starman and others cannot be honest and say:

"Yep, looks like sand to me!"

The indoctrination is strong in this thread.

They have an agenda. Probably paid to simply deny it all. They protest too much for them to be genuine  people.
Many globulites on here are simply swayed by the sheer mass of globulites compared to alternate thinkers, so they go with the flow.
They thought they could use ridicule to batter people into submission. They just didn't realise that some will not flinch and it bothers them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2014, 08:33:17 AM

The footprints prove the shots weren't taken on the moon in a vacuum. As well all know, a vacuum boils away water, laet alone the super heat in the daylight, supposedly on the moon.
The footprints simply would not happen.
They look like they were done in damp sand or a sand cement type mixture on Earth.

Someone begs to differ:
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint

Someone begs to differ the someone who begs to differ.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2

What's the matter? Are you panicking or something?

No, i don't really care. These threads about photos bore me.

Isn't it funny how RandomREalist, bravimone, starman and others cannot be honest and say:

"Yep, looks like sand to me!"

The indoctrination is strong in this thread.

I know it's hard to believe, but i'm not in the global conspiracy. Yes, it looks like sand, so what?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2014, 08:34:01 AM

What's the matter? Are you panicking or something?

No, i don't really care. These threads about photos bore me.

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 08:40:22 AM

Isn't it funny how RandomREalist, bravimone, starman and others cannot be honest and say:

"Yep, looks like sand to me!"

The indoctrination is strong in this thread.

I know it's hard to believe, but i'm not in the global conspiracy. Yes, it looks like sand, so what?

Maybe the reason it looks sand is because it is sand.

Someone begs to differ the someone who begs to differ.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing any 10 cm (about 4 inch) deep boot prints on the moon.  Aldrin said that the dust was 1/2 inch to 1 inch deep in the flat areas (where most of the boot print photos were taken).

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2014, 08:45:59 AM

Someone begs to differ the someone who begs to differ.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing any 10 cm (about 4 inch) deep boot prints on the moon.  Aldrin said that the dust was 1/2 inch to 1 inch deep in the flat areas (where most of the boot print photos were taken).

No need to be sorry. It's not you that told the lies, you're just backing them up.

What was that you say? 1/2 inch to 1 inch?

Maybe the reason it looks sand is because it is sand.

Maybe not. A glass of water looks like a glass of alcohol. Are they the same thing?

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 09:04:21 AM

Maybe the reason it looks sand is because it is sand.

Maybe not. A glass of water looks like a glass of alcohol. Are they the same thing?

You wouldn't know unless you tested it. That's my point. Maybe it is sand. Maybe it isn't. It is certainly not consistent with the grey/white lunar regolith we are usually shown.

Never read about white balancing? Don't trust the colors you see on photos unless there is some object with a known color. And with known i don't mean "white", i mean RGB(100, 200, 200), for example.

Quote from: bravimone on May 04, 2014, 08:50:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 04, 2014, 08:34:01 AM

What's the matter? Are you panicking or something?

No, i don't really care. These threads about photos bore me.

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 08:40:22 AM

Isn't it funny how RandomREalist, bravimone, starman and others cannot be honest and say:

"Yep, looks like sand to me!"

The indoctrination is strong in this thread.

I know it's hard to believe, but i'm not in the global conspiracy. Yes, it looks like sand, so what?

Maybe the reason it looks sand is because it is sand.

it looks like moon soil to me so it is on the moon. So what is your proof?

Quote from: bravimone on May 04, 2014, 09:26:47 AM

Quote from: legion on May 04, 2014, 09:04:21 AM

Maybe the reason it looks sand is because it is sand.

Maybe not. A glass of water looks like a glass of alcohol. Are they the same thing?

You wouldn't know unless you tested it. That's my point. Maybe it is sand. Maybe it isn't. It is certainly not consistent with the grey/white lunar regolith we are usually shown.

Actually moon sample were brought back. And don't say won't some to look at it. Now you say Maybe it is sand.

Never read about white balancing? Don't trust the colors you see on photos unless there is some object with a known color. And with known i don't mean "white", i mean RGB(100, 200, 200), for example.

You mean like a US flag?

And scepti, i don't feel like going back to quote you, but I WAS honest. I said I wasn't a soil expert (or something to that affect) But just because something LOOKS like something, doesn't mean it IS that something.

Legion, I'm sorry you don't consider angles and triangle and math to be "proof", that's very telling that you're a conspiracy theorist, and won't accept ANYTHING other than someone else telling you you're right.

It's rather obvious is it?

Yes

Do you own a camera and six items to construct a model?

Yes

I'd be interested in that. I'm not interested in assumptions.

I'm not assuming anything.  I'm basing my answer off the alignment of features in the pictures.

  Aldrin said that the dust was 1/2 inch to 1 inch deep in the flat areas (where most of the boot print photos were taken).

You mean like this?

You mean like a US flag?

I guess. If you know  the exact color of the flag you can use it to calibrate the white balancing, afaik.

Quote from: bravimone on May 04, 2014, 10:04:23 AM

Never read about white balancing? Don't trust the colors you see on photos unless there is some object with a known color. And with known i don't mean "white", i mean RGB(100, 200, 200), for example.

You mean like a US flag?

And scepti, i don't feel like going back to quote you, but I WAS honest. I said I wasn't a soil expert (or something to that affect) But just because something LOOKS like something, doesn't mean it IS that something.

Legion, I'm sorry you don't consider angles and triangle and math to be "proof", that's very telling that you're a conspiracy theorist, and won't accept ANYTHING other than someone else telling you you're right.

You've posted all sorts of photos with lines and angles, but they do not explain how or why A and D are vertically aligned. Therefore, you have proven nothing.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a conspiracy researcher. Because, unlike you, I know that people lie. I don't accept everything I'm taught, I think about things as well. You should try it.