Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?

I've just been having a nice chat with Clocktower. After going a little off-thread, i've started this one instead.

Please click on this link, from the Aulis site, and scroll down to the bottom to view the 'Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?' pictures: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_0.html

Comments on this would be very much appreciated.

Mizuki x

He wanted to be the first man on the moon to litter.

This isn't CSI people.
When you take a picture of a reflective surface with a black and white camera designed for the exposure of the land and not reflective surfaces, THEN you "zoom in" on a digital copy of that picture and are surprised to find a blurry and unrecognizable object....
You need to stop watching TV.

We can't "zoom in and enhance" a reflection to suddenly make it clearer.

And I bet none of these people are grabbing the original negatives and using a magnifying glass.


So to conclude:
The picture is inconclusive as the resolution of the digital copy sucks.  Try again.

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

This isn't CSI people.
When you take a picture of a reflective surface with a black and white camera designed for the exposure of the land and not reflective surfaces, THEN you "zoom in" on a digital copy of that picture and are surprised to find a blurry and unrecognizable object....
You need to stop watching TV.

We can't "zoom in and enhance" a reflection to suddenly make it clearer.

And I bet none of these people are grabbing the original negatives and using a magnifying glass.


So to conclude:
The picture is inconclusive as the resolution of the digital copy sucks.  Try again.

I think you did a great job here, Lorddave.

@OP:I would add that since the reflective surface is convex and curved, but probably not a section of a sphere, paraboloid, or  Hyperboloid, you should expect the reflected image to be distorted. If you have any questions about the science of optics here, please Google 'mirror concave aberration'. This topic is now taught in 10th grade in the U. S., so I'm sure that you can manage. If not, ask here.

A reflection off of a convex surface would stretch out the PLSS, not shrink it.

A reflection off of a convex surface would stretch out the PLSS, not shrink it.

What is your point? That the reflected image is not distorted? If so, please study optics and try again. Thanks.

Oh. That's a shame. I really wasn't expecting such weak counter arguments from the forum warrior NASA apologists. Especially you, Clocktower. Never mind.

But then there really is no need to say anything. That picture speaks for itself.

Mizuki x

I will not even consider the question seriously until I see photos posted in official NASA sites or some other reputable place. Anyone can polish old NASA photos, improving the sharpness of the crosshairs, for example (as you see in the right photo in the aulis site) or painting the illumination through the wire-mesh wheels and claim NASA did it.

But for those interested in photography, there is a clear and simple explanation on how some very dark details appear in some prints and not on others taken from the same negative. When you choose the exposure time for the photographic paper you have to decide what part of the photo will appear as medium gray. If you decide to show lots of detail in the white suits, you will go for a low exposure, and loose detail in dark areas. If you decide to show precise detail of darker areas, you will see lots of detail in darker areas and the very white areas will wash out.

This is totally different from the experience you get by being there. When you are in a dark room with a window showing a well lit outside your eyes will make you think you are seeing good detail both indoors and outdoors, but you take a photo and you will either see a well lit interior and a washed out white outdoors, or you will see a nicely lit outdoors and almost black indoors. This is totally different from what your eyes showed. And this effect explains a large portion of the supposed "NASA faked photographs".

A reflection off of a convex surface would stretch out the PLSS, not shrink it.

We're not discussing that.
We're discussing the fact that the "zoomed in" picture isn't clear enough to see any shape and know what it was.

Why would we see it it detail?
The PLSS is behind Schmitt's head.
Look at the shadow, you can see the PLSS shadow on the back.

Mizuki is becoming an handy member of the forums. This is a good OP with some unsatisfactory RE responses. As someone who doesn't specialise in moon hoax debunking, I must say I'm alarmed at how simple some of the mistakes are. I look forward to moar Mizuki posts.

PS baby, FE girls turn me on.

Mizuki is becoming an handy member of the forums. This is a good OP with some unsatisfactory RE responses. As someone who doesn't specialise in moon hoax debunking, I must say I'm alarmed at how simple some of the mistakes are. I look forward to moar Mizuki posts.

PS baby, FE girls turn me on.

Oh Thork you flatterer.

Excellent work mizuki, the website in OP is interesting. Most of these RE people on here for some reason cannot see the lies and propaganda that is being fed them by NASA and the like. Keep up the good work though maybe the truth will be seen by them.

Oh. That's a shame. I really wasn't expecting such weak counter arguments from the forum warrior NASA apologists. Especially you, Clocktower. Never mind.

But then there really is no need to say anything. That picture speaks for itself.

Mizuki x

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

Quote from: Mizuki on December 17, 2011, 11:42:42 AM

Oh. That's a shame. I really wasn't expecting such weak counter arguments from the forum warrior NASA apologists. Especially you, Clocktower. Never mind.

But then there really is no need to say anything. That picture speaks for itself.

Mizuki x

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

That is the second time you wrote that in this thread. Are you losing it?

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 17, 2011, 10:42:31 AM

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 17, 2011, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: Mizuki on December 17, 2011, 11:42:42 AM

Oh. That's a shame. I really wasn't expecting such weak counter arguments from the forum warrior NASA apologists. Especially you, Clocktower. Never mind.

But then there really is no need to say anything. That picture speaks for itself.

Mizuki x

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

That is the second time you wrote that in this thread. Are you losing it?

No Misuki isn't reading the thread and doesn't make an effort to read all the explainations about debunking the moon landing conspiracy.

See: http://www.clavius.org/ for instance.

It is likely your post was deemed less important or relevant than other posts and was ignored. Mizuki is incredibly polite and will usually say nothing instead of saying something horrible. She may have thought your post inane, or lazy, or low content or boring. We are unlikely to find out given her impeccable manners. It is however probable that she does not rate your opinion nearly as highly as you seem to.

Stop double posting.

It is likely your post was deemed less important or relevant than other posts and was ignored. Mizuki is incredibly polite and will usually say nothing instead of saying something horrible. She may have thought your post inane, or lazy, or low content or boring. We are unlikely to find out given her impeccable manners. It is however probable that she does not rate your opinion nearly as highly as you seem to.

Stop double posting.

I don't care. I was giving the opinion of people working on the so-called conspiration. If she wants to be so gullible, that's not my problem. If she wants to hear only one side of the story, that's tough for her.

This thread is hilarious.

Folks, what you see on "CSI" is not how real investigation works.

Even so, it looks like no one bothered to glance down at Schmitt's shadow. Yawn. Next.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2713238

Nice. We can close this one. Another RE win!

Just to be thorough, Mizuki's link also says "we see that Schmitt has no camera and is not taking a picture"... but as you can see the cameras are mounted on the torsos of the suits. What, did you guys expect him to be holding a viewfinder up to his faceplate?

What bothers me most about all these "the moon landing was faked" sites is that the mistakes they say are made are obvious ones.  So obvious, not even Hollywood would make them.  Yet here we are, being told that NASA spent billions on a fake moon landing and not only did a crappy job at it, but failed to check their released work for errors. 

I think the answer for that is the mistakes were purposefully slipped in by "whistleblowers". 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2713238

This is a fair rebuttal of that picture. Kudos to the fellas on that site.

Mizuki x

Quote from: zarg on December 17, 2011, 06:02:57 PM

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=2713238

This is a fair rebuttal of that picture. Kudos to the fellas on that site.

Mizuki x

Now read this:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html

or this :

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

They never proved that man went on the moon. All they demonstrated was that a few arguments were insufficient.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 17, 2011, 10:42:31 AM

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

They never proved that man went on the moon. All they demonstrated was that a few arguments were insufficient.

Wrong, as usual:

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
      CONFIRMED
The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on December 18, 2011, 10:48:36 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on December 17, 2011, 10:42:31 AM

This whole "Man never went on the Moon" has been debunked countless times.

See Mythbusters on youtube for instance.

They never proved that man went on the moon. All they demonstrated was that a few arguments were insufficient.

Wrong, as usual:

Quote from: http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing

The Apollo astronauts left behind special equipment on the Moon like reflectors that scientists can bounce lasers off of.
      CONFIRMED
The Mythbusters went to an observatory equipped with a high powered laser. They first fired at the bare lunar surface but did not detect the laser bouncing back. Then they pointed the laser at a reflector left behind by NASA and received a confirmed bounce.

How does this prove that man landed on the Moon?