Can anyone spot the error?

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 04:31:21 AM

No you were talking about that. You look at two picture and tried to make a point on how he took the picture. How do you know HE took the picture.

You tell me how it would be possible for anotehr so called Astronaut to take that picture of a foot at that angle. He would either have to be piggy back or above looking down from some platform.
We can rule out a platform and anyone above due to no shadows.
We can rule out anyone taking the picture from the side. Which leaves the person taking it for themself, so how was it managed?

You sure are trying hard to make your argument. Did ever occur that the other astronaut took his wide still camera and at arms length tipped the camera over and took the picture. It looks like it was taken to compare of moon texture with a reference(boot).

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:36:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:27:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:24:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:19:25 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:17:05 AM

So I guess you really do think they went to space with only once camera. 

They didn't go, anyway but that's not really the point.

So tell me Rotter, what else did they use to take that picture. I'm sure you are well versed in answering this stuff. After all, you've had all the necessary training. A bit like Phil Plait.

Who knows. Did you happen to catch your shadow on the moon the other night?

What's shadows got to do with it? We are talking about the Hasselblad and angle of the shot.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you though your thread still mattered. Carry on with your one camera theory.

Of course it matters. If it didn't matter then shills like you wouldn't be all over it. Reasonable people will look at it and it will get them thinking and you and your little crew will do your utmost to ridicule it. That's how it works.
Merely saying one camera is not answering the question and you know this. It's simply a stalling tactic because you have no clue how to get out of it. 

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:37:49 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 04:31:21 AM

No you were talking about that. You look at two picture and tried to make a point on how he took the picture. How do you know HE took the picture.

You tell me how it would be possible for anotehr so called Astronaut to take that picture of a foot at that angle. He would either have to be piggy back or above looking down from some platform.
We can rule out a platform and anyone above due to no shadows.
We can rule out anyone taking the picture from the side. Which leaves the person taking it for themself, so how was it managed?

You sure are trying hard to make your argument. Did ever occur that the other astronaut took his wide still camera and at arms length tipped the camera over and took the picture. It looks like it was taken to compare of moon texture with a reference(boot).

That absolutely reeks...reeks of desparation. 

The first picture looks like it was taken to get a high resolution of the moon surface. By having a foot print of will give a indication of how the soil react to pressure and how the soil hold itself. By moving the foot after the footprint it will give a perspective of measuring depth and shadows. There was probably a whole series of pictures like this. Scepti can't seem to understand why the picture was taken in the first place. He was too busy looking for conspiracies.

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

The first picture looks like it was taken to get a high resolution of the moon surface. By having a foot print of will give a indication of how the soil react to pressure and how the soil hold itself. By moving the foot after the footprint it will give a perspective of measuring depth and shadows. There was probably a whole series of pictures like this. Scepti can't seem to understand why the picture was taken in the first place. He was too busy looking for conspiracies.

A very weak attempt to side step the actual issue. 

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

If it was taken on earth what soil did they use?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:54:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

If it was taken on earth what was the soil did they use?

Just fine damp sand in parts and fine dry sand in otehrs.
That's not the issue. The uissue is the camera shot. Explain how the shot was taken if you can.

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 04:55:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:54:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

If it was taken on earth what was the soil did they use?

Just fine damp sand in parts and fine dry sand in otehrs.
That's not the issue. The uissue is the camera shot. Explain how the shot was taken if you can.

Are you very sure it is sand?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:58:59 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 04:55:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:54:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

If it was taken on earth what was the soil did they use?

Just fine damp sand in parts and fine dry sand in otehrs.
That's not the issue. The uissue is the camera shot. Explain how the shot was taken if you can.

Are you very sure it is sand?

Of course I'm not 100% sure it was all sand. I wasn't at the filming of it to know exactly what was used. It will have been a mixture of stuff, as it wasn't all filmed in a studio.

Now back to the main question. Tell me how that picture was taken.

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 05:00:22 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:58:59 AM

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 04:55:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 16, 2014, 04:54:00 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

If it was taken on earth what was the soil did they use?

Just fine damp sand in parts and fine dry sand in otehrs.
That's not the issue. The uissue is the camera shot. Explain how the shot was taken if you can.

Are you very sure it is sand?

Of course I'm not 100% sure it was all sand. I wasn't at the filming of it to know exactly what was used. It will have been a mixture of stuff, as it wasn't all filmed in a studio.

Now back to the main question. Tell me how that picture was taken.

You are diverting the sand subject. The soil on the moon is unique. There is no soils on earth that you could make a picture like that on the moon. Do you know why?

Tell me how that picture was taken.

Have you never taken an un-aimed photo? I have. It's not exactly difficult. And I'd be pretty sure they had a hand held still camera as well as that chest mounted rig. But anyway...

You are diverting the sand subject. The soil on the moon is unique. There is no soils on earth that you could make a picture like that on the moon. Do you know why?

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 04:46:43 AM

I'm "all over it"? I'm responding to you from a phone during my morning coffee. This is hardly an important task. But you're right, I have no idea about the exact manner in which the picture was taken. For some reason though, you are making the assumption that the two pictures you've posted in this thread are connected.

Nah, I'm not. The two pictures are not connected. The second picture is to simply show the chest mounted Hasselblad for reference, for those with a clear mind to look at and to see how that picture of the foot and footprint can not be taken by the so called Astronaut in that so called environment.
It can be taken on Earth in a normal environment in an unpressurised suit with a hand held camera aimed down, which is exactly what it is.

You are making so many assumptions.

Here's a big clue.

Hardcore flat earth evidence right there...

You are diverting the sand subject. The soil on the moon is unique. There is no soils on earth that you could make a picture like that on the moon. Do you know why?

The pictures are black and white. What do you mean there's no SOILS on Earth that could make a picture like that. It's easy to make a picture like that on Earth. What's so special about it?

I see no one can really answer the camera question. Obviously for good reason. It's because it wasn't taken on the moon.

Have you never taken an un-aimed photo? I have. It's not exactly difficult. And I'd be pretty sure they had a hand held still camera as well as that chest mounted rig. But anyway...

Yes, of course they will have had a hand held one. I mean, that's the answer isn't it? Why chest mount the cameras if hand held ones do the trick?
Surely they would guarantee themselves good pictures if they used hand held ones. Why do you think they decided to mount those bulky cameras on their chests?

Can't you see the absurdity in it all?
5psi pressure in their suits and gloves we are told. You've felt a football haven't you? You know what 5 psi of pressure would do to gloves and suit and so would those that made the film, so they account for it by mounting cameras on the chest because they can't be held and operated by hand for obvious reasons.
They have to try and make it as real as they can so people don't pick up on discrepancies. Unfortunately they take pictures that are impossible on their supposed moon and the environment we are told it is.
The angle the picture was taken means it was taken by the person who's boot is in the picture, holding a camera downwards in a studio on Earth with no helmet ot any pressurirsed suit and gloves.

You are making so many assumptions.

Assumptions that deserve to be made because the silliness of it all deserves questioning, regardless of people like you staunchly jumping to the defence of it, knowing it was faked but trying to convince people that it was all legitimate.

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 05:50:44 AM

You are making so many assumptions.

Assumptions that deserve to be made because the silliness of it all deserves questioning, regardless of people like you staunchly jumping to the defence of it, knowing it was faked but trying to convince people that it was all legitimate.

Sigh. You just don't get it.

Quote from: rottingroom on April 16, 2014, 05:50:44 AM

You are making so many assumptions.

Assumptions that deserve to be made because the silliness of it all deserves questioning, regardless of people like you staunchly jumping to the defence of it, knowing it was faked but trying to convince people that it was all legitimate.

Questioning is good!
Rejecting reality is bad!

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 16, 2014, 05:44:25 AM

Have you never taken an un-aimed photo? I have. It's not exactly difficult. And I'd be pretty sure they had a hand held still camera as well as that chest mounted rig. But anyway...

Yes, of course they will have had a hand held one. I mean, that's the answer isn't it? Why chest mount the cameras if hand held ones do the trick?
Surely they would guarantee themselves good pictures if they used hand held ones. Why do you think they decided to mount those bulky cameras on their chests?

Can't you see the absurdity in it all?
5psi pressure in their suits and gloves we are told. You've felt a football haven't you? You know what 5 psi of pressure would do to gloves and suit and so would those that made the film, so they account for it by mounting cameras on the chest because they can't be held and operated by hand for obvious reasons.
They have to try and make it as real as they can so people don't pick up on discrepancies. Unfortunately they take pictures that are impossible on their supposed moon and the environment we are told it is.
The angle the picture was taken means it was taken by the person who's boot is in the picture, holding a camera downwards in a studio on Earth with no helmet ot any pressurirsed suit and gloves.

Because, by the look of it, the one mounted to the chest is probably a small film camera, the type of thing that needs better stabilization than a regular, hand held photographic camera.

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 05:08:26 AM

You are diverting the sand subject. The soil on the moon is unique. There is no soils on earth that you could make a picture like that on the moon. Do you know why?

The pictures are black and white. What do you mean there's no SOILS on Earth that could make a picture like that. It's easy to make a picture like that on Earth. What's so special about it?

I see no one can really answer the camera question. Obviously for good reason. It's because it wasn't taken on the moon.

Have you ever walked on sand or wet sand and your feet would leave a perfect print. It can't be done and there is a reason for that. Can you guess why?

It's a 70mm Hasselblad, and both Aldrin and Armstrong took pictures with it. 

The camera could be detached from its RCU mount and used hand-held as shown in these training photos:

Have you ever walked on sand or wet sand and your feet would leave a perfect print. It can't be done and there is a reason for that. Can you guess why?

A print like that can be made in powder.

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 12:24:38 PM

Have you ever walked on sand or wet sand and your feet would leave a perfect print. It can't be done and there is a reason for that. Can you guess why?

A print like that can be made in powder.

Nope. The soil on the moon is different than any soil on earth for a reason. Can you guess.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 16, 2014, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 12:24:38 PM

Have you ever walked on sand or wet sand and your feet would leave a perfect print. It can't be done and there is a reason for that. Can you guess why?

A print like that can be made in powder.

Nope. The soil on the moon is different than any soil on earth for a reason. Can you guess.

Why don't you make a thread about walking on sand?
It is embarrassingly obvious you are trying to derail the thread.

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 16, 2014, 05:44:25 AM

Have you never taken an un-aimed photo? I have. It's not exactly difficult. And I'd be pretty sure they had a hand held still camera as well as that chest mounted rig. But anyway...

Yes, of course they will have had a hand held one. I mean, that's the answer isn't it? Why chest mount the cameras if hand held ones do the trick?
Surely they would guarantee themselves good pictures if they used hand held ones. Why do you think they decided to mount those bulky cameras on their chests?

Can't you see the absurdity in it all?
5psi pressure in their suits and gloves we are told. You've felt a football haven't you? You know what 5 psi of pressure would do to gloves and suit and so would those that made the film, so they account for it by mounting cameras on the chest because they can't be held and operated by hand for obvious reasons.
They have to try and make it as real as they can so people don't pick up on discrepancies. Unfortunately they take pictures that are impossible on their supposed moon and the environment we are told it is.
The angle the picture was taken means it was taken by the person who's boot is in the picture, holding a camera downwards in a studio on Earth with no helmet ot any pressurirsed suit and gloves.

The sheer stupidity of this post gave me cancer...

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 01:20:18 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 16, 2014, 01:07:01 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 16, 2014, 12:24:38 PM

Have you ever walked on sand or wet sand and your feet would leave a perfect print. It can't be done and there is a reason for that. Can you guess why?

A print like that can be made in powder.

Nope. The soil on the moon is different than any soil on earth for a reason. Can you guess.

Why don't you make a thread about walking on sand?
It is embarrassingly obvious you are trying to derail the thread.

No. Scepti mentioned that it was all fake and that his photo was made on earth. Fact is because there is no atmosphere, rain and wind to erode the soil. The soil particles on the moon are very rough as in the picture below. When you make a foot print it will hold itself. On any soil on earth will be eroded and is like little marbles. So a footprint will fall on itself. Plus there is more gravity on the earth to collapses the print. Here are the pictures.
Moon print:

Earth sand:

It's a 70mm Hasselblad, and both Aldrin and Armstrong took pictures with it. 

The camera could be detached from its RCU mount and used hand-held as shown in these training photos:

I think the thread can officially be closed now.

As the moon has no atmosphere, therefore the light from the sun (single light source) is not diffused, as on earth. The light source is to the right of the photo, as indicated by the shadow to the left. Therefore the front of the leg should be dark, yet it is well lit. So given that NASA claim that all photos were taken by natural light, the photo has to be a fake.

As the moon has no atmosphere, therefore the light from the sun (single light source) is not diffused, as on earth. The light source is to the right of the photo, as indicated by the shadow to the left. Therefore the front of the leg should be dark, yet it is well lit. So given that NASA claim that all photos were taken by natural light, the photo has to be a fake.

Please, try to dig a little bit more before posting On the moon there are at least TWO light sources: tThe sun and the moon surface. Actually, it's a very effective light reflector.