If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another hoax? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research.
Q_prime wrote:Still amazed a US flag can survive a cosmic radiation without burning...
Please explain. How would the radiation make it burn?
Hey...on this, right. Ya know how red inks always fade quicker in sunlight...I guess because of the whole wavelength of light and absorption of electromagnetic radiation thing.
Well, anyhow, does anyone know whether or not cosmic radiation (which would be mostly gamma, right?) would effect the breakdown of the flag's pigment.Retracted for idiocy...should have noticed it being discussed already. Anyhoo...
simonshack wrote:So basically what you are saying (and what we are asked to believe) is that the two perspectives of Charlie Duke we have here were captured from a still camera and a video camera, as illustrated here? (...) Is this what you are saying, Trystero?
You talk about "the lack of shadows on the various rocks left of the central pole", but it is easily explained: the sun* is exactly behind the back of John Young, who took the picture. For this reason the shadows of little objects like stones are covered by the same objects. It is called "opposition effect": "The sun shining directly behind the photographer hides the shadows of the stones in line with her head, causing them to appear brighter than the stones partially in shadow. " http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2008/11/ ... -required/
You can experiment the opposition effect by yourself everywhere.
Also the "ridiculous footprints right at the centre pole" are not ridicolous but appears big because of the perspective of the wide-angle lens (60mm on a 120mm film Hasselblad is a wide-angle, as a 28mm is a wide-angle on a 35mm film camera).
Only people who knows nothing about photograpy and perspective can find "ridicolous" the shadows in the Apollo pictures.
------------------------------------------------ * Someone talk about more sources of artificial light, but it is impossible, because in all the thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of footage, every object has only ONE SHADOW. This means only one source of light: the sun. Not the sun? It was a big cinema light source? Please explain which super-mega-giant source of light could produce an uniform illumination as seen in all the thousands of Apollo pictures, and footage like these:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awtg5qIGJ0Q
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUqplJ-i-zc
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUFqHTQWswc
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxA9EAb3Wdk
Trystero wrote:..footprints right at the centre pole" are not ridicolous but appears big .. Here you can see the same footprints you call "ridicolous" in another picture .. Only people who knows nothing about photography and perspective can find "ridicolous" the shadows
What's with the repeated and emphasised spelling "mistake"? Simon even gave you the correct letter sequence as a template.
Coincidentally, I'm reading a contemporary account of the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, where contrived idiocy is examined. The 1605 Plot was another monstrous fraud just like the Apollo Hoax. The 17th century observer noted the language of incriminating correspondence "intercepted" between supposed plotters. The plotters' letters were clumsily contrived to superficially portray them as idiots. Yet, on scrutiny, an educated and very devious hand is revealed.
So what's your tedious antagonistic game here? Hoping for an Official Brownie Point for Brown Nosing?
*sigh*.. back in the real world, no one with an analytical mind who has studied this forum could still believe in the Apollo Hoax, the 911 Myth, the Space Station Fraud, etcetera.
Trystero wrote:..footprints right at the centre pole[/i]" are not ridicolous but appears big .. Here you can see the same footprints you call "ridicolous" in another picture .. Only people who knows nothing about photography and perspective can find "ridicolous" the shadows
What's with the repeated and emphasised spelling "mistake"? Simon even gave you the correct letter sequence as a template.
Ok, it is a spelling mistake. In Italy we say "ridicolo", so I wrote it in a wrong way. Next times, before sending a message, I will read carefully all the words.
But I'm sure there are many other spelling and grammar errors in my message, not only that one, because I studied English only at school, many, many years ago.
Trystero wrote:Ok, it is a spelling mistake. In Italy we say "ridicolo", so I wrote it in a wrong way. Next times, before sending a message, I will read carefully all the words.
Or, alternatively, the "mistake" was an attempt to falsely portray yourself as a native speaker of Italian
Any way.. don't let me sidetrack you from unveiling your Opus Dei - the defence of the indefensible - the Apollo Hoax
Trystero wrote:Only people who knows nothing about photograpy and perspective can find "ridicolous" the shadows in the Apollo pictures.
Trystero,
Before you start posting further silliness on Cluesforum, I will kindly ask you to reply to a few legitimate questions I have for you. This, in order for everyone to know a little more about your background - an essential prerequisite for anyone to fathom how on Earth there can still exist any grown up, educated person (you introduced yourself as a 57-year-old architect) out there believing in NASA's ridiculous fables.
I happen to have bumped into a "Trystero" (on an Italian forum) who vigorously defends NASA's purported moon landings:
Question 1: I assume that this "Trystero" is you, correct?
If not, please ignore my 2nd question. If yes, my second question would be as follows.
Your above-linked (NASA-supportive) post ends with this citation :
"Non dobbiamo stupirci troppo. Esistono ancora persone che negano la realtà storica dello sterminio degli ebrei da parte del nazismo e considerano falsi fotografici le immagini dei forni crematori e dei mucchi di cadaveri."
"We shouldn't be too surprised. There still exist people who negate the historical reality of the extermination of the jews on the part of nazism and who claim that the images of the cremator ovens and the heaps of corpses are photographic forgeries."
Question 2: Can you please clarify what the topic of NASA's moon landings has to do with the extermination of jews?
My last questions concern the series of Youtube videos that you posted above. They are uploaded on the YT channel of one "Marcello Yarmolinsky". His YT profile describes him as "57 years old - from the United Kingdom" (Again, if I wrongly assume that this is your own YT channel, please disregard my last questions). As it is, 'Marcelo Yarmolinsky' is a fictional character (a Talmudic rabbi) which gets assassinated in "Death and the Compass" - an episode of self-anointed kabbalist Jorge Luis Borges' book "Ficciones" (Fictions). http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture/b ... ewspart_ii
Question 3: What are the sources of that never-seen-before footage from the Apollo missions?
Question 4: Why the nickname "Marcello Yarmolinsky"?
Question 5: If that's indeed your Youtube channel, are you based in the United Kingdom - or in Italy?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
*******************************
An animated gif I made from one of "Marcello Yarmolinsky's" Apollo uploads:
I don't wish to communicate with the obvious shill, Trystero, but his video selection raises a question I have every time I see photographs and video footage purporting to be from the moon landings; is/was the moon flat?
The reason I ask, is that invariably we see the horizon just beyond our brave astronaughts, as they teeter on the edge of oblivion! This curious anomaly is exacerbated by the Hasselblad cameras being tethered at chest height.
SmokingGunII wrote:I don't wish to communicate with the obvious shill, Trystero, but his video selection raises a question I have every time I see photographs and video footage purporting to be from the moon landings; is/was the moon flat?
The reason I ask, is that invariably we see the horizon just beyond our brave astronaughts, as they teeter on the edge of oblivion! This curious anomaly is exacerbated by the Hasselblad cameras being tethered at chest height.
The moon is an asteroid in an empty sky dontcha know?
Trystero wrote:Hello, The convergent shadows are explained in every school of the world, when the teachers talk about a strange thing named "perspective" (do you know perspective? and the "vanishing point? no?)
But there's something more... there is a footage taken from the TV camera placed on the Rover in the picture AS16-107-17529:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCZonZJWzf4
You can see the scene of the picture AS16-107-17529 starting from minute 1.50
----------------------------------- P.S. Look at the object in the hand of Charlie Duke
And then take again a look at the footage, here is a short excerpt of the full scene
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x3a_kjzAik
Your 'shadow convergence' theory, in relation to this pic(AS16-107-17529) is flawed. Why ? Because, the backround pole and the front pole are basically on the same 'line of sight', and within close proximity to one another and on a fairly smooth surface( no craters, trenches or depressions). Thus, the angles of the shadow's produced by the poles should be somewhat linear to one another. But, the angles of the shadows cast by the poles are not. Hence, this depiction of 'reality' is bullshit !
And, I noticed that you went for the 'sardines'. Any good fisherman would have gone for 'Marlin'.
Hey, trystero. There is obviously a photographic reason that the astronaught's shadow is blurred compared to the crisp shadows of everything else within the same field of view - care to enlighten us?
Messed up. Correct me if I'm wrong, nut that anomaly you allude to. Hasn't the astronaught to the left just pulled a rabbit out of his hat. Magic!
SmokingGunII, I think that the fakery program people are trying to simulate the shadows of things distant from the surface the shadow is cast on, but there does seem to be something fishy about how non-blurry it is in some places whilst overly blurry in others.
simonshack wrote:I happen to have bumped into a "Trystero" (on an Italian forum) who vigorously defends NASA's purported moon landings: http://forum.cosenascoste.com/universo- ... ost1014219 Question 1: I assume that this "Trystero" is you, correct?
1) Yes, I wrote as "Trystero" in many forums. In others (for example "rennes-le-chateau.it") I use my real name. You seem very curious about me, so if you want to see my face and my work website, here you will be satisfied: http://goo.gl/M4pQZ 2) Both the concepts ("nazis never exterminated the jews" and "NASA never went to the Moon") are based on the same conspiracy paranoias. But I can also add "Elvis is alive", or "Paul is dead" 3) I regret that you "never seen" those well known footage from Apollo Rover vehicle. They were published in many films, VHS tapes, DVDs... I have an old VHS series of NASA documentaries published in Italy in the eighties (from USA originals of the seventies), and ALL the Apollo DVD box sets published recently, plus many other documentaries like Al Reinert's "For All Mankind", the series "When We Left Earth" by Discovery Channel, "In The Shadow Of The Moon" with many interviews to the astronauts, and books about the Apollo missions... Yes this argument really interests me, since I was fourteen and I watched the TV transmission of the Apollo 11 Moon landing.
Only who knows nothing about the Apollo missions can call those footage as "never seen".
4) I posted videos in YouTube with both the nicknames "diegotrystero" and "Marcello Yarmolinsky" Trystero comes from "The Crying Of Lot 49" by Thomas Pynchon (in italian the title is "L'incanto del lotto 49"), a book I read at least five or six times, I think it is one of the masterpieces of the XX century; Borges is one of my favourite writers, I have read all his books, and Marcello Yarmolinsky is a character of a beautiful novel published in "Fictions". I choose that name because other Borges related names were in use, but there was no other "Marcello Yarmolinsky" as nickname in the web. As a fictional character I choose also a fictional nation when I registered that name. I choose it with no relations with jews in my mind.
But... why you are so obsessed with jews in your message?
(please excuse me if I made errors in my messages, I studied english many years ago)
Last edited by Trystero on June 16th, 2012, 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It seems you never seen a shadow in your life. There's no anomaly. All the shadows produced by the sun are sharp near the object and blurred far from the object. The reason is very simple: the sun is not a point, it has a disc shape, with a certain "area" in the sky. Even in the 3D software there's an option called "area shadow" to obtain shadows with more realistic appearance. Look at this example:
or the gnomon's extra 'leg'.
Extra leg? Please open your eyes: it is the shadow
messdup wrote:Your 'shadow convergence' theory, in relation to this pic(AS16-107-17529) is flawed. Why ? Because, the backround pole and the front pole are basically on the same 'line of sight', and within close proximity to one another and on a fairly smooth surface( no craters, trenches or depressions). Thus, the angles of the shadow's produced by the poles should be somewhat linear to one another. But, the angles of the shadows cast by the poles are not. Hence, this depiction of 'reality' is bullshit !
You know nothing about perspective and angles of view. Here are a comparison of the images, one taken from the Hasselblad picture AS16-107-17529 and two from the TV camera frames.
Another picture from the same film magazine:
Last edited by Trystero on June 16th, 2012, 3:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
