But I dont class it as business, so thats just fine.
Er..No it is'nt.
Which would be you.
Its just wishfull thinking on your part.
Actually given your constant insults and derogatory tone you are by definition the troll here, so come back when your voice breaks.
They aren't insults. Your posts well illustrate that you are a moron. You take a fuzzy picture of something next to a jet and you think it is a UFO but you dismiss a mass of evidence, personal accounts, follow up missions, and current experiments of one of the most watched major event of the 20th century with nothing more than silly nonsense.
DUH! That is because they were not at the same level. You have noticed that the moon has all sorts of geological features just like the earth.
What makes you think he is "looking down" on him in this photo? If the shooter is holding the camera anywhere near his own eyes (and not all the cameras were attached to the chest), then Aldrin's head and the horizon are where you'd expect them to be in the shot, give or take a few inches.OK, lets look at the photo that Armstrong was supposed to have taken just before that one, where he is'nt standing in the little crater:OK,
...he gains balance...
...and looses thereby approx. 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 inch) of hight.
...he stands in a little crater - look at his boots and the shadow of his legs...
...another 10 cm (4 inch).
Now, if You want to make a photo in this situation, You would not put Yourself into a little crater, so the photographer may have found a position between little craters which is about 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 inch) higher, at least if one includes the little extra hight if one is proud to take this shot.
Maybe there are also some extra cm / inches in the different high of the bodys of the both astronauts...
Let's sum it up and You get about 1 foot, right?
That is pretty close to the (for collimation) needed distance between chest and the eyelevel, where the reflection is.
You only need this single foot to reach the position for collimating the reflection, the camera and the horizon and You get it pretty easy!
He is'nt taking a step, he is standing full height, yet the camera taking the photo is still looking down on Buzz!
I explained more than once, that You only need a difference of 1' (chest with camera position to the position of the horizon on the helmet reflection) and not more:
But dust can also adhere to a totally dry surface where is a slight static charge for instance.
If you want to see how the 12' calculation was arrived at you will have to read the book: "Apollo-Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".I explained more than once, that You only need a difference of 1' (chest with camera position to the position of the horizon on the helmet reflection) and not more:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=37772748
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=37775333
And I even gave the hint, where one can get this needed single foot hight between chest and helmet.
-
Ok, now I have to assume that You really don't want an explanation and that You don't understand my explanation.
Now it is time, that You make the proof, why it has to be (Your) 12' (I assume You mean from the ground) and not (my) 1' (from camera on chest of the photographer to horizon reflection at the helmet of the other astronaut) to make the reflection as shown in the helmet:
After You explained, why it has to be 12',
I will show You, where the think and / or calculation errors are.
-
If we get so far, I'll start to explain Your dust problem at the landing site.
Because the camera was mounted on the camera bracket on Armstrongs spacesuit at the time, which is at chest height not head height.What makes you think he is "looking down" on him in this photo? If the shooter is holding the camera anywhere near his own eyes (and not all the cameras were attached to the chest), then Aldrin's head and the horizon are where you'd expect them to be in the shot, give or take a few inches.OK, lets look at the photo that Armstrong was supposed to have taken just before that one, where he is'nt standing in the little crater:OK,
...he gains balance...
...and looses thereby approx. 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 inch) of hight.
...he stands in a little crater - look at his boots and the shadow of his legs...
...another 10 cm (4 inch).
Now, if You want to make a photo in this situation, You would not put Yourself into a little crater, so the photographer may have found a position between little craters which is about 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 inch) higher, at least if one includes the little extra hight if one is proud to take this shot.
Maybe there are also some extra cm / inches in the different high of the bodys of the both astronauts...
Let's sum it up and You get about 1 foot, right?
That is pretty close to the (for collimation) needed distance between chest and the eyelevel, where the reflection is.
You only need this single foot to reach the position for collimating the reflection, the camera and the horizon and You get it pretty easy!
He is'nt taking a step, he is standing full height, yet the camera taking the photo is still looking down on Buzz!
Sorry, but now I have to assume, that You even don't understand, what You claim to be true!If you want to see how the 12' calculation was arrived at you will have to read the book: "Apollo-Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".I explained more than once, that You only need a difference of 1' (chest with camera position to the position of the horizon on the helmet reflection) and not more:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=37772748
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=37775333
And I even gave the hint, where one can get this needed single foot hight between chest and helmet.
-
Ok, now I have to assume that You really don't want an explanation and that You don't understand my explanation.
Now it is time, that You make the proof, why it has to be (Your) 12' (I assume You mean from the ground) and not (my) 1' (from camera on chest of the photographer to horizon reflection at the helmet of the other astronaut) to make the reflection as shown in the helmet:
After You explained, why it has to be 12',
I will show You, where the think and / or calculation errors are.
-
If we get so far, I'll start to explain Your dust problem at the landing site.
Usee, the problem with DaSigmaGuy goes way beyond what a photographer should know. Essentially what DaSigmaGuy has done is read someplace that there is something wrong with the Apollo lunar photos. For some strange reason he decided to believe these odd reports without checking any of the history, math or science. Although I doubt he could check it anyway. It matters not what evidence you or I or anyone else provides him, what is in the history books, museums, the large rockets, the later LRO mission, the laser distance experiments or any of that, because his decision isn't based on evidence or thought. Just like his original post on the UFO. He has decided that his blurred picture of a bird must be something extraterrestrial simply because he wants to think that. So appealing to knowledge and reason is not gonna work with DaSigmaGuy.
I left out static attraction, which is not "sticking" to a surface, which is why I wrote "adhere."
And you know that how, exactly?
Its been a while since I studied this but Im pretty sure this is wrong
Yes that’s a good idea to wait until the Chinese validates the items left by the USA on the moon. If fact the whole word should turn to the Chinese seeking enlightenment with how to unrestricted and broadcast information.
You obviously have'nt researched this very well Chuck or you would'nt have to ask that because it is a well documented fact, from NASA no less.
I have'nt avoided anything. I just dont accept his fanciful conclusion, which he bases on guesswork. I offered a simple way to test and verify his opinions but he declined to take up the offer so he is avoiding confirming his opinions. Unless he does, he cant be sure he is even correct in what he thinks, and if he cant be sure he is correct, you cant exactly expect me to take his opinions seriously, can you.
Again you have showing that you have'nt even researched the subject or would'nt need to ask that.
Not at all. The evidence it was a hoax is there for all to see, but if you truly believe the NASA story lof events, you just wont be able to see it.
I can see your point, the Chinese are well known to like censoring public opnions.
My source was Wikipedia (On reading the source articles again, I may have exagerated the up to 20% of the solar wind figure bit for dramatic effect, but your right the normal figure is normally said to be at least 10%-12%).
Relatively flat, not virtually flat, but basically yes.
Yes.
He's maybe in a slightly higher position, it does appear from the shading that the subject is in a slight depression (maybe 1 foot at most, probably more like 6 inches) you can tell by the less reflection of the dirt, it's not in shadow per se. The camera is angled down but it's not really shot from above... Also the image you provided has been cropped to straighten the crooked composition and more black sky has been added to the top... the original looked more like this:
You don't understand convex mirrors very well do you? If you're at 3' or 12' the visor would bend the reflected horizon to line up (roughly) with the actual horizon.
So what you're saying is the moon surface is spectrally neutral from 380nm to 1000µm. Albido applies to thermal energy, not light.So what your saying is, there is enough light bouncing up from Moons surface, which I'm sure you are aware, only has an albido of 8%, to fill the back side of the Astronauts suit by at least 3-4 stops, if not more, yet there is not enough light bouncing off the same surface, only a few feet away to light up the side of the Eagle lander that is also facing away from the sun...Right? Hmmm...Incorrect, light is bouncing up off the surface of the moon and (in the first image all that gold foil on the lander--which is acting as a giant reflector) You will actually notice the areas you think should be silhouetted in the first are yellowish because of this. In the 2nd image, you see "fill" is diffuse light coming from below, being bounced up off the dirt.Heres is another pic, where this time the back of the astronaut should be in silhouette but its not, its clearly lit:
Helium-4 Radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper. "High Energy" or not it's a matter of the size of the particle not the speed or energy.
It's not really looking down at Buzz much. Buzz may be down 6 inches lower, but not significantly. I pointed out the image you were looking at was a wide angle shot that was cropped.
Thats right I posted it in an earlier reply, clearly showing that the possibilty NASA doctored the reflection in the visor is not an ureasonable assumption, given the publicy released shot was already doctored.Relatively flat, not virtually flat, but basically yes.
Yes.
He's maybe in a slightly higher position, it does appear from the shading that the subject is in a slight depression (maybe 1 foot at most, probably more like 6 inches) you can tell by the less reflection of the dirt, it's not in shadow per se. The camera is angled down but it's not really shot from above... Also the image you provided has been cropped to straighten the crooked composition and more black sky has been added to the top... the original looked more like this:
Of course I do, but perhaps you dont?. I conducted a simple emperiment with a shiny, reflective curved bowl, representing Aldrins Visor, and a flat mirror, representing the flat photographic perspective of the camera used, to see if I could replicate the angle of the shadow of Aldrins legs, as shown reflected in the visor...I could'nt. The shadows of Aldrins legs could not be facing the angle they are shown in the visor. The convexity of the bowl is'nt important, as long it has a convex surface the basic priciple remains, and I proved to my satisfaction at least that there has to be serious doughts about the authenticity of the visor reflection.
So what your saying is, there is enough light bouncing up from Moons surface, which I'm sure you are aware, only has an albido of 8%, to fill the back side of the Astronauts suit by at least 3-4 stops, if not more, yet there is not enough light bouncing off the same surface, only a few feet away to light up the side of the Eagle lander that is also facing away from the sun...Right? Hmmm...Incorrect, light is bouncing up off the surface of the moon and (in the first image all that gold foil on the lander--which is acting as a giant reflector) You will actually notice the areas you think should be silhouetted in the first are yellowish because of this. In the 2nd image, you see "fill" is diffuse light coming from below, being bounced up off the dirt.Heres is another pic, where this time the back of the astronaut should be in silhouette but its not, its clearly lit:
And I never implied the Moons surface is spectrally neutral as it is a well known fact that the Albido of the moon is 8%, ie: it only reflects 8% of the light that stikes it.
Thats is incorrect. The term Albido refers to the reflection coefficient of a surface, or the reflecting power of a surface and it applies to light just as well as heat.
Not always. Many shots show Astronauts very well lit all round, and considerably brighter than the Lunar surace around them, even when standing in the shadow of the LEM. Even the light on areas of their suits facing away from the Sun are very well lit, when logic alone tells us that those areas should look much darker than they are shown in the NASA photos.
Oh come on, surely you must realise that: "Just enough fill from the dirt to give definition" is an massive understatement?If you compare this image with the former, you will see that the shadows on the back side of the astronaut in the flag shot are significantly darker than those near the lander with the foil acting as fill (the image you supplied had been lightened significantly so that the black sky showed as grey, skewing comparison)
With the exception of some ridge areas on the legs where light bouncing off of one leg lights a little bit of the shadow area of the other, the shadows are deep in the 3/4 tones., not very well lit, just enough fill from the dirt to give definition. I work in a relatively black studio and when photographing large white objects, I often will need to put a black cloth on the dull grey floor as it inadvertently fillsthe object just enough to make me unhappy.
