UFO following a BA 747???

I see, better than a thousand words...

DaSonyGuy said:

Now fact five: "The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat."

So why is that an important clue?...Take a good look at the reflection in the visor.

If the two Astronauts were at the same ground level relative to each other, and the Hasselblad camera was at chest height, the reflection in the visor would not be directly in line with the horizon as shown in the photo. It should be much higher in the visor. A moonhoax researcher calculated that the camera taking the image would have to be 12 feet above the surface the subect Astronaut is standing on but going by the reflection in the visor, this is cleary not the case!

Conclusion...The reflection in the visor has been doctored to hide the original reflection which would have shown the real photographer, who was standing on a gantry on the Apollo Astronaut training area inside Groom Lake Airbase, Nevada (Area 51).

Satellite photos from flyovers of Area 51 show man-made craters exactly like some of those found at the proposed landing sites on the Moon...A film set of the Moon no less. Overhead spotlights were used to light the "Actor naut" and fill lights were used from various directions to fill the silhouttes.

There was never any danger to the Actor nauts or film from radiation, as it was all shot right done here on Earth!

Click to expand...

...are 4 pictures...

...3 of them taken with 3 SIGMA cameras...

...just have a look:

the placement...





...the Apollo alignment with the camera position at the same level like the reflection of the horizon at a spherical surface like a astronaut helmet in a famous picture...





...and a reference shot made with the upper camera at the very same time, controlled by a RS-31 remote control...





...last but not least the famous shot:



Now, it is shown and nothing more to say , that the camera position for the shot, with the reflection at the helmet aligned with the horizon, must be taken with the camera and the reflection at the same level...

...which can easely be achived by standing more upright at a slightly higher level, because it is only about one foot distance between assumed chest position of the camera and the reflection of the horizon at eyelevel of the helmet.

Greetz to the man in and not behind the moon!

--

If I´m writing in bold letters, I do not shout , like one mentioned to me -
I´m just trying to improve the readability!

Uli

Usee said:

Usee said:

Now fact five: "The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat."

So why is that an important clue?...Take a good look at the reflection in the visor.

If the two Astronauts were at the same ground level relative to each other, and the Hasselblad camera was at chest height, the reflection in the visor would not be directly in line with the horizon as shown in the photo. It should be much higher in the visor. A moonhoax researcher calculated that the camera taking the image would have to be 12 feet above the surface the subect Astronaut is standing on but going by the reflection in the visor, this is cleary not the case!

Conclusion...The reflection in the visor has been doctored to hide the original reflection which would have shown the real photographer, who was standing on a gantry on the Apollo Astronaut training area inside Groom Lake Airbase, Nevada (Area 51).

Satellite photos from flyovers of Area 51 show man-made craters exactly like some of those found at the proposed landing sites on the Moon...A film set of the Moon no less. Overhead spotlights were used to light the "Actor naut" and fill lights were used from various directions to fill the silhouttes.

There was never any danger to the Actor nauts or film from radiation, as it was all shot right done here on Earth!

Click to expand...

...are 4 pictures...

...3 of them taken with 3 SIGMA cameras...

...just have a look:

the placement...





...the Apollo alignment with the camera position at the same level like the reflection of the horizon at a spherical surface like a astronaut helmet in a famous picture...





...and a reference shot made with the upper camera at the very same time, controlled by a RS-31 remote control...





...last but not least the famous shot:



Now, it is shown and nothing more to say , that the camera position for the shot, with the reflection at the helmet aligned with the horizon, must be taken with the camera and the reflection at the same level...

...which can easely be achived by standing more upright at a slightly higher level, because it is only about one foot distance between assumed chest position of the camera and the reflection of the horizon at eyelevel of the helmet.

Greetz to the man in and not behind the moon!

--

If I´m writing in bold letters, I do not shout , like one mentioned to me -
I´m just trying to improve the readability!

Uli

Click to expand...

Uli, what is this supposed to prove? I must be missing something because what I see is that in both samples, the reflection of the "horizon" in your ball bearing is not inline with the "horizon" on the floor. The Horizon on the floor is not the laser line on the skirting, the horizon on the floor is the edge where the floor meets the skirting*, eg: that lighter horizontal line in the middle between the laser line and its reflection on the floor, so it does'nt seem anything like the reflection in the visor in the photo.

I saw it in the sky after a microflash from somewhere up there and captured what maybe just a speck of dust.

Thank you to TJ for lending his IR/UV filter after I broke mine. Can't seem to stay clear of the pysch wards. I have a natural talent for making headway in those places of lock down.
--
I learn from what creates through me.

http://www.photoegap.com
http://www.flutterbyfreedom.com
My GF Butterfly blog:
http://butterflywatching.blogspot.com/

The SD1 will be the ultimate UFO chasing machine, combined with the 800mm 5.6f EX Bigma.

--
I learn from what creates through me.

http://www.photoegap.com
http://www.flutterbyfreedom.com
My GF Butterfly blog:
http://butterflywatching.blogspot.com/

I am just waiting for the E.T.s near the sun to beam Earth back to the constellation Aquarius. This would be inlined to a new ethos.
--
I learn from what creates through me.

http://www.photoegap.com
http://www.flutterbyfreedom.com
My GF Butterfly blog:
http://butterflywatching.blogspot.com/

Hardly dust....looks more like another airplane at a distance.
--
I learn from what creates through me.

http://www.photoegap.com
http://www.flutterbyfreedom.com
My GF Butterfly blog:
http://butterflywatching.blogspot.com/

Sorry, but there are no nice words left, which could describe Your answer...

DaSigmaGuy said:

Usee said:

DaSonyGuy said:

Now fact five: "The ground the two Astronauts are standing on is virtually flat."

So why is that an important clue?...Take a good look at the reflection in the visor.

If the two Astronauts were at the same ground level relative to each other, and the Hasselblad camera was at chest height, the reflection in the visor would not be directly in line with the horizon as shown in the photo. It should be much higher in the visor. A moonhoax researcher calculated that the camera taking the image would have to be 12 feet above the surface the subect Astronaut is standing on but going by the reflection in the visor, this is cleary not the case!

Conclusion...The reflection in the visor has been doctored to hide the original reflection which would have shown the real photographer, who was standing on a gantry on the Apollo Astronaut training area inside Groom Lake Airbase, Nevada (Area 51).

Satellite photos from flyovers of Area 51 show man-made craters exactly like some of those found at the proposed landing sites on the Moon...A film set of the Moon no less. Overhead spotlights were used to light the "Actor naut" and fill lights were used from various directions to fill the silhouttes.

There was never any danger to the Actor nauts or film from radiation, as it was all shot right done here on Earth!

Click to expand...

...are 4 pictures...

...3 of them taken with 3 SIGMA cameras...

...just have a look:

the placement...





...the Apollo alignment with the camera position at the same level like the reflection of the horizon at a spherical surface like a astronaut helmet in a famous picture...





...and a reference shot made with the upper camera at the very same time, controlled by a RS-31 remote control...





...last but not least the famous shot:



Now, it is shown and nothing more to say , that the camera position for the shot, with the reflection at the helmet aligned with the horizon, must be taken with the camera and the reflection at the same level...

...which can easely be achived by standing more upright at a slightly higher level, because it is only about one foot distance between assumed chest position of the camera and the reflection of the horizon at eyelevel of the helmet.

Greetz to the man in and not behind the moon!

--

If I´m writing in bold letters, I do not shout , like one mentioned to me -
I´m just trying to improve the readability!

Uli

Click to expand...

Uli, what is this supposed to prove? I must be missing something because what I see is that in both samples, the reflection of the "horizon" in your ball bearing is not inline with the "horizon" on the floor. The Horizon on the floor is not the laser line on the skirting, the horizon on the floor is the edge where the floor meets the skirting*, eg: that lighter horizontal line in the middle between the laser line and its reflection on the floor, so it does'nt seem anything like the reflection in the visor in the photo.

Click to expand...

...however I assume now, that I would write for someone else. :|

There is only one horizon at the walls and not on the floor...
...never used a laser levelling with cardanic mount?

Just watch the overview picture, wher You can see the (red laser) horizon meets the lens of the lower camera.

Don't make the mistake to think that the reflection at the floor, or the line between floor and wall is something like a real moon / earth horizon...

...I think that the guy, who wrote the book made the mistake to assume a near horizon like a flat street, or the floor of a studio would act like a real horizon far away like on the moon, or on earth, or simulated by a laser line...

...b.t.w. the difference in angle between those two shots is about 5 degree and U see that it is huge.

If one takes those approx. 5 degree as in my example for a difference in hight of 6' one is getting a distance of more than 68'!

-

If You still don't understand, please be kind and ask someone else,
because I have no nice words left for Your asking anymore...

-

P.S.:

If one is disturbed by the not exact levelled laser line, especially in the shot performed by the upper camera, which was also more prone to mirror shake...

...is free to remove the little tilt with a very good RAW-converter like SilkyPix Pro!

--
If I´m writing in bold letters, I do not shout , like one mentioned to me -
I´m just trying to improve the readability!

Uli

You keep saying I haven't "researched the subject enough", so some background is needed.

I literally grew up with the NASA program. While attending grammar and high school, I had blanket permission to skip school on space shot days, beginning in the late-1950's. All shots were either televised or live on radio in my hometown, since JPL's labs, was just down the road.

My favorite uncle worked for Lockheed, JPL and NASA, and a close family friend (my girlfriend's dad) was a pioneer in advanced rocketry and was a NASA/JPL consultant. I only offer this because I've seen the results of dozens of rocket shots, and the striations beneath the Lander were identical in every way to what I witnessed first-hand when the shot was from loose, sandy soil. They most obviously are not the result of any "raking". Family members still work in "da bizz". So I have been deeply steeped in space stuff since my pre-teen years. This is no recent hobby.

So I've obviously "researched" this more than a bit. I asked you about the cameras and lens for a reason, though you got one piece of information wrong. While some cameras over the course of the Moon shots were chest-mounted, others were hand-held. But that's not why I asked. You assume, without actually knowing, that the images weren't cropped, and you recite which cameras and lenses were used, without question. I'm puzzled why you would accept this information as factual, while disbelieving everything else. At what point did you begin doubting that the Moon landings were real?

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

Chuck Lantz said:

So I've obviously "researched" this more than a bit. I asked you about the cameras and lens for a reason, though you got one piece of information wrong. While some cameras over the course of the Moon shots were chest-mounted, others were hand-held.

Click to expand...

The reason for the chest bracket was to keep the Astronauts hands free. I'm not saying that the Hassy cameras used were permanently fixed to the suits, because obviously they would have to be removable, probably via quick-release catch. If they could'nt be removed, and held in the hand, then its highly unlikely we would have any pictures of the Astronauts footprints in the "Lunar soil" as it would'nt have been possible to aim the camera at the desired angle without the astronaut falling over.

Chuck Lantz said:

But that's not why I asked. You assume, without actually knowing, that the images weren't cropped, and you recite which cameras and lenses were used, without question.

Click to expand...

I can be 100% sure of which were cropped, or not, from looking at the orignal versions, which have been scanned directly from the orginal 70mmx70mm negatives.

The publicly released versions, which are no longer in square format, and which have the same framing width as the originals, have therefore all been doctored, in one form or another.
You can see the original versions for yourself, here:

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Chuck Lantz said:

I'm puzzled why you would accept this information as factual, while disbelieving everything else. At what point did you begin doubting that the Moon landings were real?

Click to expand...

After reading the book "Apollo-Dark Moon And The Wistle Blowers". The evidence in the book that its was a hoax is highly convincing!

I think this is a major flaw in the argument

DaSonyGuy said:

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

Click to expand...

to doctor these shots in a darkroom would be almost if not in fact impossible.
Any one who has done darkroom work could testify to this

and this result is beyond even the best hand transparency retoucher( a fascinating thing to see done using very fine brushes and special inks/stains and now a lost art)

The technology to scan and manipulate images digitally or or even using analogue electronics did not exist in the early 60s, at all in any field weather scientific, medical, private or military

To get results like this onto film or photographic paper requires a laser and modulator to expose the material and the first gas laser was not invented until the end of 1962 and only existed on a University Lab bench.