FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Apollo Moon Landings Faked?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Were The Moon Landings Real or Hollywood?
Real!
23%
 23%  [ 11 ]
Special Effects!
51%
 51%  [ 24 ]
I Like Sitting On Fences, I Feel Safer...
6%
 6%  [ 3 ]
I Neither Know Nor Care!
4%
 4%  [ 2 ]
What Has This Poll Got To Do With 911?
14%
 14%  [ 7 ]
Total Votes : 47

Author Message
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig W wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Craig W wrote:

I am not asking you to watch all the Youtube videos posted on here. Just these ones.


Yes, but then everybody could say the same thing. Then you'd have to watch them all, including thought criminal's endless stream of no-plane nonsense.



We're not talking about everybody's films we are talking about the ones I provided and have specifically asked you to view.


So, you are "special" ?

But let's see...

The first film is 51mins.

Watch that, pause frequently to make notes and the timing for easy reference.

Look up photos in the NASA archive to compare with grainy cack from a YouTube film. Save the NASA photos. Screen dump, crop and save the same shots from the video. Upload all to PhotoBucket to post here.

Look up other sites to get other opinions. Make notes. Save URL's Compose an analysis for you.

This is easily 5 hours of my life. For one film.

And yet you (who wants me to watch and comment) won't take the trouble to compare the films with the standard moon-hoax CT sites, to see if there's anything new that makes the films essential viewing.

Tell you what - shall I come round and hoover your carpet too?

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Tell you what - shall I come round and hoover your carpet too?

Well if that's an open offer - what time can you get here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignatz wrote:

Craig wrote:


We're not talking about everybody's films we are talking about the ones I provided and have specifically asked you to view.



So, you are "special" ?


Yes I am.

Ignatz wrote:

But let's see...

The first film is 51mins.

Watch that, pause frequently to make notes and the timing for easy reference.

Look up photos in the NASA archive to compare with grainy cack from a YouTube film. Save the NASA photos. Screen dump, crop and save the same shots from the video. Upload all to PhotoBucket to post here.

Look up other sites to get other opinions. Make notes. Save URL's Compose an analysis for you.

This is easily 5 hours of my life. For one film.


Imagine the satisfaction you will get from having your suspicions about these films confirmed and by being able to demonstrate to me and the other deluded nutters on here exactly why they are utterly without foundation. A small price to pay, I would have thought.

Ignatz wrote:

And yet you (who wants me to watch and comment) won't take the trouble to compare the films with the standard moon-hoax CT sites, to see if there's anything new that makes the films essential viewing.

Tell you what - shall I come round and hoover your carpet too?


That would be great. But do I have to provide evidence of my carpet?

Craig W wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Craig W wrote:

Watching the video evidence will be far more persuasive than any verbal summary I could provide. And I would be genuinely interested in your view of these films. I had expected them to be laughable and was surprised that they were actually quite persuasive.


Do they contain anything that isn't in the books and on the moon-hoax websites? I've read those already. Please let me know.


I don't know. I haven't read the books. You will only find out whether they do by watching the films.

I do know one of them includes a very strange piece of NASA footage appearing to show the "astronauts" practising faking shots of earth when in low earth orbit to try and make it seem like they were much deeper into space. Furthermore, it is time stamped at a time that they should have been way out on their way to the moon.I would be interested to know your opinion of that (but won't hold my breath as you don't seem to want to see the evidence).


Ignatz wrote:

Craig W wrote:

If you still refuse to watch them then I will be forced to conclude that you simply do not want to consider the evidence against the lunar landings.


No, you'd choose to believe it, not be forced.

We've been debating the evidence 'against the lunar landings' in some depth. Why do you say I'm unwilling to consider it?

Your logic doesn't work. Could I post a YouTube link that claims Lord of the Rings is a true story, and use your reluctance to watch it as useful evidence about your bona fides?



Wrong. You are refuting the claims of a moon hoax. I am providing evidence of the alleged hoax in the links. You are refusing to view the evidence I am providing.

What conclusion would you have me draw other than that you simply don't want to view the evidence?


And the rest of my points, Ignatz?

Go on, I dare you to watch the films. I am genuinely interested in your view. None of us has a monopoly on truth and none of us is infallible. We are all here to learn from each other. Smile

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched about the first 90 seconds of "Did we really go to the moon?"

The first criticism is that the photos look too perfect. The Apollo astronauts took thousands of photos. An average of one every 15 seconds while on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.

They were also equipped with very good cameras, using small apertures, so they have large depth of field. This means that more of the scene is in focus, and so decreases the number of out of focus photos.

And like all good photographers, they only show you the best pictures. The rest are available if you look for them:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

I got bored of the video after that. They went to talk to Bill Kaysing, who once worked for someone who did something for NASA, and who knows nothing about space travel.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
I watched about the first 90 seconds of "Did we really go to the moon?"


Is that called 'having an open mind'?
Further proof (as if it was ever needed) that your belief system totally drives your 'investigations' just as it does for the other 'critics' here.
Utterly disingenuous, not after the truth at all are ya.

With such an approach its no wonder you utterly believe the OCT of 911 and the official explanation for everything thats ever happened.

Johnny Pixels wrote:
The Apollo astronauts took thousands of photos. An average of one every 15 seconds while on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.


Every 15 seconds... accounting for other activity (as calculated in the time and motion study below). Or one every 50 seconds not accounting for other activity over all missions.

Did you derive that number from this?
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
Quote:
Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds


Wouldnt surprise me if you had, but then disregarded everything else within it.

Quote:
A TIME AND MOTION STUDY

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands!

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 17..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240 minutes), leaving 230 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180 minutes), leaving 385 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 750 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 854 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480 minutes), leaving 844 minutes for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031 minutes............3.90 photos per minute
Apollo 12.......504 photos in 230 minutes............2.19 photos per minute
Apollo 14.......374 photos in 385 minutes............0.97 photos per minute
Apollo 15.....1021 photos in 750 minutes............1.36 photos per minute
Apollo 16.....1765 photos in 854 minutes ...........2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17.....1986 photos in 844 minutes ...........2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon –- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?


If you'd watched more than 90 seconds you might have seen what others who have watched it have seen. I guess you will never know, nor do you wish to.
Its a battleground for the 'critics' here, never give an inch, never accept you might be wrong.
An utterly pointless waste of time to engage with you on any subject.
Which is why you have your own corner and why this is my last post in here.

Johnny Pixels wrote:
I got bored of the video after that.


I bet you did...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scar wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
I watched about the first 90 seconds of "Did we really go to the moon?"


Is that called 'having an open mind'?
Further proof (as if it was ever needed) that your belief system totally drives your 'investigations' just as it does for the other 'critics' here.
Utterly disingenuous, not after the truth at all are ya.


With such an approach its no wonder you utterly believe the OCT of 911 and the official explanation for everything thats ever happened.

Johnny Pixels wrote:
The Apollo astronauts took thousands of photos. An average of one every 15 seconds while on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.


Every 15 seconds... accounting for other activity (as calculated in the time and motion study below). Or one every 50 seconds not accounting for other activity over all missions.

Did you derive that number from this?
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
Quote:
Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds


Wouldnt surprise me if you had, but then disregarded everything else within it.

Quote:
A TIME AND MOTION STUDY

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands!

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 17..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240 minutes), leaving 230 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180 minutes), leaving 385 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 750 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 854 minutes for taking photos
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480 minutes), leaving 844 minutes for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031 minutes............3.90 photos per minute
Apollo 12.......504 photos in 230 minutes............2.19 photos per minute
Apollo 14.......374 photos in 385 minutes............0.97 photos per minute
Apollo 15.....1021 photos in 750 minutes............1.36 photos per minute
Apollo 16.....1765 photos in 854 minutes ...........2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17.....1986 photos in 844 minutes ...........2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon –- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?


If you'd watched more than 90 seconds you might have seen what others who have watched it have seen. I guess you will never know, nor do you wish to.
Its a battleground for the 'critics' here, never give an inch, never accept you might be wrong.
An utterly pointless waste of time to engage with you on any subject.
Which is why you have your own corner and why this is my last post in here.

Johnny Pixels wrote:
I got bored of the video after that.


I bet you did...


Well said, scar.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not interested in playing semantic tennis with vocational denialists anymore.

I just wanted to say that whilst I was driving along the southern bank of the River Tay at about 5.45pm yesterday I could see a star in the northern sky. Sunset Dundee yesterday; 18.31.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig W wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
Craig W wrote:

I am not asking you to watch all the Youtube videos posted on here. Just these ones.


Yes, but then everybody could say the same thing. Then you'd have to watch them all, including thought criminal's endless stream of no-plane nonsense.



We're not talking about everybody's films we are talking about the ones I provided and have specifically asked you to view.


You certainly have quite an ego don't you?

OK - I watch the start of the first film, just to what it's made of :

1. "photos taken with multiple light sources.." (arrows pointed to light-filled areas that 'should' be in shadow)

The researchers are clearly not aware of the concepts of albedo, regolith, lambertian reflection and the "oppositional effect". I suggest they study a little harder before talking bilge.

As a trivial side note, would such a massive, complex hoax have been scuppered by something so stupid as lights in the wrong place? That would be the very first consideration for the hoax studio.

2. "..lunar module too small to manoeuvre aound inside.."

No evidence whatsoever provided for this assertion.

3. Kaysing's testimony :
No stars
Flag waving
No blast crater
...

All totally debunked, including on this forum.
Just look here -
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

4. Testimony of Brian O'Leary, "ex-astronaut"

A lie. He isn't an ex-astronaut. He was a scientist chosen for astronaut-scientist training. On a program that was cancelled. He resigned in disgust and wrote a book about it. Is this guy now a crank?

5. Kaysing again. "the astronauts simply orbited the earth for 8 days"

This is so easy to debunk it's pitiful.
The capsule would be visible (as a satellite lasting exactly the length of the mission) to even small amateur telescopes. We've discussed this at length here already.
The tracking stations around the world (official and unofficial) would have no possible source for the transmissions they received.
Rock samples retrieved are unique to the moon. We've discussed this too.

I'm 7 minutes into this film and so far it's cost me 50 minutes effort to determine what a pile of poo it is so far. And no, I don't "want" to make more effort than this unless you are willing to make an equivalent one yourself.

Over to you, Craig W. Find some stuff in the film that isn't routinely debunked already, and let me know.

I'm of the very strong opinion that you've never read any of the debunking sites. Is that the case?

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignatz, why do you have to resort to sneering and insults?

I have asked you politely several times to view certain evidence and to respond. Is that so difficult? I asked you this not because I am entrenched in a particular view but because, as I stated, I found some of the evidence provided interesting and wanted to hear what someone who clearly thinks the CTs are a load of bunk thinks of them.

If you say you can't be bothered then that is your choice but it contributes nothing to a constructive debate.

I am no expert on space. It is interesting that you seem to assume that I believe the moon landings were a hoax. I haven't said that. If you read my posts all I have said is that I found the evidence in the films I posted surprisingly convincing and I now suspect that they may have been a hoax.

You seem to think that by debunking some of the evidence you can dismiss all of it similarly. I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that logic does not work that way.

It could be that out of 100 pieces of evidence only one cannot be explained. But perhaps that one piece could be so strong as to substantially undermine the official story.

Contrary to your "very strong" opinion I have visited some of the debunking sites (before I posted on this thread, after watching these films I visited JREF, Clavius and Bad Astronomy, as I remember). I did this because I like to consider all the evidence when attempting to form a view on something and not just accept what official sources would have me believe.

What is your response to the following?

Quote:
I do know one of them includes a very strange piece of NASA footage appearing to show the "astronauts" practising faking shots of earth when in low earth orbit to try and make it seem like they were much deeper into space. Furthermore, it is time stamped at a time that they should have been way out on their way to the moon.I would be interested to know your opinion of that (but won't hold my breath as you don't seem to want to see the evidence).


Were you aware of this footage? Have you seen it? If so, what do you make of it?

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
I watched about the first 90 seconds of "Did we really go to the moon?"

The first criticism is that the photos look too perfect. The Apollo astronauts took thousands of photos. An average of one every 15 seconds while on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.

They were also equipped with very good cameras, using small apertures, so they have large depth of field. This means that more of the scene is in focus, and so decreases the number of out of focus photos.

And like all good photographers, they only show you the best pictures. The rest are available if you look for them:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html

I got bored of the video after that. They went to talk to Bill Kaysing, who once worked for someone who did something for NASA, and who knows nothing about space travel.


Yep, the cameras were the very best available: Hasselblad's, using medium format film, anyone who knows anything about photography knows the quality attainable with these. Add to that, as JP says, the small apertures used in the bright sunlight, plus lack of atmosphere to distort objects at any distance, and voila, you have those 'too perfect', pictures.

With regard to the number of photos taken, the cameras were chest mounted on the spacesuits, and photographs taken using the camera trigger. The astronauts didn't have to aim a shot in the conventional sense, just look in the direction they wanted to photograph. Not so difficult using that method to attain that high number of pictures?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sarah
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In case you wanted more opinions or perspectives - there is an old thread we discussed in the archives here:

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=15

_________________
http://www.mime11.com - A video Shortcut for new 911noobs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is quite funny.....!


Copy of moonlandings.JPG
 Description:
 Filesize:  233.46 KB
 Viewed:  196 Time(s)

Copy of moonlandings.JPG


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nrmis
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=[/youtu be]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the biggest areas of controversy revolves around the pictures supposedly taken on the moon.

Look at the picture below;




There are a number of questions that have been raised about this image over the years and never have I seen satisfactory answers. They are discussed at length here;

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

One involves the way the lighting around the astronaut appears as a ‘hotspot’, in other words, if the only light source was the sun, the lighting should be equally bright from the camera position to horizon. It clearly isn’t.

The explanation from the quoted website;

Quote:
This is a simple case of lighting effects. The scattering angle off the near surface is viewed from a steeper angle than that of the lunar surface off in the distance. The local terrain contributes greatly to the brightness of the near surface too.


This is complete waffle – if you read the explanation again, it means nothing and is nonsense. Look out of the window during the daytime – does the brightness tail off with distance or gradients? Adversely, the light falling on the surface of the moon will be equally the same here as at the horizon.

The other point which is highly obvious to any photographer is, again from the same website;

Quote:
The apparent out of focus of the horizon area is caused by the image being focused on the astronaut in the foreground - simple optics.


Yes of course depth of field will influence the zone of sharp focus – however;

We are told that the astronauts could NOT focus their cameras, instead they relied on small pre-set apertures and fixed focus. If you look at any moon image captured of subjects further away than the astronaut in the picture above, they appear sharp.

Yet in the picture of the astronaut, he is sharp and the focus tails off very quickly behind him meaning the aperture set is relatively wide (narrow depth of field) not small aperture. This would also require a change in shutter speed to compensate for the wider aperture.

The fact that the depth of field/zone of focus alters so dramatically indicates that the controls of the camera were continually being altered to capture the best images – which is something the astronauts could not do due to the design of their gloves. If the aperture was pre-set, the depth of field would remain constant in all the images - it doesn't as proved by the picture above. Hence, the aperture was being reset to alter depth of field to suit.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20744HR.jp g

This is a link to a high resolution image on NASA's own website which has multiple anomalous shadows.

In one of Jarrah White's Youtube films he talks to an academic expert in lighting and perspective (as I remember?). She has no idea that the photo is from NASA and says there must have been "at least three different light sources" to explain the various shadows.

When she finds out the photo was allegedly taken on the moon she is puzzled and cannot explain how it was possible.

One of the strangest features of this photo is the double shadow on the smallish stone to the left of the "astronaut's" left foot. It appears to cast two shadows that run at right-angles to each other.

The other main anomaly is the largeish rock to the right of the "astronaut" near the top of the shot, whose shadow appears to be being cast from a light source away to the right of the shot.

The "astronaut's" shadow is clearly coming from directly behind him.

How is it possible that these shadows were created on the moon with its single light source?

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a very interesting photo, Craig.

A lot of discussions about 'moon shadows' assert that the shadows should be parallel. This would only be true on a smooth, flat surface. However, what is true in this situation is that the invisible lines between a part of an object and the corresponding part of its shadow will appear parallel when there is a single distant light source such as the Sun.

I've added some arrows indicating the source of light.



I think that the 'double shadow' is in fact two different shadows - one from the rock and one from either a rise and dip in the surface or another 'camouflaged' rock to the right - there isn't enough detail to make it out. If there was another light source on this rock then all the shadows around it would be double.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong;
Quote:
I think that the 'double shadow' is in fact two different shadows - one from the rock and one from either a rise and dip in the surface or another 'camouflaged' rock to the right - there isn't enough detail to make it out. If there was another light source on this rock then all the shadows around it would be double.


Totally disagree.

Look at the picture below.

If the 'hidden' rock was the source, it would cast a shadow in the area pointed at by the arrow - it doesn't. There would be a shadow very roughly like the image on the right.



There is no hidden stone - it is an optical illusion.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote:
I think that the 'double shadow' is in fact two different shadows - one from the rock and one from either a rise and dip in the surface or another 'camouflaged' rock to the right - there isn't enough detail to make it out. If there was another light source on this rock then all the shadows around it would be double.

Either way, TC, I can't be arsed arguing about it. The point is, I doubt the extra shadow is caused by another source of light exclusive to this rock. The important point is the three obvious light sources. Or do you want to argue that there are in fact two and a half?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong wrote:
I wrote:
I think that the 'double shadow' is in fact two different shadows - one from the rock and one from either a rise and dip in the surface or another 'camouflaged' rock to the right - there isn't enough detail to make it out. If there was another light source on this rock then all the shadows around it would be double.

Either way, TC, I can't be arsed arguing about it. The point is, I doubt the extra shadow is caused by another source of light exclusive to this rock. The important point is the three obvious light sources. Or do you want to argue that there are in fact two and a half?!


It isn't a case of me wanting to argue about something fresh you've brought up in a bid to cover up your obvious faux pas, I simply responded to your post about the 'hidden' rock/stone - the fact you aren't prepared to even attempt to counter my point means you are unable to. The shadow would not stop and start in another location - clearly you were incorrect.

That's cool.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, you are right. Neither am I able to counter your point nor do I have the desire to do so. It seems a rather desultory distraction from the main point that the other shadows indicate quite clearly that there was not a singular light source. But you are still having problems getting to grips with the either/or concept.

As for making an obvious faux pas, I have reviewed the forum terms and conditions and I am unable to see any reason why I ought to get my coat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong;

I am unable to explain completely your affronted attitude. You raised a point, you even went to the trouble of cropping and editing an image. You detailed how the extra shadow supposedly came into being - this was as the result of a 'hidden' rock/stone. You were very clear about this, although you also mentioned the possibility of a rise or dip in the surface.

In response, I discussed the point you had made about the 'hidden' rock/stone and showed how this was not the cause of the additional shadow.

It is not the case of any concepts being missed or avoided, you raised the 'hidden' rock/stone scenario and I discussed it further. This is how conversation works - if you didn't want your 'hidden' rock/stone mentioned again - you should have stated that when you first brought it up.

The ego is man's biggest adversary.

As for the potential of multiple light sources;

To be clear from the outset, I do not believe that we have ever sent human beings to the moon and returned them safely. The question of shadows created by one or more light sources is however something that is relatively simple to explain.

I got a white sheet and a torch and five toilet roll tubes and on the floor, arranged the sheet on some couch cushions making a concave shape that was higher at one end. The toilet rolls were spaced out and arranged slightly down into the dip. The room light was turned off and the torch turned on and then shone from a distance from the raised end - it covered the entire scene - the sheet being the lunar surface, the torch the sun.

The shadows created by the cardboard tubes did not run parallel - instead, the ones on the extreme left and right appeared to be at 45° to each other - this is the effect of the ground sloping and being slightly concave or 'bowllike'.

Given we cannot say with any certainty that we know exactly how the terrain in the image runs in relation to the horizon, this explains why shadows do not run as we think they should. Had the shadows run in opposing directions, then yes, this cannot be explained, but the shadows in the picture semi-converge due to the ground dipping in front of the camera position - it really is that simple.

Bear in mind, the right hand image is not even situated on a gradient.



This one however clearly illustrates the point - one light source - the photographer's shadow is evident - rocks - plus a gradient - look at the way the shadows converge.



It is an easy experiment - try it yourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Reflecter
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 486
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The following is a talk I filmed last year in Manchester that covers some of the evidence for the moon landing hoax.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4314094161163496420&hl=en-GB

_________________
The Peoples United Collective TPUC.ORG

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Firstly, can I reiterate something I said earlier in this thread:
I wrote:
Now, I have always oscillated around neutrality on this subject and will try to stay objective.

I do not have an entrenched position to defend and I'm not out to prove anything - merely making observations. That is why your triumphalism is offensive.

But it is interesting that you are tenaciously clinging to the second option in my either/or statement.

Secondly, your photographic demonstration is flawed for the reason laid out in another, later, post I made. Shadows cast by the Sun do not necessarily appear parallel. However, the imaginary lines which one can construct from a specific point on an object to the corresponding point on its shadow (as I did) represent rays of sunlight and ought therefore to be parallel. Certain perspective and lens focal length may distort this somewhat in a photograph but you will note that in the monochrome image, two lines are almost 180º apart! In the photo you provided, all of the tops of the objects casting the shadows are out of frame and therefore these lines cannot be constructed.

The experiment you carried out using toilet rolls is completely invalid. The reason that rays of light from the Sun are apparently parallel is because the Sun is so far away. All rays of light from your torch would radiate outwards - masked by its conical shape and fanned by its built in reflector - there is no practical way to replicate the Sun's rays.

In conclusion, then, it is the invisible lines between specific points on an object and the corresponding points on their shadows which ought to appear parallel in sunlight - not the shadows themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr f said;

Quote:
But it is interesting that you are tenaciously clinging to the second option in my either/or statement.

In conclusion, then, it is the invisible lines between specific points on an object and the corresponding points on their shadows which ought to appear parallel in sunlight - not the shadows themselves.


Thank you responding this time in a non-affronted fashion. The ego can be a terrible foe and keeping it in check on the occasions you feel compromised can be difficult. I also note you are interested by tenacious resolve, for which I thank you. There is precious little of it about these days.

I totally agree with your evaluation that replicating the sun with a torch is not ideal - hence I did not include any photographs of it. It was meant purely as an example to illustrate the concept - which is why I only included images pertaining to the sun as the only light source.

You need to elaborate further on your explanation however. If multiple powerful light sources we being used from multiple angles - each would cancel the other out - meaning there would be NO shadows.

In addition, although you say the lines are imaginary; simply remove them and the shadows still appear to converge – the objects do not need to be out of frame – simply extend the shadow/s.

Perhaps you need to make your intended point clearer as, in my opinion your arrows are not representative of the positioning of the light source. My view of where the arrows should point is on the right, your’s on the left.




Your - ‘two lines are almost 180º apart!’, is only relevant with your wildly inaccurate arrows as a guide. You have pointed the top right one upwards and there is nothing to suggest the source was that elevated. If in fact it was – then all the arrows would have that same inclination, consequently changing all their relevant relationships – so the one on the right completely throws things off if you are using that to judge the other angles.

Whichever, simply placing arrows on a picture and using them as gospel as to the height and position of a light source is as far removed from reality as my toilet roll experiment.

Try again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote:
In conclusion, then, it is the invisible lines between specific points on an object and the corresponding points on their shadows which ought to appear parallel in sunlight - not the shadows themselves.

Shadows themselves can be deflected (for want of a better word) by uneven surfaces - they do not point at the source of light. If a shadow is cast along the floor and then hits a wall it will change direction. So there is no point in pointing out which direction the shadows fall.

If you can't comprehend this, I'll give up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong;
Quote:
Shadows themselves can be deflected (for want of a better word) by uneven surfaces - they do not point at the source of light. If a shadow is cast along the floor and then hits a wall it will change direction. So there is no point in pointing out which direction the shadows fall. If you can't comprehend this, I'll give up.


So we agree then that the apparent 'multiple light sources' are nothing more than shadows from a single source deflected by uneven surfaces. It took a while for you to admit it - but we got there in the end.

Don't forget your coat on the way out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
So we agree then that the apparent 'multiple light sources' are nothing more than shadows from a single source deflected by uneven surfaces. It took a while for you to admit it - but we got there in the end.

Don't forget your coat on the way out.

Huh!? Don't kid yourself.

The orange dots on these close-ups mark specefic points on the rocks and the corresponding points on their shadows. Join the dots and that will point to the source of light because light travels in a straight line. It doesn't matter if the shadows are bent by uneven surfaces.



At this point I will leave you to your victory dance and at some point you will kick yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Craig W
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting photos, TC.

I can see where you are coming from but I don't feel you have replicated all the shadow anomalies seen in the NASA photo.

Specifically, your "photographer's shadow with rocks" shot would have to also show objects to the left of the photographer's shadow (ie out of shot to the left) whose shadows were cast in a direction toward the right of the shot (ie in a markedly different direction to those of the photographer's shadow and of the stones on the right of the shot) as is the case with the NASA shot.

Perhaps you could do that too but the photo as it is does not replicate the multiplicity of conflicting shadow directions seen in the NASA shot.

_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj


Last edited by Craig W on Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears that flamesong has now exited the debate, which is a pity. I have had a number of personal exchanges with him and he has taken this personally, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘victories’ - this is just a bit of fun and too many people take it all too literally and allow it to compromise their internal state. It was not meant to be like that and for that I apologise to flamesong.

The point I made, perhaps not clearly enough, is that the top arrow on the right allows for more spatial co-ordinates to be created by the brain – it points up. The other arrows, by their increasingly less angled status (as you move left into the photograph), do not afford the same access to make relative comparisons. In other words, unless all the arrows allow the viewer to accurately compare the angle of incline, then they are all void.

Perhaps this one taken on a flat surface will give a better idea of left and right convergence.



The entire subject of shadows that converge when in fact they should all remain parallel to each other is centred around perspective. The height of viewer and the levelness of the surfaces all play a huge part in how the shadows are perceived – as does the height and distance of the light source. This is something I am certain we all know, but it needs stating nonetheless.

I reiterate – I firmly believe that we never went to the moon - but aspects of the suspect shadows are easily dealt with. It is quite strange though how some of the moon landing images show complete even front to back illumination - yet others like this one do not;

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In that last pic TC...the leg of the craft(?) seems to show two shadows at an apparent obtuse angle Confused How is this explained?
_________________


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--

ZUCO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 7 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group