SSS-666Here, check this one out. (Lets put aside the argument which would be put forth, IF this pic is the
same rock). For now lets use it as a reference.
1 is the direction of the light source. (From behind)
2 is indicative of the height/angle of the light source. (Since there is in fact a shadow formed
from the protrusion, the light source is high above and very slightly to the right.
3 is a shadow that should not be there. (The arrow is the direction of the light source). WHY??
4 is the hight/angle of the light source.
SSS-666Here, check this one out. (Lets put aside the argument which would be put forth, IF this pic is the
same rock). For now lets use it as a reference.
1 is the direction of the light source. (From behind)
2 is indicative of the height/angle of the light source. (Since there is in fact a shadow formed
from the protrusion, the light source is high above and very slightly to the right.
3 is a shadow that should not be there. (The arrow is the direction of the light source). WHY??
4 is the hight/angle of the light source.
SSS-666Don Clark, I am not sure what in this sentence “ He (Don Clark) is so meticulous and detailed
that to answer his questions one has to read a hundred pages and look at a few hours of footage. I
think he is one hell of a debater,” is so bad that prompted you to respond so angrily. I thought it
was a compliment of your attention to detail. That you are upset, is all I could understand from your writing.
The rest of it just was not coherent to me. Sorry buddy.
It will be frivolous to begin a bickering fest with you, so, I move on, and be a bit weary of
responding to you.
Ah, Moggy, you proved my point and don’t even know it. Your parking lot pic is more than I
could ask for, thanx.
I have placed the “Moon” pic and the “parking lot” pic side by side to compare. You are right
about being able to create the Elbow and Rock shadow in a photo. No one disputed that.
Certainly not me.
What is very clear to me, and I hope someone can see it too, is that the angle of the shadow of
the rock places the light source at a 45 degree angle to the plain. But, the elbow places the light
source at about 200 degrees to the plain.
Lets put it another way, just take a look at your parking lot pic. You had to angle yourself so far
“in front of” the object to be able to get the elbow in the same shot. The most important thing in
your shot is that the shadows are parallel, because there is one single light source. As the arrow indicates. But the
shadows of the Moon pic are not parallel, as the arrows show, and that is impossible if there is just one single light
source.
For the elbow shadow to be where it is, with a single light source, the actual elbow has to be
where the boot print at the middle right corner is. Or parallel to that boot print and further out.
If our interpretation of this pic is at an impasse, then we declare it, well, an impasse, and move
on. Who knows maybe the next picture I have marked will be “the one”.
SSS-666Don Clark, I am not sure what in this sentence “ He (Don Clark) is so meticulous and detailed
that to answer his questions one has to read a hundred pages and look at a few hours of footage. I
think he is one hell of a debater,” is so bad that prompted you to respond so angrily. I thought it
was a compliment of your attention to detail. That you are upset, is all I could understand from your writing.
The rest of it just was not coherent to me. Sorry buddy.
It will be frivolous to begin a bickering fest with you, so, I move on, and be a bit weary of
responding to you.
Ah, Moggy, you proved my point and don’t even know it. Your parking lot pic is more than I
could ask for, thanx.
I have placed the “Moon” pic and the “parking lot” pic side by side to compare. You are right
about being able to create the Elbow and Rock shadow in a photo. No one disputed that.
Certainly not me.
What is very clear to me, and I hope someone can see it too, is that the angle of the shadow of
the rock places the light source at a 45 degree angle to the plain. But, the elbow places the light
source at about 200 degrees to the plain.
Lets put it another way, just take a look at your parking lot pic. You had to angle yourself so far
“in front of” the object to be able to get the elbow in the same shot. The most important thing in
your shot is that the shadows are parallel, because there is one single light source. As the arrow indicates. But the
shadows of the Moon pic are not parallel, as the arrows show, and that is impossible if there is just one single light
source.
For the elbow shadow to be where it is, with a single light source, the actual elbow has to be
where the boot print at the middle right corner is. Or parallel to that boot print and further out.
If our interpretation of this pic is at an impasse, then we declare it, well, an impasse, and move
on. Who knows maybe the next picture I have marked will be “the one”.
SSS-666Just finished reading all the recent posts. So………..this is how a military strategist would bring a
B-2 down !! Hummmm !!
SSS-666Gentlemen, calm down, your favourite contributor is still around and he reads all of your posts.
Don Clark is to blame for my slow response. He is so meticulous and detailed that to answer his
questions one has to read a hundred pages and look at a few hours of footage. I think he is one
hell of a debater.
As well, some of us don’t live in their computer rooms. There is also that thing called a JOB,
family, kids……..you know, all that weird (hey, what happened to I before E except after C ???)
stuff.
Must go now before I get yelled at by my better half for spending time here instead of getting
ready to friend’s “ now I am a Captain too” party. But, just a quick note of thank you to all of the
moderators/referees for their posts, particularly (believe it or not) Moggy. He has just proven my
point with that parking lot pic, and I think he knows it too.
SSS-666Gentlemen, calm down, your favourite contributor is still around and he reads all of your posts.
Don Clark is to blame for my slow response. He is so meticulous and detailed that to answer his
questions one has to read a hundred pages and look at a few hours of footage. I think he is one
hell of a debater.
As well, some of us don’t live in their computer rooms. There is also that thing called a JOB,
family, kids……..you know, all that weird (hey, what happened to I before E except after C ???)
stuff.
Must go now before I get yelled at by my better half for spending time here instead of getting
ready to friend’s “ now I am a Captain too” party. But, just a quick note of thank you to all of the
moderators/referees for their posts, particularly (believe it or not) Moggy. He has just proven my
point with that parking lot pic, and I think he knows it too.
SSS-666How do you know it’s the photographer’s elbow? It might be that of the other astronaut, or not even an elbow at all!
Well my friend, that is why I put the “elbow” pic up first and without saying why. Well, I did,
but it was a diversion to establish it was agreed the shadow was of an elbow. Funny that even
after that, when no other explanation seem logical, “we” claim it may not be an elbow after all.
As for another Naut’s elbow, the idea is pretty unlikely and off-the-wall. I don’t like to get off the
subject, because one thing the shadow is not, is another guy’s elbow. However, just for the sake
of argument, it does not matter who’s elbow it is, for the shadow to be where it is, the elbow
itself has to be inside the picture frame and somewhere about a meter from the rock and at the
center of the picture.
The light source illuminating the rock has to be at the top right edge of your monitor. that can
not be disputed.
As for closing down this thread. Most of us take pot shots at the guy who puts up something we
don’t agree with. But, when a “Moderator/Referee” doesn’t agree with what is said, he just closes
it down. That would be like the Super Bowl referee telling the Steelers to pack their bags and
forfeit the game because he is a Cowboys fan ^_^
Then again, I thought he was only joking.
SSS-666How do you know it’s the photographer’s elbow? It might be that of the other astronaut, or not even an elbow at all!
Well my friend, that is why I put the “elbow” pic up first and without saying why. Well, I did,
but it was a diversion to establish it was agreed the shadow was of an elbow. Funny that even
after that, when no other explanation seem logical, “we” claim it may not be an elbow after all.
As for another Naut’s elbow, the idea is pretty unlikely and off-the-wall. I don’t like to get off the
subject, because one thing the shadow is not, is another guy’s elbow. However, just for the sake
of argument, it does not matter who’s elbow it is, for the shadow to be where it is, the elbow
itself has to be inside the picture frame and somewhere about a meter from the rock and at the
center of the picture.
The light source illuminating the rock has to be at the top right edge of your monitor. that can
not be disputed.
As for closing down this thread. Most of us take pot shots at the guy who puts up something we
don’t agree with. But, when a “Moderator/Referee” doesn’t agree with what is said, he just closes
it down. That would be like the Super Bowl referee telling the Steelers to pack their bags and
forfeit the game because he is a Cowboys fan ^_^
Then again, I thought he was only joking.
SSS-666Thanx Don, your explanations were descent and to the point. But, they did nothing to disprove
the enormous amounts of unusual discrepancies in the films and photos provided by NASA.
As for the pic that I attached before, it was to establish that the shadow on the bottom corner was
in fact the elbow of the supposed Astronaut/Photographer. And, it seems it is agreed that it in
fact is.
And, here we go again. Once again things just don’t look right. I have attached 2 pics of the
same rock, obviously, taken a few hours apart. The closer up of the rock is just for reference.
If you measure the angle of the rock shadow in the “elbow” pic, it is just about 45 degrees. So, the
light source is at 45 degrees up and to the right top edge of your computer monitor.
Now, do the same with the elbow and body “shadow” and you will end up with the light source
right in the bottom middle of your monitor. The photographer’s “elbow” just should not cast a
shadow inside the picture, because the shadow has to be parallel to the other one. Simply
because there supposed to be one single light source, the sun.
I just can’t understand how anybody wouldn’t see this anomaly.
SSS-666Thanx Don, your explanations were descent and to the point. But, they did nothing to disprove
the enormous amounts of unusual discrepancies in the films and photos provided by NASA.
As for the pic that I attached before, it was to establish that the shadow on the bottom corner was
in fact the elbow of the supposed Astronaut/Photographer. And, it seems it is agreed that it in
fact is.
And, here we go again. Once again things just don’t look right. I have attached 2 pics of the
same rock, obviously, taken a few hours apart. The closer up of the rock is just for reference.
If you measure the angle of the rock shadow in the “elbow” pic, it is just about 45 degrees. So, the
light source is at 45 degrees up and to the right top edge of your computer monitor.
Now, do the same with the elbow and body “shadow” and you will end up with the light source
right in the bottom middle of your monitor. The photographer’s “elbow” just should not cast a
shadow inside the picture, because the shadow has to be parallel to the other one. Simply
because there supposed to be one single light source, the sun.
I just can’t understand how anybody wouldn’t see this anomaly.
SSS-666No sane commander would place his carrier within 100 miles off the coast if he expects attacks. But still the hardware needed to overcome the tight security of a CVBG is not in the inventory of Iran. Any attempted attack would trigger counterstrikes by USN.
However, a B-2 is more effective. The fleet of 21 B-2 will arrive without warning and strike 100 and more targets all over Iran in one hour. There is nothing Iran could do about it.
Gentlemen, here is a copy of the first sentence of this thread “” If you were in charge of the military in….. lets say…………..Iran, how would you counter an aerial attack by B-2s, B-1s, F-117s, F-22s and Cruise Missiles fired from Ships and Subs in the Persian Gulf and the adjoining Sea“”?
Nowhere does it say “ how to beat our skinny chest and yell USA USA”.
Many a bible-waving politician, or the average Joe Blow, believes B-2 is invincible. As we have
been told by a couple of well versed members, B-2 is not nearly as untouchable as some wish it
were.
As for going after a CVN, how close a CVBG has to be to mount an attach on Iran. It is not just
reaching the Iranian border and bombing the “sitting duck” Bushehr plant, they have hundreds of
miles to go inside Iran. Isn’t the, once owned by Iran, Bahrain and its 5th fleet 100 miles from
Iran?
SSS-666I dont get it, why would you want to shoot down a B-2 and put all your resources into that when Sinking a Flat top is a million times more demoralising (IF) you could do it.
I served in one, and I can tell you, except for the Russians, hitting a CVN in the middle of
Atlantic is a monumental task. But, in the Persian Gulf or the adjoining see, it is far simpler than
you can imagine. The proximity essentially makes the Support Ships “out of time” to stop an
Iranian missile from above or particularly from below.
Just listing one with only one good size missile will make 5,500 sailors spectators only. While the
pilots sit in the Ready Room wondering what their wives been doing for the past 6 months, and
the poor Plane Captains runing around trying to Chock the planes before they slide over the side.
SSS-666
The second biggest hoax of the last century (second, and not first, due to its minimal effect on
everyday life, and only used to obtain false glory and honor, prevalent by the US) is coming off
at the seams.
If there were only a few, hell, even if a few dozen, anomalies and inconsistencies with the
pictures NASA has put forth as the proof of their supposed Moon landings, there wouldn’t be
much doubt. But there are hundreds of pictures that just don’t add up.
I have put forth a number of pics that are clearly setups in a 200-foot studio, taken by
professional photographers. So far, only one single pic has been proven as “not tampered with”.
By an observant poster who stuck to the point and didn’t get into childish rambling infesting
this thread.
I keep putting pics here, and no one has been able to disprove that they are not setups.
Here is a pic, and am I wrong to believe the shadow at the left side is the Astronaut’s elbow?
Why is he having his elbow so far up when the camera is on his chest?
SSS-666
The second biggest hoax of the last century (second, and not first, due to its minimal effect on
everyday life, and only used to obtain false glory and honor, prevalent by the US) is coming off
at the seams.
If there were only a few, hell, even if a few dozen, anomalies and inconsistencies with the
pictures NASA has put forth as the proof of their supposed Moon landings, there wouldn’t be
much doubt. But there are hundreds of pictures that just don’t add up.
I have put forth a number of pics that are clearly setups in a 200-foot studio, taken by
professional photographers. So far, only one single pic has been proven as “not tampered with”.
By an observant poster who stuck to the point and didn’t get into childish rambling infesting
this thread.
I keep putting pics here, and no one has been able to disprove that they are not setups.
Here is a pic, and am I wrong to believe the shadow at the left side is the Astronaut’s elbow?
Why is he having his elbow so far up when the camera is on his chest?
Sign In
