SSS-666There is a far simpler explanation of the looooonnng shadow picture. It is not a shadow of the rock. It is the shadow of the flag which is out of picture.
Look at picture AS 11-40-5920 on the Apollo website – there is the shadow of the flag which matches the shadow on your photo and seems to be in the right place. Then look at the bottom right hand corner of the shadow on your picture – it is actually clearer in the original. A thin black shadow in exactly the right place to be the flag pole.
Paul
I think you are right about the flag pole. I was wrong about this shadow. Good observation in your part.
Now, explain the rest of the anomalies in that, and other, pictures, and I’ll accept being wrong about the whole think. Otherwise………this is just one explanation amongst a thousand unanswered ones.
You seem to have a good observation nack, do it again.
SSS-666These two pics were taken at the left side and the right side of 2 floodlights next to each other and
pointing away at an angle. Gee Weez, even a kid can tell the source of light is a floodlight. Just
look at the “hard edge” of the light emitted. As well, the lens has broken down the light to its
main source, and the “reflected” light.
Furthermore, that is exactly why the shadow of the rocks are going away from the source in all
directions, depending on their position.
This is kid stuff. The light sources are 2 flood lights facing out at an angle.
SSS-666These two pics were taken at the left side and the right side of 2 floodlights next to each other and
pointing away at an angle. Gee Weez, even a kid can tell the source of light is a floodlight. Just
look at the “hard edge” of the light emitted. As well, the lens has broken down the light to its
main source, and the “reflected” light.
Furthermore, that is exactly why the shadow of the rocks are going away from the source in all
directions, depending on their position.
This is kid stuff. The light sources are 2 flood lights facing out at an angle.
SSS-666We all have our own beliefs and opinions, and that’s cool. I think the participation in this thread
has been great. I just would like to distance myself from those who agree with me about the
hoax, but believe in “everything is a conspiracy” and refer to Zodiac, Phoenix or New World
Order. I am hoping to keep this LOGICAL. Because I firmly believe the pictures and the film
were all faked.
The scenario that the Module supposed to descend to the surface actually goes to a higher orbit
is plausible, but not likely by a long shot. Either the CLM or the LM had to fire up their engine
to do the climb, or descend, and that is unlikely. Drawing diagrams is cute, but does not change
the fact that the LM is a few thousand feet above the CLM.
For now, I believe the LM and the CLM models were clumsily superimposed on this “fake
Moon” background. And, some disagree.
Moving on to the next picture, among hundreds more, which seems to be faked.
I posted this by mistake before. This pic ranks high in being an obvious fake. The light source is
supposed to be the Sun, which we know is millions of miles away. Just like on earth, the light
reaching the Moon is uniform. In this pic the light source is a concave and long flood light
assembly. Starting directly from behind the object making the shadow.
The visible ground is at least 150 feet, before the usual fading into the darkness trick. So, I think
this was the edge of the enclosure, hence, very close to the flood lights.
The rock at the bottom right casts a loooonnnng shadow, but, the rock next to it hardly does any.
There are no dip on the ground so no reason for the long shadow. I think the shadow was added
later. Just like the weird hose hanging from the lander and being swallowed up by the shadow of
the landing pod behind it.
The rock which is right above the shadow of this thing, whatever it is, is so damn bright that it
has hardly any shadow whatsoever, and is reflecting light like hell.
I believe the structure these photographs were taken was at least 200 feet in diameter and was
dome shaped. Like a planetarium. I believe the lighting went from one corner to the other, in a
continuous way. In this pic the stuff at the center are much brighter than the corners, and have no
shadow at all. Where in fact it should be the other way around.
SSS-666We all have our own beliefs and opinions, and that’s cool. I think the participation in this thread
has been great. I just would like to distance myself from those who agree with me about the
hoax, but believe in “everything is a conspiracy” and refer to Zodiac, Phoenix or New World
Order. I am hoping to keep this LOGICAL. Because I firmly believe the pictures and the film
were all faked.
The scenario that the Module supposed to descend to the surface actually goes to a higher orbit
is plausible, but not likely by a long shot. Either the CLM or the LM had to fire up their engine
to do the climb, or descend, and that is unlikely. Drawing diagrams is cute, but does not change
the fact that the LM is a few thousand feet above the CLM.
For now, I believe the LM and the CLM models were clumsily superimposed on this “fake
Moon” background. And, some disagree.
Moving on to the next picture, among hundreds more, which seems to be faked.
I posted this by mistake before. This pic ranks high in being an obvious fake. The light source is
supposed to be the Sun, which we know is millions of miles away. Just like on earth, the light
reaching the Moon is uniform. In this pic the light source is a concave and long flood light
assembly. Starting directly from behind the object making the shadow.
The visible ground is at least 150 feet, before the usual fading into the darkness trick. So, I think
this was the edge of the enclosure, hence, very close to the flood lights.
The rock at the bottom right casts a loooonnnng shadow, but, the rock next to it hardly does any.
There are no dip on the ground so no reason for the long shadow. I think the shadow was added
later. Just like the weird hose hanging from the lander and being swallowed up by the shadow of
the landing pod behind it.
The rock which is right above the shadow of this thing, whatever it is, is so damn bright that it
has hardly any shadow whatsoever, and is reflecting light like hell.
I believe the structure these photographs were taken was at least 200 feet in diameter and was
dome shaped. Like a planetarium. I believe the lighting went from one corner to the other, in a
continuous way. In this pic the stuff at the center are much brighter than the corners, and have no
shadow at all. Where in fact it should be the other way around.
SSS-666Google “supercavitation”. All the “turbulence” was because the thing uses a rocket motor for power. What you were seeing was more the exhaust gasses bubbling to the surface than anything. Depending on the method of generating the gas envelope around the body that could be contributing to it too. Why hasn’t the US done it before? Who knows? Could be like grid fins (those tennis racquet-type fins you see on many Russian missiles). Supposedly they were invented by the US Army for steering guided artillery shells but never went into service and that was about as far as it went in the US. Some early SDBs used them as does MOAB but that’s about it. Vymple ended up owning the patent on them and now you don’t see grid find on the SDB. In Russia I can think of at least five or six distinct types/families of missiles that use them. But then with their preference for cold-launching things out of tubes that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Anyway back to supercavitation. For one thing it’s not quiet and that alone would make the US not exactly thrilled with it. Secondly there is the question of guiding the thing. Third is range. The only compelling thing in it’s favor is speed and for most application the disadvantages outweigh that advantage.
For a country like Iran who’s intentions are obviously defensive, and is mostly concentrated
around the Persian Gulf and the adjoining see, wouldn’t this Torpedo/Missile be the best weapon
of deterrence? That’s if this thing can be launched a bit deeper underwater. Considering that the
Persian Gulf is not much deeper than 150 feet.
I jogged my memory and went back to my Scientific American library. There was an article
about 10 years ago about creating bubbles in front of the “object” to actually change the medium
the “object” was travelling in, from high viscosity (water) to low (air).
SSS-666I think that would be fairly safe to say! 😎
Conveniently you have illustrated the most important thing you are missing – a sense of objectivity!.
What with the whole manual dexterity thing being disproved, the thermal regulation thing being debunked, the LRRE proof remaining utterly unrefuted, the independent technical witness accounts being studiously ignored etc all because they are diametrically opposed to the rant you want to have!.
You tout these pictures as ultimate proof of some chicanery or other but seem to be lacking the experience to understand what they show?. If you were, as you claim, involved in military service you would understand, hopefully, that PI or Photo Interpretation is a skilled art and that serving PI’s undergo intensive training not only to spot the things that are there, but, also the things that are not!. Sounds silly but here we’re talking about decoys and the such like. Quote I’ve seen in print regarding that area of work is that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words – a thousand words can tell a lot of lies!!’. If you have the background you claim, really, that should be little suprise to you!.
Fortunately Frank and your good self have provided all the proof of the above axiom needed. Frank your timing is impeccable as ever mate!.
Franks picture and post speak for themselves with crystal clarity. Your picture, SSS, shows (you’d have us believe) the lunar orbiter descending towards the surface.
Its not. The lander, in that shot, has just seperated from the orbital module and is looking back at the orbiter with the moon in the background – both vehicles are still happily on their orbital path. You’ve just assumed that the photo is taken perpendicularly downwards because it supports your theory. This is no different than any one of hundreds of shots of earth orbiting vehicles taken with the planet in the background. Yet to you this is a ‘NASA mistake’ proving a hoax and one that is entirely unsupportable by any other shred of solid evidence.
Perhaps its time to take a step back, consider the evidence in total and re-evaluate your conclusions?
I wish every post was not accompanied by pot shots.
The angle of the 2 crafts in respect to each other is almost 180 degrees. Essentially in an straight
line. The angle of the 2 Modules to the surface, using the shadow of the craters as a guide, is
about 160 or if we push it, 150 degrees. What the distance between the 2 Modules is, I can only
guess.
Get a Basketball ball, or if you have it, one of those big exercise balls. If not,
make a half-globe with a pillow or whatever. Now, use 2 objects and attach a string to them to
help with the visuals. See if you can create
the angle and the scene in these photos, without placing the LM above the CLM.
That is the best I can do to instil logic and common sense in seeing what is here.
The pics are faked, and faked clumsily, just like the Hose and the Shadow I pointed out before.
SSS-666I think that would be fairly safe to say! 😎
Conveniently you have illustrated the most important thing you are missing – a sense of objectivity!.
What with the whole manual dexterity thing being disproved, the thermal regulation thing being debunked, the LRRE proof remaining utterly unrefuted, the independent technical witness accounts being studiously ignored etc all because they are diametrically opposed to the rant you want to have!.
You tout these pictures as ultimate proof of some chicanery or other but seem to be lacking the experience to understand what they show?. If you were, as you claim, involved in military service you would understand, hopefully, that PI or Photo Interpretation is a skilled art and that serving PI’s undergo intensive training not only to spot the things that are there, but, also the things that are not!. Sounds silly but here we’re talking about decoys and the such like. Quote I’ve seen in print regarding that area of work is that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words – a thousand words can tell a lot of lies!!’. If you have the background you claim, really, that should be little suprise to you!.
Fortunately Frank and your good self have provided all the proof of the above axiom needed. Frank your timing is impeccable as ever mate!.
Franks picture and post speak for themselves with crystal clarity. Your picture, SSS, shows (you’d have us believe) the lunar orbiter descending towards the surface.
Its not. The lander, in that shot, has just seperated from the orbital module and is looking back at the orbiter with the moon in the background – both vehicles are still happily on their orbital path. You’ve just assumed that the photo is taken perpendicularly downwards because it supports your theory. This is no different than any one of hundreds of shots of earth orbiting vehicles taken with the planet in the background. Yet to you this is a ‘NASA mistake’ proving a hoax and one that is entirely unsupportable by any other shred of solid evidence.
Perhaps its time to take a step back, consider the evidence in total and re-evaluate your conclusions?
I wish every post was not accompanied by pot shots.
The angle of the 2 crafts in respect to each other is almost 180 degrees. Essentially in an straight
line. The angle of the 2 Modules to the surface, using the shadow of the craters as a guide, is
about 160 or if we push it, 150 degrees. What the distance between the 2 Modules is, I can only
guess.
Get a Basketball ball, or if you have it, one of those big exercise balls. If not,
make a half-globe with a pillow or whatever. Now, use 2 objects and attach a string to them to
help with the visuals. See if you can create
the angle and the scene in these photos, without placing the LM above the CLM.
That is the best I can do to instil logic and common sense in seeing what is here.
The pics are faked, and faked clumsily, just like the Hose and the Shadow I pointed out before.
SSS-666How can an object overcome the viscus drag of a medium as heavy as water?
I noticed the torpedo was just below the surface. Is that because any deeper, its speed would
drastically reduce, due to the water pressure? And, accordingly, this torpedo can not be used
deep underwater?
Why were there so much water turbulence around the torpedo?
And, why hasn’t the US done this before, or has it? After all, for the past 60 years the world’s best
and brightest have been bribed to work in the US, and they are.
SSS-666Get ready to have a laugh, I mean laughing your ass off.
The Command Module (CSM Columbia) is where the 3rd Astronaut Collins stayed while
Armstrong and Aldrin “landed” on the Moon.
Can somebody please tell me why in the hell is the CSM going down towards the surface, when
the LM is the craft that is supposed to be landing???
Am I missing something???? Talk about the biggest screw up.
SSS-666Get ready to have a laugh, I mean laughing your ass off.
The Command Module (CSM Columbia) is where the 3rd Astronaut Collins stayed while
Armstrong and Aldrin “landed” on the Moon.
Can somebody please tell me why in the hell is the CSM going down towards the surface, when
the LM is the craft that is supposed to be landing???
Am I missing something???? Talk about the biggest screw up.
SSS-666Woops, wrong pic. This is the right one, and the other one is another story for later.
SSS-666Woops, wrong pic. This is the right one, and the other one is another story for later.
SSS-666Lets start with this one pic. Is there anybody out there that does not see this picture as a fake??
This pic is utterly ridiculous. This pic should not even fool a child.
The fact is the guy faking this pic did not realise was that the Sun is 90 million miles away, give
or take a few. Now, if you have flown a plane, or been up in a plane, and look out the window,
you sometimes (depending on your position to the sun and others) see the shadow of the plane
racing like hell on the ground. Keep this in mind and read the following.
The pic shows the curvature of the Moon, so the LM should be a few hundred thousand feet up.
Even if we humor this stupid pic and call the distance a few thousand feet up, it still comes out
as the most stupid mistake in the entire fakery of this thing.
At 50,000 feet you can differentiate between cities and the none-developed surroundings. And,
the shadow of a plane is like the head of a pin which you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE.
At 30,000 feet you can distinguish between the housing clumps and the roads etc…And, the
shadow of a plane is like the head of a pin which you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE
At 10,000 feet you can distinguish almost everything including cars. And, the shadow of a plane
is as big as an Ant.
Now, I looked up Google Earth, and looked up NAS Jax in Florida. It is an ASW Base and, I
used to fly there, and know the flight pattern. Unfortunately I did not see any plane in flight. But,
there is an Orion taxing and you can see its shadow.
Now think about this. The plane is on the ground and its shadow in smaller than this LM a few
thousand feet up (remember, that is being generous with the height).
This pic was very obviously, and clumsily, taken inside a studio and very close to the light
source. (I don’t want to even get into the usual fading away into the darkness trick).
For a shadow of this magnitude you either need 10 of those spaceships used in the Independence
Day movie side by side, or an object, of any size (even as small as a little toy), very close to the
light source.
It is unbelievable that even 1 person could not see the fakery here.
SSS-666Lets start with this one pic. Is there anybody out there that does not see this picture as a fake??
This pic is utterly ridiculous. This pic should not even fool a child.
The fact is the guy faking this pic did not realise was that the Sun is 90 million miles away, give
or take a few. Now, if you have flown a plane, or been up in a plane, and look out the window,
you sometimes (depending on your position to the sun and others) see the shadow of the plane
racing like hell on the ground. Keep this in mind and read the following.
The pic shows the curvature of the Moon, so the LM should be a few hundred thousand feet up.
Even if we humor this stupid pic and call the distance a few thousand feet up, it still comes out
as the most stupid mistake in the entire fakery of this thing.
At 50,000 feet you can differentiate between cities and the none-developed surroundings. And,
the shadow of a plane is like the head of a pin which you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE.
At 30,000 feet you can distinguish between the housing clumps and the roads etc…And, the
shadow of a plane is like the head of a pin which you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE
At 10,000 feet you can distinguish almost everything including cars. And, the shadow of a plane
is as big as an Ant.
Now, I looked up Google Earth, and looked up NAS Jax in Florida. It is an ASW Base and, I
used to fly there, and know the flight pattern. Unfortunately I did not see any plane in flight. But,
there is an Orion taxing and you can see its shadow.
Now think about this. The plane is on the ground and its shadow in smaller than this LM a few
thousand feet up (remember, that is being generous with the height).
This pic was very obviously, and clumsily, taken inside a studio and very close to the light
source. (I don’t want to even get into the usual fading away into the darkness trick).
For a shadow of this magnitude you either need 10 of those spaceships used in the Independence
Day movie side by side, or an object, of any size (even as small as a little toy), very close to the
light source.
It is unbelievable that even 1 person could not see the fakery here.
Sign In
