If you want to see an Apple pie or a car or a vector or anything you want to see, you will see it for sure, everywhere you look : in a Jell-O cup or on the moon.
you can still that he is wearing his head gear in the first pic and in the scond pic its 100 percent more clear so it is not a reflection of anyone but him...
Precisely, we should not see his face through the visor, because, when the gold plated visor receives the sun (which is the case here, see the direction of the shadow), it is not transparent (like the ray ban).
When someone looks at the sun with ray bans, you can't see his eyes, can you?
With the gold plated visor, it is still less possible, for they are more reflective than ray bans.
Even tho this video might be B.S. there is a lot more stuff going on that deserves attention like why is it that when I'm watching t.v. the news reporters have slits in the eyes?? Watch CNN or FOX News and just watch for a while, Look at their eyes very closely and you will see what i see this world ain't what it seems. If i have round pupils, and you have round pupils than WHY in the hell do these mofo's have slits in their eye's?!?! Jesus is coming soon just make sure you're ready to meet HIM
@NIGHTWATCHMAN907 because they are reptilian? naaaah it must be something more plausible like a low signal strength, low definition and video compression artifacts.
MightySaturn5, why your view so black and white? I bet you think the world is still flat! lol Look around you... everything is fine right? Well enjoy it while it last, meanwhile the rest of us "Conspiracy Theorist" will continue the journey into the unknown and discovering whats to come, and why the government continues to cover-up, mislead and misuse taxpayers money for their secret agenda! NEW WORLD ORDER ( N.W.O.) All in all i hope you know the Lord Jesus because He is the one true Son of GOD
fucking conspiracy retards...since they are usually the most shunned members of society they get together on various online 'soap boxes' (facebook, youtube, etc.) to scream their twisted rants. What these poor shit heads don't seem to grasp is they have absolutely no credibility left..."Look -that leaf just moved across the ground! -bet its the goverment using microprocessor controlled leafs set up with tiny cameras to spy on us"
@hunchbacked why wait for "some years"? -its obviously because you have nothing now and never will, your wild ideas have no substantial basis -basically all you have is the hope that some tidbit of new information will come to light so you won't feel like such a complete ass wipe for believing in such obvious bullshit.
If you want an to endorse an idea thats an obvious truth feel free to observe my name written in cursive in piping hot grey DNA across your mothers forhead.
You are just not thinking of the days you dressed up for halloween or the mascot suit you used to wear. Buzz was posing to make a good picture look like he was looking at the flag but at the same time was cranking his neck to look at the guy taking the picture if he was ready or something like that. They have a lot of head movement in those helmets. Picture yourself wearing one and trying to look to your left while keeping your helmet facing straight.
You didn't get what I explained, you completely missed the point.
Look at someone who is wearing ray bans and is oriented toward the sun; he'll see you through his ray ban, BUT YOU WON'T SEE HIS EYES THROUGH THE RAY BAN.
Get it now? We shouldn't see his face through the gold plated visor because he is looking toward the sun!
@hunchbacked Are you REALLY unable to see any difference at all between a pair of sunglasses and a spherical visor that covers nearly an entire hemisphere?
@macoshan The reflection of the camera will always appear in the closest point of a spherical helmet, not necessarily the center. But in this case we're not seeing a reflection; we're seeing Buzz's brightly lit face directly through his visor. Although it's attenuated by returning through the visor, we can still see it because our position is such that only the black sky is reflected on top of it. This is rare in Apollo photography.
@macoshan And if you look at the high res version of AS11-40-5875 you will indeed see Neil Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's visor, right where it should be! It's that small vertical white line just in front of the visor's left edge.
@hunchbacked I didn't say it looked like Armstrong. I said it *WAS* Armstrong. It's in exactly the right location to be his reflection (always in the closest point on the visor). It's the right size and shape. Since there were only two men there, and Aldrin is in the picture, then that has to be Armstrong.
As for weird imaginations, you're the one who thought a closeup of Armstrong during training was Aldrin, and even when your error was pointed out you didn't fix it. So much for the "truth".
And I say it isn't Armstrong; it's your fantasy which makes this reflection to be Armstrong, only your fantasy; it does not look like Armstrong, even remotely.
@hunchbacked Read what I said. I didn't say it was Armstrong because it looked like him; the reflection is much too small. I said it was Armstrong because he took the picture, his reflection is the right size, shape and in the right place, and it couldn't be anything else.
But I can certainly understand that deductive reasoning is beyond your capabilities. You've demonstrated that many times.
@hunchbacked It is truly remarkable that you still go on, in all apparent seriousness, about "truth" and "science" when you don't bother to correct your blatant mistakes even on those rare occasions when you admit one.
I no longer accept that you seriously believe all this. You've given too many clues that your "hunchbacked" persona is an elaborate hoax, just like the French mockumentary "Dark Side of the Moon".
and it's not the moon either! neither nasa, nor grumman, nor naa, nor anything else. this is the cia and nsa covering up the lunar missions by opening up a file>new>photoshop canvas in adobe photoshop cs4 and letting loose their creative juices! then they'd have asked many conspiracy theorists about what and how to paint leaving loose ends so as to feed the hoax community in the 21st century so they don't starve... knowledge famine is a thing of the past!!
@hunchbacked So who did take the picture? And who is posing for the picture if not Buzz Aldrin?
If you can't provide any affirmative evidence for your claims, then you haven't a leg to stand on. Despite your constant appeals to science, truth and Galileo, the fact is that your stubbornness has trapped you in a delusion from which you apparently can't escape.
And furthermore the problem is not with the orientation of the face of the so-called buzz in the visor, but with its position and size which are incorrect (see the same face on earth, it is completely different when he is looked at on the side); the face appears too small and too high.
@Cityj0hn Yes, he really is that stupid. Have you noticed that his "picture of Buzz on earth" is actually a picture of Armstrong? Even when that's pointed out to him, he doesn't seem to think that's important.
This is just another indicator of how desparate the hoaxtards are getting. The Apollo Hoax Conspiracy used to be about the "big stuff" - e.g. no stars in the pictures, so-called "deadly" radiation, "extra" light sources etc., ad nauseum.
Now that these have been serially debunked, the AHC has been forced to focus on ever-dwindling minutiae of decreasing significance. Like here.
Time to give it up, hunchbacked & co. Yes We Did. Six times. QED.
I had a thought too about the face. It very well could be a very good photoshop job however I don't think that is the case. If you zoom in real close and clear up the image as much as possible, the reflection almost looks like the lander. But I doubt it. There is a face there but it could be Buzz in all honesty. The visor could be distorting the face.
I cant explain the Buzz pics but I can tell why there is a full reflection on the visor. Think of it as a two-way mirror. Mirror on one side and see through on the other. It protects the astronauts from uv rays and radiation from the sun just like our own atmosphere does for us here on earth.
@thejonathan130 Yes, some 16mm movie frames do show Armstrong with his visor up. That movie was shot through the LM window. Armstrong lifted his visor to see in the LM's shade.
Here Aldrin faces the sun with his visor down, but we can still see his face. It's brightly lit by the sun, but the sun's reflection doesn't obscure it because we're looking at him from the side.
You can do anything with Photoshop...provided that you have talent for using it.
In fact, I don't use Photoshop, I use a software I have made myself, but, with this software, I can modify a picture like I want, put anything I want on it, and make it tell whatever I want.
@hunchbacked "Photoshop" is the standard response from any Apollo denier when they can't think of any real arguments to make. Of course, the minor flaw in their argument is that Photoshop wasn't around in the late 1960s and early 1970s when these pictures were made, and they've all been publicly available since that time.
And for some reason the deniers are never able to use Photoshop themselves to make a truly convincing "fake" Apollo image. They say it's easy, then hem and haw.
@hunchbacked Because you flatly exclude the possibility that anyone could ever find a mistake in your claims, you mistake "listening, rejecting as wrong and giving the reasons in detail" for "never listening".
@hunchbacked When I misinterpret what you say it's usually because of your idiosyncratic English, such as saying "important" when you mean "strong". But I usually understand what you say just fine. It's that WHAT you say is utter nonsense.
I've suggested some experiments. Others have suggested that you study this visor setup with computer ray tracing. But you reject all that saying its too obvious.
I think the real reason is that you're afraid it will show you that you're wrong.
@hunchbacked Have you EVER conducted a computer simulation, run an experiment or constructed a circuit to confirm one of your hoax claims? Or is everything so "obvious" to you that such steps simply aren't needed?
When I say that a processor does not count hardware pulses, I am a good position to judge it, because, in my job, I have to count tachometer pulses to measure distances, the tachometer does not go into the processor, but into an electronic counter that the processor can read with an I/O operation.
@hunchbacked What a marvelous example of your amazing inability to comprehend any alternatives to how you personally do things.
Everyone knows that cars drive on the right because that's how they are in France. Why, it's even done that way in the USA. Driving on the left would be an incoherence because then he'd run into others driving on the right. Anybody who says they've ever driven a car on the left must be lying. Is that what you're saying?
I'd say my way of reasoning is much more common than yours. Even you must admit that your way of reasoning is rather unusual, and "unusual" is one of the possible meanings of "strange".
@hunchbacked I'm commenting on your flawed manner of thinking. Your understanding of first principles is so poor that you are utterly unable to analyze anything outside your own personal experience, which is also severely limited. And since you have no insight into your lack of knowledge, you just dismiss everything out of hand.
So if you'd never been to a country that drives on the left, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see you reject the notion as impossible.
@hunchbacked No, actually. But there is a way to find out which one of us is right. It's called "experimentation". I've always been willing to try it, but for some reason you're not. How come?
Even today, with much much much more powerful processors than in Apollo time, no processor has a pin to receive hardware pulses it would count with a software instruction, because it makes no sense; when hardware pulses are to be counted, they are always counted with an external electronic counter that the processor reads through an I/O operation.
@hunchbacked Then I can only conclude that you know very little about modern computers either, because I can point to plenty of cases in modern systems where hardware events are counted in software using general purpose memory locations.
Of course, I'm never surprised to learn that you knew even less than I had thought.
@hunchbacked also when buzz is saluting the flag obviously he exposed his face momentarily to the flag and sun as a matter of respect to his flag and his country....
It's not a question of orientation, but size and position.
But I won't call you an imbecile because you can't make the difference.
Furthermore we should not see it at all because the astronaut gets the sun right in his face and therefore we should not be able to see through the gold plated visor.
@hunchbacked Wrong! The gold coating works exactly the same in both directions. Most of the light is reflected, some of it passes through. If none passed through, then Buzz would not be able to see at all!
So his face CAN be seen from the outside provided it's brightly lit (as here, when he faces the sun) AND there's no outside reflection to overpower it (as here, since the reflection is of black sky). That rarely happens in Apollo pictures, but this IS one of those times.
When someone wears ray ban and he is not in the shadow, you can't see his eyes, but he can see through the ray ban; it's because you are on the side of the light and he is on the side of the shadow.
And ray ban are less reflective than this gold plated visor.
@hunchbacked As long as the visor isn't 100% reflective, and it's not, we can still see a face through it under the right conditions. The face must be brightly lit AND no outside light can reflect off the visor where it would obscure our view of the face.
That doesn't happen often, but it happens here. Aldrin's face is lit by the sun passing into his visor, and we can see it through the visor because it's positioned to reflect only the black sky in front of it. This is simple!!
At 1:50 you show what you claim is a picture of Buzz Aldrin in his suit on earth. That's actually Neil Armstrong! Hah!
The picture is blown up from S69-31056, showing Armstrong carrying the deployable S-band antenna.
It's easy to tell Armstrong and Aldrin apart in these training pictures; only Armstrong has the Hasselblad camera mounted on his PLSS remote control unit.
Either you're getting sloppy, or you are deliberately misrepresenting pictures. Which is it?
yeah, and go figure, they don't even have to really wear the suits. just have to first acclimate to the less dense air there (like going to 10 above here), and then can walk around and breathe just like on Earth! nice show they put on.
Yes, but it prevents from seeing through the visor; when someone gets the sun in his face and wears ray bans, you can't see his eyes.
We shouldn't be able to see Buzz's face, besides in all other photos, we can't see the astronaut's face through the visor, so why can't we see it in this photo?
@hunchbacked I never cease to be amazed and amused by the many simple things that completely confuse you even as you insist that you know everything and are never wrong.
Who says we shouldn't ever see Buzz's face? Do you really think there's such a thing as a perfect one-way mirror under every lighting condition?
We can see Buzz's face precisely BECAUSE it's fully lit by the sun and our viewing angle is such that we don't get the sun's reflection off the visor.
@hunchbacked Your misconceptions get the better of you yet again. We are MOST, not least likely to see his face when it is directly lit by the sun.
It's truly remarkable how, whenever you see something you don't understand, you always jump to the least likely conclusion ("Apollo was faked!") instead of questioning your own assumptions. Most people would have done that long ago, but you're far too much of a know-it-all to ever do that.
@hunchbacked Although one can sometimes draw logical but nonetheless incorrect conclusions from incorrect premises, you don't even do that; your conclusions aren't even logical.
@hunchbacked On the contrary, his face is more likely to be visible when bathed in sunlight with little or no landscape reflected, which is when the signal/noise ratio will be large. All of the counter-examples you give are backlit or sidelit (the face is shadowed), and have lots of bright landscape reflected (which mandates small iris diameters). The signal/noise ratio is small. Of all the pics you show, the one most conducive to facial visibility is the one of Aldrin.
@hunchbacked Sunglasses absolutely aren't the same as whole-head hoods with full-face visors. And the face in the visor is way too abstract for me to tell if it's Buzz Aldrin or General Pershing. Besides, haven't you even paid attention? It's been pointed out that the face you pasted on for reference isn't Aldrin; it's Armstrong. It comes as no surprise, then, if the two don't happen to look equal.
@hunchbacked It occurs to me that if you were really the hot-shot computer expert you say you are, then you'd rely on much more than just intuition to tell you when the helmet reflections don't look right. You'd check your gut feelings with something more rigorous, such as finding the exact dimensions of the suits and helmets and do a ray-tracing analysis to see if you're correct. But you haven't done that. You're not rigorous. You're careless.
There is no need of a computer for something so obvious.
Don't you wonder why on all the other photos the face of the astronaut is never visible.
The visor was covered with a thin gold layer to protect the faces of the astronauts from the agressive sun (there is no ozon layer to protect them, and the sun is much more dangerous on the moon than on earth); why, on all other photos, the face of the astronaut is not visible, so why is it on this photo?
@hunchbacked Yes, there is need, if you want to make your case to those for whom this isn't so obvious. And I know all about the role of the gold filter. I also explained in my first post why the face is variably visible or not visible. Even if you don't agree with my reasoning, you could at least extend the courtesy of acknowledging that you read what I wrote instead of being like most other Hoax Theorists and sidestepping it altogether. There's no need to make yourself look foolish.
@hunchbacked By the way, I've looked at your website. If I were you I wouldn't invest much confidence in Ralph Rene'. Rene' was a no-nothing who weighed all of his physics against his partisan politics (a lot like how the Nazis decided which of their country's best scientists were of value on the basis of how Jewish they were). He was the worst kind of imbecile, because he willingly made himself an imbecile just to rationalize being bitter.
I have used none of his arguments; in fact I haven't even read his book; I have done my own personal research and everything which is on my site exclusively comes from my own personal research; and far from being limited to photos and videos, it even deals about more technical subjects, like the computer, the radar, and the electronic interfaces.
@hunchbacked None of his arguments? Bullshit. You cite him and his writings in your introduction, and post a link to his book. If you don't want people to take his work into consideration, then why would you hold him up as an example?
However I don't think Ralph is wrong on everything; otherwise, why did NASA never answer to him, and give answers to his questions? It would have been so simple.
Giving no answers is suspicious, it gives credit to his claims.
@hunchbacked If NASA didn't rebut his questions it doesn't spell out the word CONSPIRACY. It only means that there are only so many hours in each day and busy people don't have endless amounts of time to waste with every crackpot who wanders by. This is especially so since there are more than enough perfectly good answers to Rene's questions all over the Web.
@hunchbacked And another thing: ALL of the hoax theorists you present in your introduction are demonstrably no-nothings. Bill Kaysing absolutely wasn't a rocket engineer. Bart Sibrel is a disingenuous maker of 3rd-rate sensationalist videos.
Furthermore, NASA never put a monkey into space two months before Apollo 11. All you're doing is allowing yourself to be lead about by hearsay.
Bill Kaysing might not directly be a rocket angineer, but he knew a lot because he was reading and writing documentations.
And when you read and write many documentations, you necessarily become well informed.
And there are Apollo believers who ciriticize Percy who is a professional and who claim to be professional experts when it is more than obvious that they are no more than amateurs and they don't even understand the demonstrations of Percy.
@hunchbacked Oh, but you said of Kaysing that he was an "engineer, who had worked on the saturn engines". So what you mean now is that you were wrong about his background? What else were you mistaken on? Well, for one thing, you say that he "had computed the probability that man could set foot on the moon, and had found it to be very small". Tell me, exactly how does one go about computing the probability of such a thing? have YOU done this calculation?
@hunchbacked Show me Kaysing's documents. Show me that he knew spaceflight technology better than all the working engineers did. Show me what he wrote. If you can't show me, then I have no good reason to suppose that you know what you're talking about.
Even if Bill Kaysing has miscalculated in a factor 100 (which is enormous), it still was leaving almost no chance to the astronaut to come back alive.
And, at the time he made his calculations, nobody contested it, nobody told him he was wrong and that his calculations were incorrect.
And suddenly, after the pseudo exploit of Apollo, going to the moon becomes very easy, a sort of pleasance trip...Yes, for those who believe in fairy tales!
@hunchbacked I didn't ask for your unsubstantiated guess. I asked if you've SEEN Kaysing's calculation. Do you understand how he figured it out? Can you do such a computation? I'm inclined to think that you haven't seen his, and can't do it on your own, so it's meaningless to speak of it here and now. You don't know the odds of success or failure, and that's all there is to it.
For a computer engineer, you sure don't seem very familiar with rigor. You're sloppy.
@hunchbacked I don't know how to approach such a calculation for a complicated problem like this. And since you keep evading the question (Have you seen Kaysing's arithmetic on this?), it's evident that you haven't a clue how to do it either. It's meaningless for you to insist that you know what the odds were four decades ago.
@hunchbacked Where did I say that? What I said is that I don't know, and neither do you. In fact it's ridiculous to claim that the odds of success were approximately 1/1. Apollo 13 didn't succeed in landing on the Moon, and the crew were precariously close to not making it back alive. fact is that there's risk in EVERYTHING which people do.
And, Kaysing was told many times in his life that he was wrong. Why wasn't he fired? Because he didn't do anything to get fired for.
@hunchbacked I looked it up and you're right about the monkey flight. I also found out that the Monkey lived aboard Biosatellite 3 for nearly nine days and didn't perish until after landing back on the ground. The insinuation on your site is that the monkey died from exposure to the Van Allen Belts. The belts would be lethal to any mammal who loitered too long inside. In fact, it'd be dead way before nine days. The belts didn't kill the monkey.
@hunchbacked You've GOT to be kidding me. Do you really think it suspicious that NASA didn't answer a crank who wouldn't have listened to them anyway?
@hunchbacked There are other Apollo photos that DO show the face of the astronaut.
Since you haven't even bothered to correct something as obviously mistaken as your misidentification of the training photo (it's Armstrong, not Aldrin) I can only conclude that you don't really care if you're right as long as you can say Apollo was faked. That's just dishonest.
@hunchbacked Raybans are flat, not spherical like the Apollo visor. So if you face the sun, anyone in position to see your eyes will see the reflection of the sun instead. Here Buzz's face is fully lit by the sun while we look at him cross-sun, moving the sun's reflection far enough away to let us see his face through the visor.
I can't believe you don't get this one. This is about as simple as it gets.
Really? Howabout hes looking toward the camera rather than strait ahead...your an idiot and he may not actually be on the moon but im sure its him...you can see the thing they wear on their heads..
You do realize there is a sheilding visor on most of these suits, right? You can find footage of one of the Apollo 15 astronauts being scolded by mission control for not keeping the protective visor down. These visors were to prevent unsheilded UV radiation from seriously harming the astronauts during their moonwalks.
But when an astronaut is directly facing the sun like Buzz is doing on the photo, there is no way he would not use the protective visor; he could not stand the light; and also we could not see his face through the visor: When the sun is reflecting on a window, you can't see through this window.
@hunchbacked And why exactly would they do that? What sense would it make? You've never explained that.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence that the Apollo missions, computers, instruments and photos were all perfectly real. You just ignore all this evidence so you can go on pretending that no one can know.
u fool, buzz has his head tilted forward in the picture of him in the suit while on earth and the pic of him on the moon in front of the flag he is looking left at the camera. obviously the pic is gonna look different
@hunchbacked i'd say you let your imagination run wild. either that's buzz aldrin of nasa or colin mochrie of whose line... i seriusly doubt the latter!
if you wish to use yours then tell me whose face it is? i'd love you to win this one!
@hunchbacked i already said that it's your (and of others) pure imagination. you outright refuse to believe nasa's statements. nasa - that has the undeniable credibility to have launched hundreds of space missions, that has put gps satellites so you can negotiate your way home using your cellular fone and many other such achievements.
your views are pure dogmatic. for once, come out of your slumber and analyze the evidence with an open mind instead of being biased.
@hunchbacked thanx for the pic link. though nasa claims it's hi-res, i think it's the same original image taken by hasselblad projected and rescanned with a hi-res cam. so the face can't be made out properly. you're correct in saying that it could be anyone's face. however, i feel if it's someone else's, then nasa isn't that careless to leave such barebody clues that might go against its claim.
@hunchbacked Um... And actually, is it just me, or is that face a glitch on the camera? Or a reflection of some rocky mass, or a upthrow of dust. Mate. It could be any number of things.
- Why can we see through the visor when it is exposed to the sun and not in the shadow (on other photos, we can't see through it, it acts as a mirror).
- The face is incorrectly positioned and sized behind the visor.
Unless of course the face we see is not behind the visor, but the reflection of somebody else's face.
@hunchbacked BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN!
When is there more sunlight on Buzz's face -- when he faces the sun, or when he faces dark sky?
You do know that so-called 1-way mirrors only look like mirrors when your side is bright and the other side is dark, right? Otherwise you see right through them. The visor in front of his face reflects dark sky, so you can see his sunlit face right through it.
I first spotted and did an analysis of this Buzz-in-helmet anomaly in 2007 - its on my Photobucket site in the album " Apollo Astronaut Analysis", sub heading " If the Snoopy Cap Fits" ... the PB link is pasted under my A17 Bag Drop video upload, and adds quite a bit to the argument that the individual we see in that photo is not Aldrin.
Take a look how big corporations DO NOT PAY taxes in USA, while the hard workers are struggling loosing everything, jobs, homes, soon they will lower the $ from the social security, AND we DO pay taxes.
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
We had the technology and drive to land there, so why would we fake it. Its certain they shot men into space so why not land on the moon. It is disturbing for the sacrifice men made getting there for you to insinuate that they all lied. Truly disgusting. As for reflection while he was in direct sunlight because there is no ozone to manipulate the light it shines directly. The curvature of the visor creates itsown shadowing which is why you can see gis face. This can be demonstrated with a pair
@avcderek then why is the flag blowing? theres no wind on the moon. so how come every time we see the "original landing" the flag appears to be blowing in the wind.
@hunchbacked No, there's nothing wrong with looking for the truth. But it's plenty disgusting when the truth is staring you in the face (literally!) and you STILL refuse to see it.
tank you for your graet work
we dout appolo landed men on the moon too and concorde was fake too
peace to you
130awe 5 days ago
Hollywood
dascooker 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see an Apple pie or a car or a vector or anything you want to see, you will see it for sure, everywhere you look : in a Jell-O cup or on the moon.
Your video is kid stuff.
have a nice and... spooky day...
RAREpicture 1 week ago
A face? I saw a reflection of a bunch of rocks.
artripaia 2 months ago
you can still that he is wearing his head gear in the first pic and in the scond pic its 100 percent more clear so it is not a reflection of anyone but him...
wyteout201 2 months ago
@wyteout201
Precisely, we should not see his face through the visor, because, when the gold plated visor receives the sun (which is the case here, see the direction of the shadow), it is not transparent (like the ray ban).
When someone looks at the sun with ray bans, you can't see his eyes, can you?
With the gold plated visor, it is still less possible, for they are more reflective than ray bans.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
in one pic his head is turned and the other one its straight. This shows no proof at all.
Dusty696969 2 months ago
@Dusty696969
No, it's absolutely not the problem.
If he was turning his head and that his head was appearing normally in the visor, it would be normal.
But here, the face which appears in the visor is both too high in the visor and too small.
If you compare with pictures of faces of astronaut seen through the visor on earth, it is very different.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
Even tho this video might be B.S. there is a lot more stuff going on that deserves attention like why is it that when I'm watching t.v. the news reporters have slits in the eyes?? Watch CNN or FOX News and just watch for a while, Look at their eyes very closely and you will see what i see this world ain't what it seems. If i have round pupils, and you have round pupils than WHY in the hell do these mofo's have slits in their eye's?!?! Jesus is coming soon just make sure you're ready to meet HIM
NIGHTWATCHMAN907 2 months ago
@NIGHTWATCHMAN907 because they are reptilian? naaaah it must be something more plausible like a low signal strength, low definition and video compression artifacts.
TheForlornDreams 5 days ago
MightySaturn5, why your view so black and white? I bet you think the world is still flat! lol Look around you... everything is fine right? Well enjoy it while it last, meanwhile the rest of us "Conspiracy Theorist" will continue the journey into the unknown and discovering whats to come, and why the government continues to cover-up, mislead and misuse taxpayers money for their secret agenda! NEW WORLD ORDER ( N.W.O.) All in all i hope you know the Lord Jesus because He is the one true Son of GOD
NIGHTWATCHMAN907 2 months ago
fucking conspiracy retards...since they are usually the most shunned members of society they get together on various online 'soap boxes' (facebook, youtube, etc.) to scream their twisted rants. What these poor shit heads don't seem to grasp is they have absolutely no credibility left..."Look -that leaf just moved across the ground! -bet its the goverment using microprocessor controlled leafs set up with tiny cameras to spy on us"
MightySaturn5 2 months ago
@MightySaturn5
We have much more credibility than you, and we'll see within some years who the true retards were!
hunchbacked 2 months ago 3
@hunchbacked why wait for "some years"? -its obviously because you have nothing now and never will, your wild ideas have no substantial basis -basically all you have is the hope that some tidbit of new information will come to light so you won't feel like such a complete ass wipe for believing in such obvious bullshit.
If you want an to endorse an idea thats an obvious truth feel free to observe my name written in cursive in piping hot grey DNA across your mothers forhead.
MightySaturn5 2 months ago
The face is turned is all. What's the big whoop?!
talkinglens1 2 months ago
You are just not thinking of the days you dressed up for halloween or the mascot suit you used to wear. Buzz was posing to make a good picture look like he was looking at the flag but at the same time was cranking his neck to look at the guy taking the picture if he was ready or something like that. They have a lot of head movement in those helmets. Picture yourself wearing one and trying to look to your left while keeping your helmet facing straight.
saskguy4 2 months ago
totally faked image. The face is added to the helmet just like YOU did with the training pic. No big mystery there!
joshanator1 3 months ago
I SEEK POLE SHIFT SURVIVAL GROUP.
sexypoetry 3 months ago
can't you see it is the pope woytila?
sexypoetry 3 months ago
Really are you that stupid?
Did you even bother to look at a cutout of the spacesuit and see what effect it has if you move around in a suit?
Don't answer, you will be burned.
Cityj0hn 3 months ago
@Cityj0hn
stupid really?
You didn't get what I explained, you completely missed the point.
Look at someone who is wearing ray bans and is oriented toward the sun; he'll see you through his ray ban, BUT YOU WON'T SEE HIS EYES THROUGH THE RAY BAN.
Get it now? We shouldn't see his face through the gold plated visor because he is looking toward the sun!
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Are you REALLY unable to see any difference at all between a pair of sunglasses and a spherical visor that covers nearly an entire hemisphere?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
And photographer's reflection always in the center of the sphere shape of Helmet !!
macoshan 3 months ago
@macoshan The reflection of the camera will always appear in the closest point of a spherical helmet, not necessarily the center. But in this case we're not seeing a reflection; we're seeing Buzz's brightly lit face directly through his visor. Although it's attenuated by returning through the visor, we can still see it because our position is such that only the black sky is reflected on top of it. This is rare in Apollo photography.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@macoshan And if you look at the high res version of AS11-40-5875 you will indeed see Neil Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's visor, right where it should be! It's that small vertical white line just in front of the visor's left edge.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
I think you are dreaming.
I see something indded on the high res version of this photo, but it does not like Armstrong at all.
You really have a weird imagination if you think that it looks like armstrong.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked I didn't say it looked like Armstrong. I said it *WAS* Armstrong. It's in exactly the right location to be his reflection (always in the closest point on the visor). It's the right size and shape. Since there were only two men there, and Aldrin is in the picture, then that has to be Armstrong.
As for weird imaginations, you're the one who thought a closeup of Armstrong during training was Aldrin, and even when your error was pointed out you didn't fix it. So much for the "truth".
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
And I say it isn't Armstrong; it's your fantasy which makes this reflection to be Armstrong, only your fantasy; it does not look like Armstrong, even remotely.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Read what I said. I didn't say it was Armstrong because it looked like him; the reflection is much too small. I said it was Armstrong because he took the picture, his reflection is the right size, shape and in the right place, and it couldn't be anything else.
But I can certainly understand that deductive reasoning is beyond your capabilities. You've demonstrated that many times.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
It is not Armstrong, because he did not take this picture.
And the man who is posing for the picture is an actor and not Buzz Aldrin.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked It is truly remarkable that you still go on, in all apparent seriousness, about "truth" and "science" when you don't bother to correct your blatant mistakes even on those rare occasions when you admit one.
I no longer accept that you seriously believe all this. You've given too many clues that your "hunchbacked" persona is an elaborate hoax, just like the French mockumentary "Dark Side of the Moon".
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked "It is not Armstrong, because he did not take this picture.
And the man who is posing for the picture is an actor and not Buzz Aldrin."
Please prove that statement, or admit You just made it up.
YDDES 3 months ago
@YDDES > @hunchbacked
and it's not the moon either! neither nasa, nor grumman, nor naa, nor anything else. this is the cia and nsa covering up the lunar missions by opening up a file>new>photoshop canvas in adobe photoshop cs4 and letting loose their creative juices! then they'd have asked many conspiracy theorists about what and how to paint leaving loose ends so as to feed the hoax community in the 21st century so they don't starve... knowledge famine is a thing of the past!!
zambi007i 2 months ago
@hunchbacked So who did take the picture? And who is posing for the picture if not Buzz Aldrin?
If you can't provide any affirmative evidence for your claims, then you haven't a leg to stand on. Despite your constant appeals to science, truth and Galileo, the fact is that your stubbornness has trapped you in a delusion from which you apparently can't escape.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@Cityj0hn
And furthermore the problem is not with the orientation of the face of the so-called buzz in the visor, but with its position and size which are incorrect (see the same face on earth, it is completely different when he is looked at on the side); the face appears too small and too high.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@Cityj0hn Yes, he really is that stupid. Have you noticed that his "picture of Buzz on earth" is actually a picture of Armstrong? Even when that's pointed out to him, he doesn't seem to think that's important.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
This is just another indicator of how desparate the hoaxtards are getting. The Apollo Hoax Conspiracy used to be about the "big stuff" - e.g. no stars in the pictures, so-called "deadly" radiation, "extra" light sources etc., ad nauseum.
Now that these have been serially debunked, the AHC has been forced to focus on ever-dwindling minutiae of decreasing significance. Like here.
Time to give it up, hunchbacked & co. Yes We Did. Six times. QED.
GlowWorm1962 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
No, you never did, not a single time.
The moon never saw a single man.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 This isn't even a minutiae of little significance. He's simply wrong! And very obviously so.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had a thought too about the face. It very well could be a very good photoshop job however I don't think that is the case. If you zoom in real close and clear up the image as much as possible, the reflection almost looks like the lander. But I doubt it. There is a face there but it could be Buzz in all honesty. The visor could be distorting the face.
phantomsk8ers 3 months ago
Comment removed
phantomsk8ers 3 months ago
I cant explain the Buzz pics but I can tell why there is a full reflection on the visor. Think of it as a two-way mirror. Mirror on one side and see through on the other. It protects the astronauts from uv rays and radiation from the sun just like our own atmosphere does for us here on earth.
phantomsk8ers 3 months ago
@phantomsk8ers
Yes, there is a reflection on the visor, like there is a reflection on the ray bans when someone looks toward the sun.
But the face we see on the visor is certainly not the face of Buzz: it might be the reflection of someone else.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked sir if you watch the movie for allmankind you do see when the astronaut has his gold visor up and you can see his face...
thejonathan130 3 months ago
@thejonathan130 Yes, some 16mm movie frames do show Armstrong with his visor up. That movie was shot through the LM window. Armstrong lifted his visor to see in the LM's shade.
Here Aldrin faces the sun with his visor down, but we can still see his face. It's brightly lit by the sun, but the sun's reflection doesn't obscure it because we're looking at him from the side.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@phantomsk8ers
Photoshop can also do that.
You can do anything with Photoshop...provided that you have talent for using it.
In fact, I don't use Photoshop, I use a software I have made myself, but, with this software, I can modify a picture like I want, put anything I want on it, and make it tell whatever I want.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked "Photoshop" is the standard response from any Apollo denier when they can't think of any real arguments to make. Of course, the minor flaw in their argument is that Photoshop wasn't around in the late 1960s and early 1970s when these pictures were made, and they've all been publicly available since that time.
And for some reason the deniers are never able to use Photoshop themselves to make a truly convincing "fake" Apollo image. They say it's easy, then hem and haw.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Oh they have plenty of arguments, but you never listen to them.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Because you flatly exclude the possibility that anyone could ever find a mistake in your claims, you mistake "listening, rejecting as wrong and giving the reasons in detail" for "never listening".
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
No, I don't exclude that anyone could find mistakes in my claims.
And I don't exclude either that many of these so called mistakes are misinterpretations from those who think they have found them.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked When I misinterpret what you say it's usually because of your idiosyncratic English, such as saying "important" when you mean "strong". But I usually understand what you say just fine. It's that WHAT you say is utter nonsense.
I've suggested some experiments. Others have suggested that you study this visor setup with computer ray tracing. But you reject all that saying its too obvious.
I think the real reason is that you're afraid it will show you that you're wrong.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
No, it has nothing to do with idiosyncratic english.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Exactly. Just as I said, despite some challenges in understanding you, it is usually WHAT you say that's nonsense, not how you say it.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Have you EVER conducted a computer simulation, run an experiment or constructed a circuit to confirm one of your hoax claims? Or is everything so "obvious" to you that such steps simply aren't needed?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
I have shown plenty of photographs I have taken to support my claims about the Apollo photographs.
In a next video, I'll make a full very detailed demonstration on the way the A/D converter works taking a 4 bit converter as an example.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
When I say that a processor does not count hardware pulses, I am a good position to judge it, because, in my job, I have to count tachometer pulses to measure distances, the tachometer does not go into the processor, but into an electronic counter that the processor can read with an I/O operation.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked What a marvelous example of your amazing inability to comprehend any alternatives to how you personally do things.
Everyone knows that cars drive on the right because that's how they are in France. Why, it's even done that way in the USA. Driving on the left would be an incoherence because then he'd run into others driving on the right. Anybody who says they've ever driven a car on the left must be lying. Is that what you're saying?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
You have a strange way of reasoning.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Define "strange".
I'd say my way of reasoning is much more common than yours. Even you must admit that your way of reasoning is rather unusual, and "unusual" is one of the possible meanings of "strange".
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
What has the way you ride on the road got to do with this video?
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked I'm commenting on your flawed manner of thinking. Your understanding of first principles is so poor that you are utterly unable to analyze anything outside your own personal experience, which is also severely limited. And since you have no insight into your lack of knowledge, you just dismiss everything out of hand.
So if you'd never been to a country that drives on the left, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see you reject the notion as impossible.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Do you know that, when you are saying that, you are exactly describing yourself?
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked No, actually. But there is a way to find out which one of us is right. It's called "experimentation". I've always been willing to try it, but for some reason you're not. How come?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
Even today, with much much much more powerful processors than in Apollo time, no processor has a pin to receive hardware pulses it would count with a software instruction, because it makes no sense; when hardware pulses are to be counted, they are always counted with an external electronic counter that the processor reads through an I/O operation.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Then I can only conclude that you know very little about modern computers either, because I can point to plenty of cases in modern systems where hardware events are counted in software using general purpose memory locations.
Of course, I'm never surprised to learn that you knew even less than I had thought.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked also when buzz is saluting the flag obviously he exposed his face momentarily to the flag and sun as a matter of respect to his flag and his country....
thejonathan130 3 months ago
@hunchbacked notice also he is looking towards the camera on the moon and straight ahead here on earth..
thejonathan130 3 months ago
@hunchbacked you do have good arguments but the sun, the direction he is looking, and the picture quality all affect the view of the picture
thejonathan130 3 months ago
waste of time......
NickWhitney1 3 months ago
wow. you see his face differently because he's FUCKING LOOKING AT THE CAMERA YOU IMBECILE
monsterjamkid 3 months ago
@monsterjamkid
It's not a question of orientation, but size and position.
But I won't call you an imbecile because you can't make the difference.
Furthermore we should not see it at all because the astronaut gets the sun right in his face and therefore we should not be able to see through the gold plated visor.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked sorry for getting angry. i do understand the difference between oriention and size, I just thought it look that way. No hard feelings?
monsterjamkid 3 months ago
@monsterjamkid Of course you're right. And I don't blame you for getting angry when faced with such cluelessness.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@monsterjamkid now now
mrmagicroundcircle 3 months ago
1:25 OH MY GOD
stephen63424 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so what happened to them?
stephen63424 3 months ago
It is said that it reflects most of the sun light so your eyes don't get damaged.
Dobilow 3 months ago
@Dobilow
Yes, exact, but it also makes that you can't see through it, you can't see the face of the astronaut who is behind.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Wrong! The gold coating works exactly the same in both directions. Most of the light is reflected, some of it passes through. If none passed through, then Buzz would not be able to see at all!
So his face CAN be seen from the outside provided it's brightly lit (as here, when he faces the sun) AND there's no outside reflection to overpower it (as here, since the reflection is of black sky). That rarely happens in Apollo pictures, but this IS one of those times.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
When someone wears ray ban and he is not in the shadow, you can't see his eyes, but he can see through the ray ban; it's because you are on the side of the light and he is on the side of the shadow.
And ray ban are less reflective than this gold plated visor.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked As long as the visor isn't 100% reflective, and it's not, we can still see a face through it under the right conditions. The face must be brightly lit AND no outside light can reflect off the visor where it would obscure our view of the face.
That doesn't happen often, but it happens here. Aldrin's face is lit by the sun passing into his visor, and we can see it through the visor because it's positioned to reflect only the black sky in front of it. This is simple!!
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
At 1:50 you show what you claim is a picture of Buzz Aldrin in his suit on earth. That's actually Neil Armstrong! Hah!
The picture is blown up from S69-31056, showing Armstrong carrying the deployable S-band antenna.
It's easy to tell Armstrong and Aldrin apart in these training pictures; only Armstrong has the Hasselblad camera mounted on his PLSS remote control unit.
Either you're getting sloppy, or you are deliberately misrepresenting pictures. Which is it?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
you a dumbass... I'm sure the government is hiding aliens and controlling our minds too right?
Gigajie2 3 months ago
yeah, and go figure, they don't even have to really wear the suits. just have to first acclimate to the less dense air there (like going to 10 above here), and then can walk around and breathe just like on Earth! nice show they put on.
slooash 3 months ago
@KarlEastwood64
Yes, but it prevents from seeing through the visor; when someone gets the sun in his face and wears ray bans, you can't see his eyes.
We shouldn't be able to see Buzz's face, besides in all other photos, we can't see the astronaut's face through the visor, so why can't we see it in this photo?
Do you find this normal?
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked I never cease to be amazed and amused by the many simple things that completely confuse you even as you insist that you know everything and are never wrong.
Who says we shouldn't ever see Buzz's face? Do you really think there's such a thing as a perfect one-way mirror under every lighting condition?
We can see Buzz's face precisely BECAUSE it's fully lit by the sun and our viewing angle is such that we don't get the sun's reflection off the visor.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
We shouldn't see Buzz's face when he gets the sun right in his face, only when he is in the shadow.
And anyway, it isn't buzz's face at all; it is badly positioned and too small.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Your misconceptions get the better of you yet again. We are MOST, not least likely to see his face when it is directly lit by the sun.
It's truly remarkable how, whenever you see something you don't understand, you always jump to the least likely conclusion ("Apollo was faked!") instead of questioning your own assumptions. Most people would have done that long ago, but you're far too much of a know-it-all to ever do that.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@ApolloWasReal
I don't "jump" to conclusions, I draw logical conclusions.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Although one can sometimes draw logical but nonetheless incorrect conclusions from incorrect premises, you don't even do that; your conclusions aren't even logical.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked On the contrary, his face is more likely to be visible when bathed in sunlight with little or no landscape reflected, which is when the signal/noise ratio will be large. All of the counter-examples you give are backlit or sidelit (the face is shadowed), and have lots of bright landscape reflected (which mandates small iris diameters). The signal/noise ratio is small. Of all the pics you show, the one most conducive to facial visibility is the one of Aldrin.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
What are you talking about?
Wear ray bans, look at the sun, and ask a friend if he can see your eyes; he will reply: "NO" (although your eyes are shadowed by the ray bans).
Moreover the face in the visor is incorrect; Buzz's face would not look like this way; this face is too high in the visor and too small.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Sunglasses absolutely aren't the same as whole-head hoods with full-face visors. And the face in the visor is way too abstract for me to tell if it's Buzz Aldrin or General Pershing. Besides, haven't you even paid attention? It's been pointed out that the face you pasted on for reference isn't Aldrin; it's Armstrong. It comes as no surprise, then, if the two don't happen to look equal.
qed100 3 months ago
@hunchbacked It occurs to me that if you were really the hot-shot computer expert you say you are, then you'd rely on much more than just intuition to tell you when the helmet reflections don't look right. You'd check your gut feelings with something more rigorous, such as finding the exact dimensions of the suits and helmets and do a ray-tracing analysis to see if you're correct. But you haven't done that. You're not rigorous. You're careless.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
There is no need of a computer for something so obvious.
Don't you wonder why on all the other photos the face of the astronaut is never visible.
The visor was covered with a thin gold layer to protect the faces of the astronauts from the agressive sun (there is no ozon layer to protect them, and the sun is much more dangerous on the moon than on earth); why, on all other photos, the face of the astronaut is not visible, so why is it on this photo?
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Yes, there is need, if you want to make your case to those for whom this isn't so obvious. And I know all about the role of the gold filter. I also explained in my first post why the face is variably visible or not visible. Even if you don't agree with my reasoning, you could at least extend the courtesy of acknowledging that you read what I wrote instead of being like most other Hoax Theorists and sidestepping it altogether. There's no need to make yourself look foolish.
qed100 3 months ago
@hunchbacked By the way, I've looked at your website. If I were you I wouldn't invest much confidence in Ralph Rene'. Rene' was a no-nothing who weighed all of his physics against his partisan politics (a lot like how the Nazis decided which of their country's best scientists were of value on the basis of how Jewish they were). He was the worst kind of imbecile, because he willingly made himself an imbecile just to rationalize being bitter.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
I have used none of his arguments; in fact I haven't even read his book; I have done my own personal research and everything which is on my site exclusively comes from my own personal research; and far from being limited to photos and videos, it even deals about more technical subjects, like the computer, the radar, and the electronic interfaces.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked None of his arguments? Bullshit. You cite him and his writings in your introduction, and post a link to his book. If you don't want people to take his work into consideration, then why would you hold him up as an example?
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
However I don't think Ralph is wrong on everything; otherwise, why did NASA never answer to him, and give answers to his questions? It would have been so simple.
Giving no answers is suspicious, it gives credit to his claims.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked If NASA didn't rebut his questions it doesn't spell out the word CONSPIRACY. It only means that there are only so many hours in each day and busy people don't have endless amounts of time to waste with every crackpot who wanders by. This is especially so since there are more than enough perfectly good answers to Rene's questions all over the Web.
qed100 3 months ago
@hunchbacked And another thing: ALL of the hoax theorists you present in your introduction are demonstrably no-nothings. Bill Kaysing absolutely wasn't a rocket engineer. Bart Sibrel is a disingenuous maker of 3rd-rate sensationalist videos.
Furthermore, NASA never put a monkey into space two months before Apollo 11. All you're doing is allowing yourself to be lead about by hearsay.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
Bill Kaysing might not directly be a rocket angineer, but he knew a lot because he was reading and writing documentations.
And when you read and write many documentations, you necessarily become well informed.
And there are Apollo believers who ciriticize Percy who is a professional and who claim to be professional experts when it is more than obvious that they are no more than amateurs and they don't even understand the demonstrations of Percy.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Oh, but you said of Kaysing that he was an "engineer, who had worked on the saturn engines". So what you mean now is that you were wrong about his background? What else were you mistaken on? Well, for one thing, you say that he "had computed the probability that man could set foot on the moon, and had found it to be very small". Tell me, exactly how does one go about computing the probability of such a thing? have YOU done this calculation?
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
he has in some sort, since he has written documentations on it; so he knew its technology.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Show me Kaysing's documents. Show me that he knew spaceflight technology better than all the working engineers did. Show me what he wrote. If you can't show me, then I have no good reason to suppose that you know what you're talking about.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
Even if Bill Kaysing has miscalculated in a factor 100 (which is enormous), it still was leaving almost no chance to the astronaut to come back alive.
And, at the time he made his calculations, nobody contested it, nobody told him he was wrong and that his calculations were incorrect.
And suddenly, after the pseudo exploit of Apollo, going to the moon becomes very easy, a sort of pleasance trip...Yes, for those who believe in fairy tales!
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked I didn't ask for your unsubstantiated guess. I asked if you've SEEN Kaysing's calculation. Do you understand how he figured it out? Can you do such a computation? I'm inclined to think that you haven't seen his, and can't do it on your own, so it's meaningless to speak of it here and now. You don't know the odds of success or failure, and that's all there is to it.
For a computer engineer, you sure don't seem very familiar with rigor. You're sloppy.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
And how would you do the calculation personally?
Do you really think that you could come to more than 90% of chance?
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked I don't know how to approach such a calculation for a complicated problem like this. And since you keep evading the question (Have you seen Kaysing's arithmetic on this?), it's evident that you haven't a clue how to do it either. It's meaningless for you to insist that you know what the odds were four decades ago.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
So you mean that within less than a decade, the probability of landing on the moon went from 0.0017% to 99.99%?
Wow, what a progress!
Why didn't anybody say to Kaysing his calculations were outrageously wrong?
He should have been fire from Rocketdyne!
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Where did I say that? What I said is that I don't know, and neither do you. In fact it's ridiculous to claim that the odds of success were approximately 1/1. Apollo 13 didn't succeed in landing on the Moon, and the crew were precariously close to not making it back alive. fact is that there's risk in EVERYTHING which people do.
And, Kaysing was told many times in his life that he was wrong. Why wasn't he fired? Because he didn't do anything to get fired for.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
And yes, the NASA did put a monkey into space, you are completely misinformed if you don't know it.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked I looked it up and you're right about the monkey flight. I also found out that the Monkey lived aboard Biosatellite 3 for nearly nine days and didn't perish until after landing back on the ground. The insinuation on your site is that the monkey died from exposure to the Van Allen Belts. The belts would be lethal to any mammal who loitered too long inside. In fact, it'd be dead way before nine days. The belts didn't kill the monkey.
qed100 3 months ago
@qed100
Oh really?
So the NASA was incapable to send back a living being to earth alive?
And yet they sent astronauts that they had every reason to think that they would crash when coming back to earth?
The truth is that it is just an excuse to hide the fact that the monkey died of radiations.
hunchbacked 3 months ago
@hunchbacked People had spent much more time than nine days on orbit before 1969, and they all came back down alive and healthy.
I don't know where you get the idea that a returning spacecraft should be expected to crash. I don't think you know anything about this.
qed100 3 months ago
@hunchbacked You've GOT to be kidding me. Do you really think it suspicious that NASA didn't answer a crank who wouldn't have listened to them anyway?
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked There are other Apollo photos that DO show the face of the astronaut.
Since you haven't even bothered to correct something as obviously mistaken as your misidentification of the training photo (it's Armstrong, not Aldrin) I can only conclude that you don't really care if you're right as long as you can say Apollo was faked. That's just dishonest.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
@hunchbacked Raybans are flat, not spherical like the Apollo visor. So if you face the sun, anyone in position to see your eyes will see the reflection of the sun instead. Here Buzz's face is fully lit by the sun while we look at him cross-sun, moving the sun's reflection far enough away to let us see his face through the visor.
I can't believe you don't get this one. This is about as simple as it gets.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
Really? Howabout hes looking toward the camera rather than strait ahead...your an idiot and he may not actually be on the moon but im sure its him...you can see the thing they wear on their heads..
rickythepitbull 4 months ago
@rickythepitbull
He gets the sun right in front of him, we should not be able to see his face through the visor.
And his face is not correctly positioned in the visor.
I love your nickname, it perfectly suits you.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
You do realize there is a sheilding visor on most of these suits, right? You can find footage of one of the Apollo 15 astronauts being scolded by mission control for not keeping the protective visor down. These visors were to prevent unsheilded UV radiation from seriously harming the astronauts during their moonwalks.
shaggychatham 4 months ago
@shaggychatham
Oh yes, I do.
But when an astronaut is directly facing the sun like Buzz is doing on the photo, there is no way he would not use the protective visor; he could not stand the light; and also we could not see his face through the visor: When the sun is reflecting on a window, you can't see through this window.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
uuuhm ...... maybe BECAUSE the moon landing missions were fake!
MrChila86 4 months ago
@MrChila86
May be they really landed, but with a fake LM working with a fake computer and fake instruments, and they took fake photos...who knows?
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@hunchbacked And why exactly would they do that? What sense would it make? You've never explained that.
Actually, there's plenty of evidence that the Apollo missions, computers, instruments and photos were all perfectly real. You just ignore all this evidence so you can go on pretending that no one can know.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
the autor has nothing to do... boring...
MrrAlibabaevich 4 months ago
@MrrAlibabaevich
And you, you have nothing better to do than watch a video that you don't like?
hunchbacked 4 months ago
u fool, buzz has his head tilted forward in the picture of him in the suit while on earth and the pic of him on the moon in front of the flag he is looking left at the camera. obviously the pic is gonna look different
TheSisko1 4 months ago
@TheSisko1
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that he is looking at the camera.
hunchbacked 4 months ago
@TheSisko1 what I want to no is why are the shadows and every rinkle the same in bothe pictures the only difference is the visor.
jawman6 4 months ago
@jawman6
And also the fact that we can see through the visor although he has the sun right in his face!
hunchbacked 4 months ago
You can see the face of another astro-not:
watch?v=w6DqeNee5LA
winexprt 5 months ago
actually at 1:28, buzz's face can't be mistaken.
zambi007i 5 months ago
@zambi007i
Oh really?
You have a big imagination!
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked i'd say you let your imagination run wild. either that's buzz aldrin of nasa or colin mochrie of whose line... i seriusly doubt the latter!
if you wish to use yours then tell me whose face it is? i'd love you to win this one!
zambi007i 5 months ago
@zambi007i
It can be anybody's face, including someone wearing a mask.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked i already said that it's your (and of others) pure imagination. you outright refuse to believe nasa's statements. nasa - that has the undeniable credibility to have launched hundreds of space missions, that has put gps satellites so you can negotiate your way home using your cellular fone and many other such achievements.
your views are pure dogmatic. for once, come out of your slumber and analyze the evidence with an open mind instead of being biased.
zambi007i 5 months ago
@hunchbacked can you tell me which foto number you took this from the apollo 11 archive?
zambi007i 5 months ago
@zambi007i
AS11--40-5875
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked thanx for the pic link. though nasa claims it's hi-res, i think it's the same original image taken by hasselblad projected and rescanned with a hi-res cam. so the face can't be made out properly. you're correct in saying that it could be anyone's face. however, i feel if it's someone else's, then nasa isn't that careless to leave such barebody clues that might go against its claim.
zambi007i 5 months ago
@hunchbacked Um... And actually, is it just me, or is that face a glitch on the camera? Or a reflection of some rocky mass, or a upthrow of dust. Mate. It could be any number of things.
CurrySauceful 4 months ago
good point.
nlty2000 5 months ago
Hahahaha!!! So...aliens are going to the moon for us? Lol! That makes no sense.
Eternalsummersong 5 months ago
your kidding rite?
DFDYoung 5 months ago
@DFDYoung
Kidding?
- Why can we see through the visor when it is exposed to the sun and not in the shadow (on other photos, we can't see through it, it acts as a mirror).
- The face is incorrectly positioned and sized behind the visor.
Unless of course the face we see is not behind the visor, but the reflection of somebody else's face.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@hunchbacked BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN!
When is there more sunlight on Buzz's face -- when he faces the sun, or when he faces dark sky?
You do know that so-called 1-way mirrors only look like mirrors when your side is bright and the other side is dark, right? Otherwise you see right through them. The visor in front of his face reflects dark sky, so you can see his sunlit face right through it.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago
Nice vid !
I first spotted and did an analysis of this Buzz-in-helmet anomaly in 2007 - its on my Photobucket site in the album " Apollo Astronaut Analysis", sub heading " If the Snoopy Cap Fits" ... the PB link is pasted under my A17 Bag Drop video upload, and adds quite a bit to the argument that the individual we see in that photo is not Aldrin.
michaelstmark 6 months ago
if that is suppose to be his face it looks as if he is looking at the camera not down
deagles2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(((((((((OPEN YOUR EYES))))))))))
Take a look how big corporations DO NOT PAY taxes in USA, while the hard workers are struggling loosing everything, jobs, homes, soon they will lower the $ from the social security, AND we DO pay taxes.
Search in Youtube: A Scandal
By SenatorSanders
latingal525 8 months ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago
Um... his face is turned?
lostsurfc0 9 months ago
I cannot believe how many of you all still think this... Just like the earth is 8000 yrs old too right....
MrJimijoe 10 months ago
@MrJimijoe
Actually, it's 6000 years old; it's not me who is saying this, it's the creationists.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
andybooth1973 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
andybooth1973 11 months ago
because they wasnt on the moon it was in a studio, just to make everyone think the usa went to the moon b4 any other country it is the astronaughts face and cos the light wasnt strong enough thats why u can c inside the visor
andybooth1973 11 months ago
Of sunglasses.
avcderek 11 months ago
We had the technology and drive to land there, so why would we fake it. Its certain they shot men into space so why not land on the moon. It is disturbing for the sacrifice men made getting there for you to insinuate that they all lied. Truly disgusting. As for reflection while he was in direct sunlight because there is no ozone to manipulate the light it shines directly. The curvature of the visor creates itsown shadowing which is why you can see gis face. This can be demonstrated with a pair
avcderek 11 months ago
@avcderek then why is the flag blowing? theres no wind on the moon. so how come every time we see the "original landing" the flag appears to be blowing in the wind.
pittbouncer13 10 months ago
@avcderek
Are you sure the technology really existed to land on the moon.
Comparatively to the current technology, the technology of the sxities was primitive.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@avcderek
And there is nothing disgusting in looking for the truth.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked No, there's nothing wrong with looking for the truth. But it's plenty disgusting when the truth is staring you in the face (literally!) and you STILL refuse to see it.
ApolloWasReal 3 months ago