Error 1) There IS light hitting below his knees, but he's covered with dust below the knees. Error 2) A fill light is naturally provided by the abundant reflective material all over the moon. If you don't believe it, go out on the night of a full moon & look at the shadows it casts. Error 3) the 2nd photo of John Young and the gold ultraviolet spectrograph camera is not "less lit." It's exposure settings are less. A shiny gold instrument is naturally brighter and no shadow is 100% dark.
The astronaut jumps twice; his legs don't make the same angle with the lem's shadow on the two photos; if he was falling vertically the two times like he should, his legs would make the same angle with the lem's shadow.
In terms of the definition of "vacuum" meaning: "the absence of atmospheric pressure" which would otherwise scatter photons is not present on the moon.Long electromagnetic waves on earth are absorbed by the atmosphere this is why we see a blue sky and why mountains look bluish when viewed from a great distances!
Yes, the "no stars" theory...The camera lens is saturated by the light reflected off the surface of the moon. The much dimmer stars in comparison are washed out...
Dumbest evidence yet, actually, though you are right, there is more than one light source there in-fact many thousands. When the suns light reflects off the moons surface it scatters the reflected light many many different directions creating defuse lighting. Also that is the same pic of the space man not 2 as you say. The guy is in the same pose come on man get a clue!
We whom do not believe NASAwood fakery are critical thinkers (skeptics).We are not hoax believers; try your reverse psy-ops some where else. You are losing the World is with us. Apollo was as real as Star Trek.
The Apollo Moon missions were all faked.
FACT:
In the vacuum on the moon, there should be very high contrast. Things would be either black or light, yet areas in shadows on the moon have been filled in with light.
The Gold Instrument is the UltraViolet Telescope that was being used to photograph stars. Being gold plated it has a mirror-like surface to reflect IR and help control temperature. It's set up in the shade for this reason, too. The reflective sides are reflecting the light from the sunlit terrain all around. Your speculations about barn doors to controll lighting are just silly, especially on the shot of the jumping astronaut. And of course, the notion of 'no stars' has been so debunked!
This video posting is so Frik'n ridiculous that it's not even worth commenting on. m4c0me, when you move out of your mom's basement and get a job, let us know.
You missed a vitally important clue!! In the photo of the astronaut in the shade, you can see the second light source reflected in the astronaut's visor!!!!
Look closely. Look very, very closely. IT'S THE LIT LUNAR SURFACE!!!!!!!
Now put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner until you learn some math, logic and physics.
Oh, and also photography. Learn what an "f-stop" is and why one might want to change it when taking pictures in a shadowed area.
Look at his visor lol, Ok then why is the right side of his visor when you look at him more brighter lit than the left side? Surely the light should be brighter on the left not the right lol and the answer should be artificial light and as for your sitting in a corner with a dunce cap statement, is that what you had to do when you would not comply with things you where educated on!
As for an f-stop, an f-stop increases or decreases the amount of light hitting the focal plane for exposure control. You dont have to sit in a corner, just live and let live.
Is this a trick question? Look closely (or not even very closely) and you'll see the lunar surface reflected in his visor -- with the shadow of the LM in our lower right, the lit surface beyond and the black sky above that.
As for f-stops, you get partial credit. Take a hard look at the lit surface beyond the LM shadow in those two photographs. Do you think maybe, just MAYBE, the f-stop was changed between those two pictures?? And maybe that's why the UV telescope looks different?
in his visor the light reflection is brighter on the right side as you look at it. It should be brighter from the left side if it was anything to believe, anyway I say that the light reflection is artificial in the visor because it has its own hotspot on the right side.
Your knowledge in light is Earth-based. Have you thought about that? This is freakin' space! Have you ever tried three-point lighting on the moon? It could be entirely different considering the hudnred and one things that make the setting unique. And no, one photograph is not enough, because apparently the million other photographs that DON'T fit your obscure logic somehow doesn't bring you to reason.
Light on the moon would act in straight lines even reflectios, I am not saying there are non reflective lighting from Moon surface etc, I am quite aware that you are not aware that light is different on the moon because there is no atmosphere on the moon. Its our atmosphere that allows earth objects to record a different light fallout pattern than it would on the Moon.
Try understanding waht I just said and see if you can agree on this little note.
It only takes one of your analyses of Apollo photos to prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Stop being so paranoid and conspiratorial and listen with an open mind for a change. You might actually learn something. Maybe even that Apollo was real.
Actually, it's even simpler than I thought. Your supposedly two pictures are actually THE SAME PICTURE!
I can't put URLs here, but look for AS16-114-18439HR.jpg on the Lunar Surface Journal. Your two versions are cropped differently and the second version is considerably darkened from the first. Look at the original and you'll see nothing extraordinary other than it was taken on the moon!
'Philkarn' is absolutely right. All this mumbo jumbo about 'barn door shades', 'lighting direction' and so forth is pure fantasy. Your 2 comparison images ARE from EXACTLY THE SAME Photo!!!
You are right about one thing though. It only 'takes one photo' to show how far off the 'deep end' you and the other lunar hoax delusionists have gone. You've managed to do that.
I have an open mind, their is only evidence to support that apollo claims are fake. This is my claim, I know yours now what else do you feel you have to say that might change my opinion?
Yes, I do...the fact that the hoax believers keep putting out ridiculously bogus "evidence", easily dismissed with just a little math and physics (and some actual knowledge of Apollo).
And some of your "evidence", like these photos, were deliberately doctored to supposedly prove a hoax. Those two photos ARE THE VERY SAME PHOTO, with the second having been darkened.
If you don't believe me, go to the ALSJ. Every single original photo is there in stunningly high resolution.
The only people responsible for any photo available and retraction is NASA, make your own mind up and dont bother trying to change mine, I use my own logic not yours, I heard what you had to say, I dont have a problem that you want to keep your opinions, now move onto in your opinion people worth talking to.
If you knew how reflecting things are up there you will know, you will know light bounces of objects but you wont know that cos you dont get out of your mums basement, theres alot of shiny things there the descent engine on the LM, the rover, the ALSEP, even the visors. Also those pictures are not on Apollo 16 there both on 15 and 17.
yes ther's a shiny engine on the LM the rover in the background the ALSEP the visors but light does not go round corners unless it is bounced so the SHINY ENGINE is inbetween the sun and the gold instrument so this is a shiny example of its not the SHINY ENGINE that lit up the instrument neither did the visor of the spaceman because his visor is behind gold instrument If the visor was to light the instrument it would light the back and not the front that we see Maybe I go back to basement now
Lets see if China make any false claims as well as the NASA idiots who claim what they claim. I believe its only a small majority of NASA idiots to blame and just like many Earthlings where duped by NASA, The rest of NASA where duped by their own.
Roll on China visit and I would not be surprised if NASA are not paying China to make false claims. I guess we will just have to wait and see before I make any firm judgements on that matter. Its going to be harder to make a false claim nowadays
What use is your statement without your explanations why? Anybody can make a statement like yours but not anybody can explain why the statement is said!!!
well, when you don't even understand exposure settings, how shadows fall, or simple optical physics, it would take a lot more than the available space here to explain everything to you. Believe me. I would love to sit down with you and explain everything you have gotten wrong here but youtube doesn't make that very easy to do.
Ok you have had your say now dont bother me anymore. People can read and believe what they like, thats yours and theirs perogative and my own is my own. Have another nice day.
Be forewarned, this filmmaker will DELETE your comments if you post evidence he has not been honest. For example in his Apollo 16 video, what he claims ar two different photos are in fact the very same photo. He has deleted posts that prove this point a number of times. M4 is simply not honest
How very fair of you. Only deleting posts as you chose to indulge yourself.
The moon landing conspiracy theory is by far the stupidest popular conspiracy theory. People try presenting all sorts of contrived evidence - light reflections which people pretend don't make sense, no one bothering to take into account the reflective nature of the moon's surface - without considering that we had no real reason to fake the landings. The Russians would have easily figured it out, and the science works.
I will delete any post that contains swearing words. If anybody wish to insult me then do so, I however will resurve the right to delete any post falling into the category of un-toward insults and rise above all of it because it has nothing to do with your knowledge of what anybody is trying to claim.
If anybody has a problem with that then dont swear at me or I MIGHT delete your post EMPHASIS on MIGHT please.
Well according to your intelligence, why did you watch it!!! anyway it just goes to show that you believe what you like because if the apostrophe was an intelligent thought that made any sence from you then it shows how gullible you are when it comes to making your own informed choices to believe what you want and not what your apparent intelligence calls for.
Let me ask you this: if the camera itself were in the shadow and you took a picture of something not in the shadow, would the picture be all black? Of course not! This is because sunlight is reflecting off of whatever you're looking at, and coming back to you -- within the shadow!
So, yes there is only "one source" of light -- the Sun. What lights up things in shadows is reflected sunlight. (Consider the fact that, if the sunlight weren't reflected, you couldn't see anything at all.)
You use the word sunlight reflection I dont because the shadows on the instrument are going back towards the sun light origin. If it where reflected light then you would not have two different exposures and the shadows would be softer.
i have to say... you must have worked really hard on this. great info! i too believe that it was fake... especially after seeing your videos and info!again... great vid, great info... just great all together.
I remember when my son was two-and-a-half. He was so incredibly stubborn! It rained one day when we planned to go to the park. I explained that we couldn't go. He insisted that it wasn't raining. He stood outside our front door, drenched, while he cried and complained that it was not raining. We discussed and argued it for almost an hour before I finally realized..."I am debating with a 2-and-a-half year old." So, I stopped.
Look at my original video at 3:51, notice how the image of the circular portion of the camera is reflected in the flat part of the camera? The surface of the camera, clad in gold, is highly reflective, and it perfectly capable of reflecting images even when it is in a shadow.
The irony is, that you *couldn't* light up a highly reflective surface with just a spotlight. Try it with a mirror. Even when you shine the light directly on the mirror, the only bit that lights up the image ofthe light
If the UV camera can't reflect the lunar bright surface, please explain why the astronaut's visor, further away from the brightly lit surface, DOES reflect the bright lunar surface?
Why are you assuming the UV camera cant reflect light, I did not say it couldnt, the UV camera can reflect light and it shows this in the photo. Also the visor acts like a mirror and reflects an exact image of what is shown like holding up a mirror.
"Why are you assuming the UV camera cant reflect light, I did not say it couldnt, the UV camera can reflect light and it shows this in the photo. Also the visor acts like a mirror and reflects an exact image of what is shown like holding up a mirror."
SO if you agree the UV camera reflects light while in the shadow of the LM, just like the sun visor does, why do you have a problem with this photo?
You missed my point, the UV camera does reflect light because of an artificial light not the moon surface. What light you see in the visor is the so called NASA SUN, the light reflection on the UV is artificial.
What you see reflected in the visor in the image in question is the lunar surface, NOT the sun itself.
I'll rephrase the question - why can the astronaut's sun visor reflect the light coming from the bright lunar surface, but the highly reflective UV camera, which is much closer to the edge of the shaded region, can't?
You missed my point again, I said its the so called NASA SUN, in other words The SUN lights the moon surface which is then mirrored into the visor, hence the NASA SUN LIT REGION. I thought you would have understood that but I guess you just didnt.I think its best you deal with one statement at a time and when you understand what I am saying about the NASA SUN, its all meant that its an artificial light source on earth since man never walked on the moon.
Dont be confused by a mirror reflected image. A mirror reflection acts like the human eye, just like the spaceman sees the lunar surface, a mirror reflects back to the angle of the on looker or camera in this case into the astronaut's visor.
You can consider it anything you like. I still have not had your answer to the barn door question if you can light one subject and not the other. You have also not stated whether you believe man walked on the moon. Answer the questions because a man of your self claimed 30 year experience should be able to answer the barn door one. I wont bother replying to any of your other posts because you are just being ignorant to what I ask of you.
What barn door question? Can you shape hard, directional light with a barndoor? Sure. Can you shape a soft and diffuse light with a barndoor? No.
Your problem is that all of the areas you claim are lit with barndoored lights are illuminated by large and difuse lihgt, which can't be barndoored. In other words you have proven you don't know what you are talking about.
Yes you can shape a soft difused light if it is close enough, remember what I said, CLOSE ENOUGH to the subject, you have admited now that a barn door can stop shadows being cast I rest my case on that one, you contradicted yourself from your early posts and again in your post following this one were you ask were are the shadows and highlights on the astronought, there arnt any because remember a barn door can direct light off the spaceman. Your getting lost in your self proclaimed wisdom.
Back up bus there moron. Fisrt I never siad you can "stop shadows being cast". I said you can shape light. Sorry to inform you but a lihgt always cast a shodow and no barn door in theworld is going to stop that.
I have to tell you again in another way, all light sources cast shadows, why do you think I dont know that. Just for you, get a torch and two battery's stand the battery's 10cm apart on a flat surface and turn out the lights. Shine the torch on the 1st battery from the same height and directly in line with both battery's Now move round the battery while watching the lights shadow move off the other battery and back onto it as you change direction around the two battery's. THERE YOU GO RETARD lol
So you are doing your lighting "experiements" wiht flashlights? OMG what a total loser you are! SO tell us all exactly how many studio lights wiht "barndoors" you own and the level of your experience. Its time to you to fess up M4. What are your lighting credentials? Time to answer this one moron!
I give respect to those who deserve it, you also need to understand how not to cry like a baby when you cant get your own way. There is only one way to talk to you and I tried that but you are not able to understand.
Second you can't shape a large and difuse light source because the LIGHT IS DIFFUSE! How stupid are you? Maybe when you grow up ad graduate from the third grade you can take a course in photogaphic lighting becsue yoiu are clueless inthe artform now.
I have allready told you in a previous reply, put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door retard. I have told you the same thing over and over, I thought even the dumbest of dumb that you are would consider attempting it, after all you claim to have 30 years of experience, you obviously know JACK SHIT.
You cab say it until the cows comne home but you can't prove it. Please bring some facts to the table. Its clear you have no experience with photographic lighting. If you did you would not be making totally stupid statments like: "put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door" PLease post a link ot examples of your photographic work and experience at photographic lighting.
You cab say it until the cows comne home but you can't prove it. Please bring some facts to the table. Its clear you have no experience with photographic lighting. If you did you would not be making totally stupid statments like: "put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door" PLease post a link ot examples of your photographic work and experience at photographic lighting.
I speak as the voice of experience and knowlege. You are the child. If you were a man you whold tell os your photographic credentials and post a link to your work.
BTW, please describe a few different types of different diffuse lightsources.
You would like me to describe a few different diffuse lightsources, OK since you are to think to understand anything else I say maybe you can understand this, it is a sentence typed by yourself asking me to describe to you the sentence that you wrote. Why anybody would want me to explain what it is you said, is beyond me!!!!!!! LOL you dork.
Can you describe the different type of diffuse lightsources or not? You clain to be an expert in the basics of photographic lighting. This is lighting 101. Answer the question. Your evasion speaks volumes.
I will never answer your questions untill you learn some respect and take your head from out of your ass. You totally disregard anything I say so why should I give you the satisfaction. Take a long walk off a short pier and lets hope the tide is out when you fall off the end, it might knock a bit of common sence into that thick skull of yours.
Now thats funny! You won't answer BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! You are a fraud. I've not disregarded anything you have said, I've simply proved your statements wrong. Common sense has nothing to do with this. Simple photographic lightinf science does. You are working from a position of ignorance about photographic lighting. Thats whay you refuse to answer very simple questions about lighting and your credentials. You have no credentials. You are a fraud
You would not know any different if I posted a link not even to do with me. So in order to save myself from your attempts to ridicule me when you obviously dont know how to do a simple test I give you, I will not even bother with posting you a link. It would be something else you would want to moan about.
What a moron you are. Your refusal to post any examples of your work or a listing of your photographic credentials is quite telling. It tells the world you are a fraud. Now perhaps you can explain why in the two pictures of the astronaut in shadow which you claim were taken seconds apart are actually the VERY SAME PHOTO but with TWO DIFFERENT exposures. Once again you r work is shown to be a fraud. Bad boy M4. Not only do yu9o have no experience in photography you lie in your video!
Your just plain stupid COURSE they are taken seconds apart your claiming they are the same photo, lol you truly are an idiot and uneducated WATCH the video again and analise the two exposures If your fill light fires then a retake of the same shot takes place within a couple of seconds the second retake can produce the same effect but without the fill light fireing if it failed for what reason it did hence the dark spaceman Now consider yourself educated or are you going to argue this as well
You are obsessed that NASA could not fake anything. I can rename photos after they are deleted from any photoshoot, Answer this, COULD NASA do the same? Well there is only one answer to that, YES they could. Just for your information it does not mean to say they have or havnt, that is not the point. So what is your answer now I have given you a lecture, could NASA delete and rename photos to what they want before releasing?
I'm not obsessed about anything, I've looked at the evidence both pro and con and applied the correct scientiufic principals and they say the apollo images are as advertised.
So now you ar saying NASA has DELETED the photos you have used? Amazing. In other words you DONT know what the image numbers are and you don't know where you got them. The truth is YOU JUST MADE IT ALL UP IN YOU FEVERISH MIND. You lied. Bad boy. Sucks to get caught eh M4?
Your being an idiot again and not understanding what I said. I did not say they deleted the photos. I did however say that they could rename, delete etc if they wanted to. YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR ASS HOLE AGAIN you dork. No matter what you say you can never understand a point.
You never did answer if NASA could delete or rename a photo before release, this is your obvious act of diversion. Why should I treat you like an adult if you dont act like one.
I am just not sure how to get through to you, like I said, your wasting your time, have you still got the obsession to waste my time because quite frankly your a retard who just does not accept when they are powerless to make someone believe what they want. Your like a big baby who lost his dummy and cant find it. Move on retard or I will just have to make you angry then shit in your nappy. I dont have the time of day to talk sence to you anymore so maybe this you will understand retard.
Just post it and the world can decide. You cant psot it because you dont have any experience. And you somehow think your "tests: apply to your statements. They don't because for example you cant explain where your highlights and shaodws are on the jumping astronaut. You say there is a fill light but there are no shadows ON THE ASTRONAUT from this light, which is impossilbe. You would know this if you were not a fraud. Post your credentials and a link to your work.
Finally lets get to the heart of your ignorance. You claim a light is aimed at the front of the jumping astronaut and the barndoor cuts the light at his knees. You also state the light is low and pointed upward. If your claim is true, there MUST be both highlights and shadows on the ASTRONAUT from that light. No bard door will ever stop that.
Your not very clever, obviously you are claiming the light to be straight in front of the spaceman, I never claimed this, Why cant you apply some of your 30 year self claimed knowledge and say,,, WELL maybe the light can be at the side pointing 45 degrees to the spaceman and therefore the shadow will shoot up into the darkness of black. You wont see a shadow on black retard. This is just an example for you.
Regardless of WHERE the light is placed, it will cast shadows on the surface it hits. In ths case its the front of the astronaut. If your light exists, there will be shadows cast all over the suit of the astronaut...hard shadows. And highlights too. They don't exist, and nor does your "mystery light" Its clear you dont have ANY experience in lighting anything. You are just another tubetard moron.
You are thick, I told you 45 degrees not in front of the spaceman, you are so stupid i am starting to think you really are stupid and not just acting stupid. I will give you some advice, forget trying to make me look silly when all you can do is act like a willy.
Translated from Moron M4 speak: I'm up a creek without a paddle.
Here stupid...the lightsource in the UV camera is the LUNAR SURFACE. There is no barndoored light. The signs of the lunar surface as the source abound. You are too ignorant to understand. Now go play with your flashlight and pretend you have a clue.
Rubish the two pictures in question are similarly exposed and the contrast between the two is far to large a gap hence dark spaceman, light spaceman. Its simple the fill light did not go off in the dark one hence no light on the spaceman and less light on the gold instrument. I can keep telling you all day but obviously you just want to be thick and argue about your stupidity. I dont have anymore time for you, One day you will see the light.
Wrong, one is 1/2 to a full stop darker than the other, and thays why they look different. There is no "fill light" that fails work. The only thing that is failing to work is yout brain, and thats because you have no photographic experience.
Tell us about your photographic experience and post a link to your work..,whats the matter? You afraid to tell ythe world the truth about your credentials?
According to the spaceman in darkness and then in lightness it is far beyond 1/2 to 1 stop darker. Now you see that is just the spaceman that is far beyond what you claim because of more than one light source. Now the moon surfaces are about your claim of 1/2 to 1 stop different. Now this is the bit you fail to recognise why the moon surface exposures are close in the two pictures but the spaceman in white is totally obviously not what you claim. Look retard and analise the images again.
A lot of words from you with no meaning. Thge difference in exposure between the tow images is UNIFORM. One has less exposure than the other. Simple fact. Sadly fact is lost on you. Please post your photographic credentials and a link to your work. Are you ever going to answer the question?
You obviously did not look at the spaceman when you analised the picture for exposure settings. Shame on you for acting like you know anything at all about what can be achieved when using lights.
Wrong again. I looked at all of both images and even checked rgb numbers in photoshop. One image is darker than the other OVERALL. Shame on you for being ignorant and trying to tell people you know anything about photography or lighting. Post your credentials and sample sof your work.
Oh, I don't work for nasa and man walked on the moon. Now your turn, first where are the shadows and highlights ON THE ASTRONAUT from the lihgt you say is near the camera...where ever that may be? You say say the lihgt is barndoored which means it must be a hard lihgt and it MUST cast hard edged shadows. HINTFOR THE IGNORANT...Ther are no hard edged shadows! Answer away tard....
I know you dont work for NASA it was a joking jesture that you failed to see because I was being sarcastic with you due to your ignorance. Well now you have admitted a barn door can leave no shadows on the spaceman then why are you asking were are the shadows. Please note that fill in light has been managed in the photo in the clip because although you dont see a shadow cast from the fill in light, you do however see the fallout of the exposure of that fill light setting upon the spaceman.
Try again tubetard, A bard door can SHAPE light, it cannot remove the shadow created by a light. As for the rest of your silly post the reason the astronaut looks dark is because the camera exposure changed. Man you are stupid.
TOTALLY wrong I did not say a barn door can remove its shadow I said a barn door can stop light from hitting a subject Of course it creates a shado you moron but if the light is angled at 45 degrees to the subject this being the gold instrument the barn door will stop the light hitting the spaceman and the shadow from the light will be cast 45 degrees to the right of the camera so yes the shadow will still exist but to the right and not on the spaceman. Your obviously uneducated in lighting
"Of course it creates a shado you moron but if the light is angled at 45 degrees to the subject this being the gold instrument the barn door will stop the light hitting the spaceman"
Wonderful, you have once again shown your ignorance. The lightsource on the UV camera is very large and very diffuse and can be seen byt the EXACT reflection of that lightsource on hte lens of the uv camera. This lihgtsource is so broad and diffuse it cannot be barndoored. You are busted tubetard.
whatever trevor I thought I would give you my explanation but your to thick to understand it. Move on and come back when you understand, I can only tell you, the rest is upto you to see the light.
See the light...that funny coming from a tubetard like you. You havde never used a studio light in your life. Admit it. Man-up. Tell us all about your experience or lack there of. Not that it matters the world can see what a fraud you are.
Fraud lol lol thats NASA not me lol your trying your best to get me to recognise your plight, as I keep telling you, your wasting your time because like you have your mind made up I have mine. Put a sock in it or I will have to tell you again.
Yes you are a fraud. Prove me wrong. Post your credentials and samples of your photographic lighting. If you are NOT a fraud you will post them.
Not that it even matters, you can't even answer the question of where are the highlights and shadows ON THE SUIT OF THE ASTRONAUT in the frame where he is jumping. You say a fill light is striking him yet you can't show us where...amazing stuff. But not suprising since you are a garden variety tubetard.
I dont need to explain this to you, you profess to know about shaping lights. I will tell you again, I have allready explained and yet you still do not understand, what do you want me to say. What can I say to someone who is unwilling to try the experiments I set for you.
You CANT explain it so you try and deflect...making you a fraud. I create complex studio lighting everyday with a very full range lighting tools. I FULLY understand what they can and cannot do. You on the other hand muck about with flashlights and hallway doors and you want us to believe you know anything about photography or lighting? Now thats funny. If you cant post your credentials and samples of your works you are a fraud. Time to man-up tubetard or crawl back into your hole.
You idiot, the hallway doors explanation are there for people who dont have camera lighting equipment. It is a basic test to show how light can be shaped or moved to help people understand. YOUR a COMPLETE MORON lol shame on you and your family to say you are their educated son, brother, uncle, whatever, shame on you for not thinking about ordinary people and helping them understand in easier terms, shame on you, you look even more of an idiot now you mentioned this statement.
Remember this, you can direct soft diffused light, I dont need to tell you how to do it because you should know right. Stop going on about hard light, the hard light was coming from the laft and causing shadows to run towards the sun on the right, that in it self shows extra lighting, look at the direction of the shadow and stop wining, Irest my case. If you dont see it by now then you will always deny it. Try some glasses they will probably help you.
One more time for the mentally challenged M4. You can't "barndoor" a large and diffuse lightsource, why? Because the light is diffuse. But please show us all your amazing lighting ability and show us how to barndoor a large diffuse light. Amaze us..if you can. You are the tard that claims barndoored lighting and that needs hard, focused light. Hard light means hard edged shadows and there are none in the areas you proclaim that have barndoors on lights. You have no case. Tubetard
Simple, get yourself a diffused light source and switch it on. NOW then obviously this to you is to hard to do since you have all the self proclaimed knowledge about difused light. TRY this, put a large piece of board on any side of the difused light and watch how you can move the shadow on or off a certain part of the field of view from the light. What am I, a Tubetard, thats just not that clever to say. TRY the experiment, remember you have got all these light sources you claim.
What a fool you are. So great, show us how this large piece of board actually works! Thsi will be very interesting! Just remember to use your really BIG flashlight! LOL!
The problem is your "explanation" is wrong, because yo uare ignorant of the subject matter at hand. Why not give us a link to your photographic lighting samples? You do have some...right?
Oh I've learned..I've learned that you are a fraud. You have no photographic lighting experience. Thats why your silly claims fail, you don't know what your are talking about. So crawl back into your hole and play with your flashlight...its the very best you can do on this subject.
No need for the "experiment" because I work with lihgting every day, I understand the process. You on the other hand have never done any photographic lihgting at all. You have no experience and are talking out your ass. Tell us about your photographic experience and post a link to your work
The fact that you are not telling the truth does not bother you? WOW! Thats quite telling about your character. Now back to the questions I posed. Your credentials and a link to your work please. And describe a few different types of different diffuse lightsources.
The world has seen my explanation, anything else does not matter. It only takes 1 photo to be fake to backup that moon walking on the moon is faked. You might as well forget trying to change my opinion, my opinion will stay that way based on knowledge. Your wasting your time on me ass hole.
Its no doubt you are a waste of time..and it appears skin. But yes, the world has seen your ignorance and fraud. You claim to be a lighting expert yet you cannot even show your credentials nor sample of your work. Fraud!
Well if this helps, I am ignorant to your belief. I am not ignorant to mine. It does not bother me, you see I know more about phsychology than you might think I do. I will bet your life on it that there is something in this statement you will find to have something to say about.
Thats the sad part of all of this. Its not about your "belief" or mine. Its about the solid jhard facts of physics. The science does not lie, even if you do.
Conced now M4 and be a real man. It's really easy, just admit you don't really "know" about any of this you jusr "believe". Science has proven you wrong so just admit it and move on. Apollo was real.
I must have an influence on you because you are starting to use my phrases like move on lol. I am happy to know what I know and if anybody is going to show me where I am going wrong I will always consider it. I dont however consider anything you say to be of absolute physics, science or fact in anything you said.
I've seen some bad moon hoax videos, but this is by far the worst. First, it's not even a video. It's a freakin' document! Why 4 minutes? As a photographer, I'm not even going to grace it with explanations. The only redeeming value is the comical effect.
You talk rubbish, the information is for people to help understand about lighting. I am not bothered if you want to try and ridicule it, its information for people who genuinely want to understand thats why it is as long as it is. Basically it is obviously not for you because you are the type of person who only wants to cause problems. Go away and come back another day.
Its not that crap that you have to keep revisiting, if you have anything to say constructively then feel free otherwise your wasting your time and making me laugh.
Error 1) There IS light hitting below his knees, but he's covered with dust below the knees. Error 2) A fill light is naturally provided by the abundant reflective material all over the moon. If you don't believe it, go out on the night of a full moon & look at the shadows it casts. Error 3) the 2nd photo of John Young and the gold ultraviolet spectrograph camera is not "less lit." It's exposure settings are less. A shiny gold instrument is naturally brighter and no shadow is 100% dark.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
The astronaut jumps twice; his legs don't make the same angle with the lem's shadow on the two photos; if he was falling vertically the two times like he should, his legs would make the same angle with the lem's shadow.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Comment removed
noncertainty 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In terms of the definition of "vacuum" meaning: "the absence of atmospheric pressure" which would otherwise scatter photons is not present on the moon.Long electromagnetic waves on earth are absorbed by the atmosphere this is why we see a blue sky and why mountains look bluish when viewed from a great distances!
mburch1974 2 years ago
Comment removed
mburch1974 2 years ago
Comment removed
mburch1974 2 years ago
people believe in this shit just to be alternative.. It's like the fucking emo fashion!
Lastesina 2 years ago
THE MOMENTUM OF THE ASTRONAUTS PUTTING THE FLAG INSIDE THE GROUND CAUSES THE FLAG TO FLAP, doubt it tho
JAYCEBALLA11 2 years ago
I have an add on to that, how is the flag flapping about if the moon does not have any wind?
xXNorthWeapon74Xx 2 years ago
What about if you read some physics book and learn how wrong you are by yourself?
phototrip 2 years ago
Yes, the "no stars" theory...The camera lens is saturated by the light reflected off the surface of the moon. The much dimmer stars in comparison are washed out...
mburch1974 3 years ago 5
Dumbest evidence yet, actually, though you are right, there is more than one light source there in-fact many thousands. When the suns light reflects off the moons surface it scatters the reflected light many many different directions creating defuse lighting. Also that is the same pic of the space man not 2 as you say. The guy is in the same pose come on man get a clue!
mburch1974 3 years ago 3
Exactly, mburch1974. Some people j are just skipping the thinking before talking.
phototrip 2 years ago
Great vid!
We whom do not believe NASAwood fakery are critical thinkers (skeptics).We are not hoax believers; try your reverse psy-ops some where else. You are losing the World is with us. Apollo was as real as Star Trek.
The Apollo Moon missions were all faked.
FACT:
In the vacuum on the moon, there should be very high contrast. Things would be either black or light, yet areas in shadows on the moon have been filled in with light.
NASA/Apollo believers you are pathetic!
foxxx2001 3 years ago
"Things would be either black or light"
Not quite.
"yet areas in shadows on the moon have been filled in with light. "
Yes, because the light is being reflected and scattered by the lunar surface. (which has quite a high albedo)
"We whom do not believe NASAwood fakery are critical thinkers "
Yet you seem to be unable to think critically about your claims. Odd.
ytmoog 3 years ago
Wow, that is the dumbest theory I have ever heard. High contrast because of vacuum? What the fuck are you talking about? *gasp*.
phototrip 2 years ago
The Gold Instrument is the UltraViolet Telescope that was being used to photograph stars. Being gold plated it has a mirror-like surface to reflect IR and help control temperature. It's set up in the shade for this reason, too. The reflective sides are reflecting the light from the sunlit terrain all around. Your speculations about barn doors to controll lighting are just silly, especially on the shot of the jumping astronaut. And of course, the notion of 'no stars' has been so debunked!
satweavers 3 years ago 3
This video posting is so Frik'n ridiculous that it's not even worth commenting on. m4c0me, when you move out of your mom's basement and get a job, let us know.
pjwarez 3 years ago 3
You missed a vitally important clue!! In the photo of the astronaut in the shade, you can see the second light source reflected in the astronaut's visor!!!!
Look closely. Look very, very closely. IT'S THE LIT LUNAR SURFACE!!!!!!!
Now put on your dunce cap and go sit in the corner until you learn some math, logic and physics.
Oh, and also photography. Learn what an "f-stop" is and why one might want to change it when taking pictures in a shadowed area.
philkarn 3 years ago
Look at his visor lol, Ok then why is the right side of his visor when you look at him more brighter lit than the left side? Surely the light should be brighter on the left not the right lol and the answer should be artificial light and as for your sitting in a corner with a dunce cap statement, is that what you had to do when you would not comply with things you where educated on!
m4c0me 3 years ago
As for an f-stop, an f-stop increases or decreases the amount of light hitting the focal plane for exposure control. You dont have to sit in a corner, just live and let live.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Is this a trick question? Look closely (or not even very closely) and you'll see the lunar surface reflected in his visor -- with the shadow of the LM in our lower right, the lit surface beyond and the black sky above that.
As for f-stops, you get partial credit. Take a hard look at the lit surface beyond the LM shadow in those two photographs. Do you think maybe, just MAYBE, the f-stop was changed between those two pictures?? And maybe that's why the UV telescope looks different?
philkarn 3 years ago
in his visor the light reflection is brighter on the right side as you look at it. It should be brighter from the left side if it was anything to believe, anyway I say that the light reflection is artificial in the visor because it has its own hotspot on the right side.
The f-stop was the same.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Your knowledge in light is Earth-based. Have you thought about that? This is freakin' space! Have you ever tried three-point lighting on the moon? It could be entirely different considering the hudnred and one things that make the setting unique. And no, one photograph is not enough, because apparently the million other photographs that DON'T fit your obscure logic somehow doesn't bring you to reason.
maselphie 3 years ago
Light on the moon would act in straight lines even reflectios, I am not saying there are non reflective lighting from Moon surface etc, I am quite aware that you are not aware that light is different on the moon because there is no atmosphere on the moon. Its our atmosphere that allows earth objects to record a different light fallout pattern than it would on the Moon.
Try understanding waht I just said and see if you can agree on this little note.
m4c0me 3 years ago
As for the rest of your photos being questionable, I say it only takes one photo to disproove that the rest were taken also on Earth.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Lol, you're such a troll. I pity everyone who knows you.
maselphie 3 years ago
It only takes one of your analyses of Apollo photos to prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Stop being so paranoid and conspiratorial and listen with an open mind for a change. You might actually learn something. Maybe even that Apollo was real.
philkarn 3 years ago
Actually, it's even simpler than I thought. Your supposedly two pictures are actually THE SAME PICTURE!
I can't put URLs here, but look for AS16-114-18439HR.jpg on the Lunar Surface Journal. Your two versions are cropped differently and the second version is considerably darkened from the first. Look at the original and you'll see nothing extraordinary other than it was taken on the moon!
philkarn 3 years ago
'Philkarn' is absolutely right. All this mumbo jumbo about 'barn door shades', 'lighting direction' and so forth is pure fantasy. Your 2 comparison images ARE from EXACTLY THE SAME Photo!!!
You are right about one thing though. It only 'takes one photo' to show how far off the 'deep end' you and the other lunar hoax delusionists have gone. You've managed to do that.
executivesteps 3 years ago 6
I have an open mind, their is only evidence to support that apollo claims are fake. This is my claim, I know yours now what else do you feel you have to say that might change my opinion?
m4c0me 3 years ago
Yes, I do...the fact that the hoax believers keep putting out ridiculously bogus "evidence", easily dismissed with just a little math and physics (and some actual knowledge of Apollo).
And some of your "evidence", like these photos, were deliberately doctored to supposedly prove a hoax. Those two photos ARE THE VERY SAME PHOTO, with the second having been darkened.
If you don't believe me, go to the ALSJ. Every single original photo is there in stunningly high resolution.
philkarn 3 years ago
Or maybe you just don't WANT to believe that the Apollo missions were real?
I know, given how incompetent and even dishonest my government is on most things, it's hard to believe they pulled off something as great as Apollo.
But they did. That's a fact.
philkarn 3 years ago
The only people responsible for any photo available and retraction is NASA, make your own mind up and dont bother trying to change mine, I use my own logic not yours, I heard what you had to say, I dont have a problem that you want to keep your opinions, now move onto in your opinion people worth talking to.
m4c0me 3 years ago
You use your own logic? Well, that certainly explains a lot.
By the way, there's only one version of that Apollo 16 photo available from NASA. And it's much higher quality than the doctored versions shown here.
Imagine that -- NASA providing a much better quality picture than the hoaxmongers. Seems like they're taking quite a risk, doesn't it?
spambatt 3 years ago
If you knew how reflecting things are up there you will know, you will know light bounces of objects but you wont know that cos you dont get out of your mums basement, theres alot of shiny things there the descent engine on the LM, the rover, the ALSEP, even the visors. Also those pictures are not on Apollo 16 there both on 15 and 17.
fryzy8 3 years ago
yes ther's a shiny engine on the LM the rover in the background the ALSEP the visors but light does not go round corners unless it is bounced so the SHINY ENGINE is inbetween the sun and the gold instrument so this is a shiny example of its not the SHINY ENGINE that lit up the instrument neither did the visor of the spaceman because his visor is behind gold instrument If the visor was to light the instrument it would light the back and not the front that we see Maybe I go back to basement now
m4c0me 3 years ago
"Why is just one photo not enough to prove something when it does?"
The fact of the matter is that hundreds of pictures and videos taken from the surface of the moon prove that we were there.
Based on your logic of pictures automatically equalling proof, there is more evidence that the lunar landing missions were successful.
Another note: You should look forward to China's plans on landing on the moon. They currently claim they're going to visit an Apollo landing site.
PerfectDuck 3 years ago
Lets see if China make any false claims as well as the NASA idiots who claim what they claim. I believe its only a small majority of NASA idiots to blame and just like many Earthlings where duped by NASA, The rest of NASA where duped by their own.
Roll on China visit and I would not be surprised if NASA are not paying China to make false claims. I guess we will just have to wait and see before I make any firm judgements on that matter. Its going to be harder to make a false claim nowadays
m4c0me 3 years ago
The ignorance of simple photographic concepts displayed by the maker of this video is staggering and embarrassing.
pazl 3 years ago
What use is your statement without your explanations why? Anybody can make a statement like yours but not anybody can explain why the statement is said!!!
m4c0me 3 years ago
well, when you don't even understand exposure settings, how shadows fall, or simple optical physics, it would take a lot more than the available space here to explain everything to you. Believe me. I would love to sit down with you and explain everything you have gotten wrong here but youtube doesn't make that very easy to do.
pazl 3 years ago
Anything you want to say that I dont agree with is my choice based on what I know and what you dont. Have a nice day.
m4c0me 3 years ago
I would reckon that what you know and what I don't know would be an inverse square variation.
pazl 3 years ago
Ok you have had your say now dont bother me anymore. People can read and believe what they like, thats yours and theirs perogative and my own is my own. Have another nice day.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Be forewarned, this filmmaker will DELETE your comments if you post evidence he has not been honest. For example in his Apollo 16 video, what he claims ar two different photos are in fact the very same photo. He has deleted posts that prove this point a number of times. M4 is simply not honest
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
WHOOPS!!! a post I forgot to delete!!! thanks for pointing this out, I should remove this one as well amontaiyagala lol you idiot.
m4c0me 3 years ago
How very fair of you. Only deleting posts as you chose to indulge yourself.
The moon landing conspiracy theory is by far the stupidest popular conspiracy theory. People try presenting all sorts of contrived evidence - light reflections which people pretend don't make sense, no one bothering to take into account the reflective nature of the moon's surface - without considering that we had no real reason to fake the landings. The Russians would have easily figured it out, and the science works.
SednaDeli 3 years ago
I will delete any post that contains swearing words. If anybody wish to insult me then do so, I however will resurve the right to delete any post falling into the category of un-toward insults and rise above all of it because it has nothing to do with your knowledge of what anybody is trying to claim.
If anybody has a problem with that then dont swear at me or I MIGHT delete your post EMPHASIS on MIGHT please.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Wow... I knew that I shouldn't have watched this all the way through when I first saw that you used an apostrophe in the plural word "fakers".
royalandonyx 3 years ago
Well according to your intelligence, why did you watch it!!! anyway it just goes to show that you believe what you like because if the apostrophe was an intelligent thought that made any sence from you then it shows how gullible you are when it comes to making your own informed choices to believe what you want and not what your apparent intelligence calls for.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Let me ask you this: if the camera itself were in the shadow and you took a picture of something not in the shadow, would the picture be all black? Of course not! This is because sunlight is reflecting off of whatever you're looking at, and coming back to you -- within the shadow!
So, yes there is only "one source" of light -- the Sun. What lights up things in shadows is reflected sunlight. (Consider the fact that, if the sunlight weren't reflected, you couldn't see anything at all.)
hvcomputer 3 years ago
You use the word sunlight reflection I dont because the shadows on the instrument are going back towards the sun light origin. If it where reflected light then you would not have two different exposures and the shadows would be softer.
m4c0me 3 years ago
i have to say... you must have worked really hard on this. great info! i too believe that it was fake... especially after seeing your videos and info!again... great vid, great info... just great all together.
wentzlover23 3 years ago
I remember when my son was two-and-a-half. He was so incredibly stubborn! It rained one day when we planned to go to the park. I explained that we couldn't go. He insisted that it wasn't raining. He stood outside our front door, drenched, while he cried and complained that it was not raining. We discussed and argued it for almost an hour before I finally realized..."I am debating with a 2-and-a-half year old." So, I stopped.
Jimbacsi 3 years ago
Well it looks like you cant teach an old dog new tricks, so take my advice and give up now.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Oh and stop trying to flatter yourself with self riteouse claims irrespective of how I spell anything you will always get the point.
m4c0me 3 years ago
Look at my original video at 3:51, notice how the image of the circular portion of the camera is reflected in the flat part of the camera? The surface of the camera, clad in gold, is highly reflective, and it perfectly capable of reflecting images even when it is in a shadow.
The irony is, that you *couldn't* light up a highly reflective surface with just a spotlight. Try it with a mirror. Even when you shine the light directly on the mirror, the only bit that lights up the image ofthe light
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
whateva treva,
m4c0me 3 years ago
Excellent rebuttal, as usual, sir.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
If after a week you feel like you have to say anything at all that is not relevant then why bother at all.
m4c0me 3 years ago
sometimes it takes me a while to catch up on my emails.
Why don't you answer the question since you answered with something not relevant either. Why did you bother at all?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Now your just being stupid
m4c0me 3 years ago
my just being stupid? huh?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
you always was!
m4c0me 3 years ago
No you always was! HA! TAKE THAT!
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
Whateva Treva
m4c0me 3 years ago
asssphinctersayswhat?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
asssphinctersayswhat! obviously what says you too
m4c0me 3 years ago
If the UV camera can't reflect the lunar bright surface, please explain why the astronaut's visor, further away from the brightly lit surface, DOES reflect the bright lunar surface?
Thanks
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
Why are you assuming the UV camera cant reflect light, I did not say it couldnt, the UV camera can reflect light and it shows this in the photo. Also the visor acts like a mirror and reflects an exact image of what is shown like holding up a mirror.
m4c0me 4 years ago
"Why are you assuming the UV camera cant reflect light, I did not say it couldnt, the UV camera can reflect light and it shows this in the photo. Also the visor acts like a mirror and reflects an exact image of what is shown like holding up a mirror."
SO if you agree the UV camera reflects light while in the shadow of the LM, just like the sun visor does, why do you have a problem with this photo?
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
You missed my point, the UV camera does reflect light because of an artificial light not the moon surface. What light you see in the visor is the so called NASA SUN, the light reflection on the UV is artificial.
m4c0me 4 years ago
What you see reflected in the visor in the image in question is the lunar surface, NOT the sun itself.
I'll rephrase the question - why can the astronaut's sun visor reflect the light coming from the bright lunar surface, but the highly reflective UV camera, which is much closer to the edge of the shaded region, can't?
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
You missed my point again, I said its the so called NASA SUN, in other words The SUN lights the moon surface which is then mirrored into the visor, hence the NASA SUN LIT REGION. I thought you would have understood that but I guess you just didnt.I think its best you deal with one statement at a time and when you understand what I am saying about the NASA SUN, its all meant that its an artificial light source on earth since man never walked on the moon.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Dont be confused by a mirror reflected image. A mirror reflection acts like the human eye, just like the spaceman sees the lunar surface, a mirror reflects back to the angle of the on looker or camera in this case into the astronaut's visor.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The mystery secondary and tertiary light source you refer to isn't a mystery: it's sunlight reflected off the lunar surface.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
Thats just your opinion, I however have my own opinion as shown.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The mystery secondary and tertiary light source you refer to isn't a mystery: it's sunlight reflected off the lunar surface.
HeadLikeARock 4 years ago
in my opinion, its not a mystery, its other lightsource activity different to your opinion.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You can consider it anything you like. I still have not had your answer to the barn door question if you can light one subject and not the other. You have also not stated whether you believe man walked on the moon. Answer the questions because a man of your self claimed 30 year experience should be able to answer the barn door one. I wont bother replying to any of your other posts because you are just being ignorant to what I ask of you.
m4c0me 4 years ago
What barn door question? Can you shape hard, directional light with a barndoor? Sure. Can you shape a soft and diffuse light with a barndoor? No.
Your problem is that all of the areas you claim are lit with barndoored lights are illuminated by large and difuse lihgt, which can't be barndoored. In other words you have proven you don't know what you are talking about.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Yes you can shape a soft difused light if it is close enough, remember what I said, CLOSE ENOUGH to the subject, you have admited now that a barn door can stop shadows being cast I rest my case on that one, you contradicted yourself from your early posts and again in your post following this one were you ask were are the shadows and highlights on the astronought, there arnt any because remember a barn door can direct light off the spaceman. Your getting lost in your self proclaimed wisdom.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Back up bus there moron. Fisrt I never siad you can "stop shadows being cast". I said you can shape light. Sorry to inform you but a lihgt always cast a shodow and no barn door in theworld is going to stop that.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You retard, I never said it didnt lol
m4c0me 4 years ago
I have to tell you again in another way, all light sources cast shadows, why do you think I dont know that. Just for you, get a torch and two battery's stand the battery's 10cm apart on a flat surface and turn out the lights. Shine the torch on the 1st battery from the same height and directly in line with both battery's Now move round the battery while watching the lights shadow move off the other battery and back onto it as you change direction around the two battery's. THERE YOU GO RETARD lol
m4c0me 4 years ago
So you are doing your lighting "experiements" wiht flashlights? OMG what a total loser you are! SO tell us all exactly how many studio lights wiht "barndoors" you own and the level of your experience. Its time to you to fess up M4. What are your lighting credentials? Time to answer this one moron!
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I give respect to those who deserve it, you also need to understand how not to cry like a baby when you cant get your own way. There is only one way to talk to you and I tried that but you are not able to understand.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Second you can't shape a large and difuse light source because the LIGHT IS DIFFUSE! How stupid are you? Maybe when you grow up ad graduate from the third grade you can take a course in photogaphic lighting becsue yoiu are clueless inthe artform now.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I have allready told you in a previous reply, put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door retard. I have told you the same thing over and over, I thought even the dumbest of dumb that you are would consider attempting it, after all you claim to have 30 years of experience, you obviously know JACK SHIT.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You cab say it until the cows comne home but you can't prove it. Please bring some facts to the table. Its clear you have no experience with photographic lighting. If you did you would not be making totally stupid statments like: "put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door" PLease post a link ot examples of your photographic work and experience at photographic lighting.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
The facts are in the video or are you just plain stupid not to have noticed it yet.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Yes the video does show the facts that your are completely wrong. Thanks for finally seeing the lihgt.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
What is it they say, WHATEVA and believe what you like it does not bother me.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You cab say it until the cows comne home but you can't prove it. Please bring some facts to the table. Its clear you have no experience with photographic lighting. If you did you would not be making totally stupid statments like: "put your barn door or on the diffusion light and you will stop it spraying in a direction of your choice based on how much you open the door" PLease post a link ot examples of your photographic work and experience at photographic lighting.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Learn some respect and you will get respect back.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You are not worthy of respect.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Obviously you act and speak like a child!
m4c0me 4 years ago
I speak as the voice of experience and knowlege. You are the child. If you were a man you whold tell os your photographic credentials and post a link to your work.
BTW, please describe a few different types of different diffuse lightsources.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You would like me to describe a few different diffuse lightsources, OK since you are to think to understand anything else I say maybe you can understand this, it is a sentence typed by yourself asking me to describe to you the sentence that you wrote. Why anybody would want me to explain what it is you said, is beyond me!!!!!!! LOL you dork.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Can you describe the different type of diffuse lightsources or not? You clain to be an expert in the basics of photographic lighting. This is lighting 101. Answer the question. Your evasion speaks volumes.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I will never answer your questions untill you learn some respect and take your head from out of your ass. You totally disregard anything I say so why should I give you the satisfaction. Take a long walk off a short pier and lets hope the tide is out when you fall off the end, it might knock a bit of common sence into that thick skull of yours.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Now thats funny! You won't answer BECAUSE YOU CAN'T! You are a fraud. I've not disregarded anything you have said, I've simply proved your statements wrong. Common sense has nothing to do with this. Simple photographic lightinf science does. You are working from a position of ignorance about photographic lighting. Thats whay you refuse to answer very simple questions about lighting and your credentials. You have no credentials. You are a fraud
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You would not know any different if I posted a link not even to do with me. So in order to save myself from your attempts to ridicule me when you obviously dont know how to do a simple test I give you, I will not even bother with posting you a link. It would be something else you would want to moan about.
m4c0me 4 years ago
What a moron you are. Your refusal to post any examples of your work or a listing of your photographic credentials is quite telling. It tells the world you are a fraud. Now perhaps you can explain why in the two pictures of the astronaut in shadow which you claim were taken seconds apart are actually the VERY SAME PHOTO but with TWO DIFFERENT exposures. Once again you r work is shown to be a fraud. Bad boy M4. Not only do yu9o have no experience in photography you lie in your video!
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Your just plain stupid COURSE they are taken seconds apart your claiming they are the same photo, lol you truly are an idiot and uneducated WATCH the video again and analise the two exposures If your fill light fires then a retake of the same shot takes place within a couple of seconds the second retake can produce the same effect but without the fill light fireing if it failed for what reason it did hence the dark spaceman Now consider yourself educated or are you going to argue this as well
m4c0me 4 years ago
Give us the NASA ID numbers for the two photos! You can't because they are trhe same photo!
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You are obsessed that NASA could not fake anything. I can rename photos after they are deleted from any photoshoot, Answer this, COULD NASA do the same? Well there is only one answer to that, YES they could. Just for your information it does not mean to say they have or havnt, that is not the point. So what is your answer now I have given you a lecture, could NASA delete and rename photos to what they want before releasing?
m4c0me 4 years ago
I'm not obsessed about anything, I've looked at the evidence both pro and con and applied the correct scientiufic principals and they say the apollo images are as advertised.
So now you ar saying NASA has DELETED the photos you have used? Amazing. In other words you DONT know what the image numbers are and you don't know where you got them. The truth is YOU JUST MADE IT ALL UP IN YOU FEVERISH MIND. You lied. Bad boy. Sucks to get caught eh M4?
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Your being an idiot again and not understanding what I said. I did not say they deleted the photos. I did however say that they could rename, delete etc if they wanted to. YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR ASS HOLE AGAIN you dork. No matter what you say you can never understand a point.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You never did answer if NASA could delete or rename a photo before release, this is your obvious act of diversion. Why should I treat you like an adult if you dont act like one.
m4c0me 4 years ago
I am just not sure how to get through to you, like I said, your wasting your time, have you still got the obsession to waste my time because quite frankly your a retard who just does not accept when they are powerless to make someone believe what they want. Your like a big baby who lost his dummy and cant find it. Move on retard or I will just have to make you angry then shit in your nappy. I dont have the time of day to talk sence to you anymore so maybe this you will understand retard.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Just post it and the world can decide. You cant psot it because you dont have any experience. And you somehow think your "tests: apply to your statements. They don't because for example you cant explain where your highlights and shaodws are on the jumping astronaut. You say there is a fill light but there are no shadows ON THE ASTRONAUT from this light, which is impossilbe. You would know this if you were not a fraud. Post your credentials and a link to your work.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I told you about the shadows before I am not going to tell you again, read my posts dumb ass.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Finally lets get to the heart of your ignorance. You claim a light is aimed at the front of the jumping astronaut and the barndoor cuts the light at his knees. You also state the light is low and pointed upward. If your claim is true, there MUST be both highlights and shadows on the ASTRONAUT from that light. No bard door will ever stop that.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Your not very clever, obviously you are claiming the light to be straight in front of the spaceman, I never claimed this, Why cant you apply some of your 30 year self claimed knowledge and say,,, WELL maybe the light can be at the side pointing 45 degrees to the spaceman and therefore the shadow will shoot up into the darkness of black. You wont see a shadow on black retard. This is just an example for you.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Regardless of WHERE the light is placed, it will cast shadows on the surface it hits. In ths case its the front of the astronaut. If your light exists, there will be shadows cast all over the suit of the astronaut...hard shadows. And highlights too. They don't exist, and nor does your "mystery light" Its clear you dont have ANY experience in lighting anything. You are just another tubetard moron.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You are thick, I told you 45 degrees not in front of the spaceman, you are so stupid i am starting to think you really are stupid and not just acting stupid. I will give you some advice, forget trying to make me look silly when all you can do is act like a willy.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Translated from Moron M4 speak: I'm up a creek without a paddle.
Here stupid...the lightsource in the UV camera is the LUNAR SURFACE. There is no barndoored light. The signs of the lunar surface as the source abound. You are too ignorant to understand. Now go play with your flashlight and pretend you have a clue.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Rubish the two pictures in question are similarly exposed and the contrast between the two is far to large a gap hence dark spaceman, light spaceman. Its simple the fill light did not go off in the dark one hence no light on the spaceman and less light on the gold instrument. I can keep telling you all day but obviously you just want to be thick and argue about your stupidity. I dont have anymore time for you, One day you will see the light.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Wrong, one is 1/2 to a full stop darker than the other, and thays why they look different. There is no "fill light" that fails work. The only thing that is failing to work is yout brain, and thats because you have no photographic experience.
Tell us about your photographic experience and post a link to your work..,whats the matter? You afraid to tell ythe world the truth about your credentials?
MRphotogod 4 years ago
According to the spaceman in darkness and then in lightness it is far beyond 1/2 to 1 stop darker. Now you see that is just the spaceman that is far beyond what you claim because of more than one light source. Now the moon surfaces are about your claim of 1/2 to 1 stop different. Now this is the bit you fail to recognise why the moon surface exposures are close in the two pictures but the spaceman in white is totally obviously not what you claim. Look retard and analise the images again.
m4c0me 4 years ago
A lot of words from you with no meaning. Thge difference in exposure between the tow images is UNIFORM. One has less exposure than the other. Simple fact. Sadly fact is lost on you. Please post your photographic credentials and a link to your work. Are you ever going to answer the question?
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You obviously did not look at the spaceman when you analised the picture for exposure settings. Shame on you for acting like you know anything at all about what can be achieved when using lights.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Wrong again. I looked at all of both images and even checked rgb numbers in photoshop. One image is darker than the other OVERALL. Shame on you for being ignorant and trying to tell people you know anything about photography or lighting. Post your credentials and sample sof your work.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Oh, I don't work for nasa and man walked on the moon. Now your turn, first where are the shadows and highlights ON THE ASTRONAUT from the lihgt you say is near the camera...where ever that may be? You say say the lihgt is barndoored which means it must be a hard lihgt and it MUST cast hard edged shadows. HINTFOR THE IGNORANT...Ther are no hard edged shadows! Answer away tard....
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I know you dont work for NASA it was a joking jesture that you failed to see because I was being sarcastic with you due to your ignorance. Well now you have admitted a barn door can leave no shadows on the spaceman then why are you asking were are the shadows. Please note that fill in light has been managed in the photo in the clip because although you dont see a shadow cast from the fill in light, you do however see the fallout of the exposure of that fill light setting upon the spaceman.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Try again tubetard, A bard door can SHAPE light, it cannot remove the shadow created by a light. As for the rest of your silly post the reason the astronaut looks dark is because the camera exposure changed. Man you are stupid.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
TOTALLY wrong I did not say a barn door can remove its shadow I said a barn door can stop light from hitting a subject Of course it creates a shado you moron but if the light is angled at 45 degrees to the subject this being the gold instrument the barn door will stop the light hitting the spaceman and the shadow from the light will be cast 45 degrees to the right of the camera so yes the shadow will still exist but to the right and not on the spaceman. Your obviously uneducated in lighting
m4c0me 4 years ago
"Of course it creates a shado you moron but if the light is angled at 45 degrees to the subject this being the gold instrument the barn door will stop the light hitting the spaceman"
Wonderful, you have once again shown your ignorance. The lightsource on the UV camera is very large and very diffuse and can be seen byt the EXACT reflection of that lightsource on hte lens of the uv camera. This lihgtsource is so broad and diffuse it cannot be barndoored. You are busted tubetard.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
whatever trevor I thought I would give you my explanation but your to thick to understand it. Move on and come back when you understand, I can only tell you, the rest is upto you to see the light.
m4c0me 4 years ago
See the light...that funny coming from a tubetard like you. You havde never used a studio light in your life. Admit it. Man-up. Tell us all about your experience or lack there of. Not that it matters the world can see what a fraud you are.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Fraud lol lol thats NASA not me lol your trying your best to get me to recognise your plight, as I keep telling you, your wasting your time because like you have your mind made up I have mine. Put a sock in it or I will have to tell you again.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Yes you are a fraud. Prove me wrong. Post your credentials and samples of your photographic lighting. If you are NOT a fraud you will post them.
Not that it even matters, you can't even answer the question of where are the highlights and shadows ON THE SUIT OF THE ASTRONAUT in the frame where he is jumping. You say a fill light is striking him yet you can't show us where...amazing stuff. But not suprising since you are a garden variety tubetard.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I dont need to explain this to you, you profess to know about shaping lights. I will tell you again, I have allready explained and yet you still do not understand, what do you want me to say. What can I say to someone who is unwilling to try the experiments I set for you.
m4c0me 4 years ago
You CANT explain it so you try and deflect...making you a fraud. I create complex studio lighting everyday with a very full range lighting tools. I FULLY understand what they can and cannot do. You on the other hand muck about with flashlights and hallway doors and you want us to believe you know anything about photography or lighting? Now thats funny. If you cant post your credentials and samples of your works you are a fraud. Time to man-up tubetard or crawl back into your hole.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
You idiot, the hallway doors explanation are there for people who dont have camera lighting equipment. It is a basic test to show how light can be shaped or moved to help people understand. YOUR a COMPLETE MORON lol shame on you and your family to say you are their educated son, brother, uncle, whatever, shame on you for not thinking about ordinary people and helping them understand in easier terms, shame on you, you look even more of an idiot now you mentioned this statement.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Remember this, you can direct soft diffused light, I dont need to tell you how to do it because you should know right. Stop going on about hard light, the hard light was coming from the laft and causing shadows to run towards the sun on the right, that in it self shows extra lighting, look at the direction of the shadow and stop wining, Irest my case. If you dont see it by now then you will always deny it. Try some glasses they will probably help you.
m4c0me 4 years ago
One more time for the mentally challenged M4. You can't "barndoor" a large and diffuse lightsource, why? Because the light is diffuse. But please show us all your amazing lighting ability and show us how to barndoor a large diffuse light. Amaze us..if you can. You are the tard that claims barndoored lighting and that needs hard, focused light. Hard light means hard edged shadows and there are none in the areas you proclaim that have barndoors on lights. You have no case. Tubetard
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Simple, get yourself a diffused light source and switch it on. NOW then obviously this to you is to hard to do since you have all the self proclaimed knowledge about difused light. TRY this, put a large piece of board on any side of the difused light and watch how you can move the shadow on or off a certain part of the field of view from the light. What am I, a Tubetard, thats just not that clever to say. TRY the experiment, remember you have got all these light sources you claim.
m4c0me 4 years ago
What a fool you are. So great, show us how this large piece of board actually works! Thsi will be very interesting! Just remember to use your really BIG flashlight! LOL!
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I recon you just like arguing. I have explained everything I cant help you anymore. I am not as stupid as you, you will learn one day.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The problem is your "explanation" is wrong, because yo uare ignorant of the subject matter at hand. Why not give us a link to your photographic lighting samples? You do have some...right?
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I told you, if you cant respect you wont get respect
m4c0me 4 years ago
Oh I've learned..I've learned that you are a fraud. You have no photographic lighting experience. Thats why your silly claims fail, you don't know what your are talking about. So crawl back into your hole and play with your flashlight...its the very best you can do on this subject.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I take it you found the little experiment I set you worked so now you resort again to childish acts of behavour and statements.
m4c0me 4 years ago
No need for the "experiment" because I work with lihgting every day, I understand the process. You on the other hand have never done any photographic lihgting at all. You have no experience and are talking out your ass. Tell us about your photographic experience and post a link to your work
MRphotogod 4 years ago
What is it they say, WHATEVA and believe what you like it does not bother me.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The fact that you are not telling the truth does not bother you? WOW! Thats quite telling about your character. Now back to the questions I posed. Your credentials and a link to your work please. And describe a few different types of different diffuse lightsources.
Remember the world is watching you M4.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
The world has seen my explanation, anything else does not matter. It only takes 1 photo to be fake to backup that moon walking on the moon is faked. You might as well forget trying to change my opinion, my opinion will stay that way based on knowledge. Your wasting your time on me ass hole.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Its no doubt you are a waste of time..and it appears skin. But yes, the world has seen your ignorance and fraud. You claim to be a lighting expert yet you cannot even show your credentials nor sample of your work. Fraud!
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I aint bothered what you think of me. You are just ignorant to the simplest of facts that you are wasting your time on me.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Of course you are bothered, you keep trying to deflect the facts about your ignorance.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
Well if this helps, I am ignorant to your belief. I am not ignorant to mine. It does not bother me, you see I know more about phsychology than you might think I do. I will bet your life on it that there is something in this statement you will find to have something to say about.
m4c0me 4 years ago
Thats the sad part of all of this. Its not about your "belief" or mine. Its about the solid jhard facts of physics. The science does not lie, even if you do.
Conced now M4 and be a real man. It's really easy, just admit you don't really "know" about any of this you jusr "believe". Science has proven you wrong so just admit it and move on. Apollo was real.
MRphotogod 4 years ago
I must have an influence on you because you are starting to use my phrases like move on lol. I am happy to know what I know and if anybody is going to show me where I am going wrong I will always consider it. I dont however consider anything you say to be of absolute physics, science or fact in anything you said.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The shallow brooks run the loudest
RarendtheBlack 4 years ago
Im not sure what you mean when you say shallow brooks run the loudest. I wonder if there are any other people who understand this statement.
m4c0me 4 years ago
I've seen some bad moon hoax videos, but this is by far the worst. First, it's not even a video. It's a freakin' document! Why 4 minutes? As a photographer, I'm not even going to grace it with explanations. The only redeeming value is the comical effect.
Jimbacsi 4 years ago
You talk rubbish, the information is for people to help understand about lighting. I am not bothered if you want to try and ridicule it, its information for people who genuinely want to understand thats why it is as long as it is. Basically it is obviously not for you because you are the type of person who only wants to cause problems. Go away and come back another day.
m4c0me 4 years ago
I'm back another day and...it's still crap.
Jimbacsi 4 years ago
Its not that crap that you have to keep revisiting, if you have anything to say constructively then feel free otherwise your wasting your time and making me laugh.
m4c0me 4 years ago
m4c0me
"I wont bother trying to enlighten you!"
I appreciate this, you are boring.
fozzillo 4 years ago
boring is my middle name so you are right on that statement, shame about the rest.
m4c0me 4 years ago
The two photos at 3:10 have nothing wrong.
If you REALLY look at the two photos, you realize that ANY detail is thicker in the second one.
There is no difference in the shadows, the difference is in the photos: the second one is a little shaked, and with bigger contrast.
fozzillo 4 years ago
I wont bother trying to enlighten you!
m4c0me 4 years ago
Because you can't? Because you have no answer to what he said?
Typical hoaxtard.
shanedk 4 years ago