Lunarcy: Kodachrome (The many faces of A11-40-5903)

http://www.moonmovie.com
http://www.moonhoax.us
http://www.billkaysing.com
http://www.ralphrene.com

A11-40-5903 is one of the most prolific, and highly controversial photos NASA ever published. Since the original deception was outed, showing obvious spotlit astronot, fully lit up front (shadow side of his body as can be seen by his shadow, which is cropped out in many versions)this picture has had many different faces put on it. The last couple of interesting one's were CBS's version in their story about Aldrin's inability to restrain his anger. And then there's Clavius, which is more aptly named Claptrap so far as I'm concerned. Jay provides a much better lit moonscape then the spotlit, shadowy moonset version NASA originally published! Way to go Windley. Love how you use reproductions to further NASA's lies! Good shill dog!

Paul Simon "Kodachrome"

The Essential Paul Simon
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Paul-Simon-CD-DVD/dp/B000Q677EA/ref=pd_bbs_sr...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• moon
• hoax
• apollo
• fraud
• nasa
• scam
• lunarcy
• 11
• photo
• anomolies
• spotlight
• deception
• lies

[NASANAZIRACE]

Wow, a cropped, edited and enhanced photo is your "smoking gun". Not to mention all the different types of scanning devices and papers used. It's obvious, one thing, you hate to be wrong. You even build delusions, "you" are right and "everybody" else is wrong. Did it ever cross your mind, that you are off key and normalcy is your true enemy. In other words, you never fit in, and now dream of being lord of the flies.

[un4g1v3n1]

@NASANAZIRACE Wow...You are a new type of psycho eh?

[fundiebasher]

This is almost frightening. We have people out there who are allowed to drive cars, vote, raise children, and yet they're stupid enough to believe that the Moon landings were faked. Does someone remind them to breathe every few seconds?

[un4g1v3n1]

The most frightening of all, is that people like you still believe in fictional gods like Apollo and the guy on the throne making sure you aren't touching your pee pee!

[EGMAG]

@fundiebasher

bigoted narrowmind fluted whipensnaphead fake fake fake fake

[michaelstmark]

You're mistaking background fall-off for vignetting, "LT".

And fall-off manifests during localised lighting applications.

Looks as if they didn't perfect the black art of even illumination on the live set until about A15.

[un4g1v3n1]

Wow, your debate style just took on a NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, BOO, BOO, style, my 3 year old daughter has risen above.

Congratulations, I didn't think you could sink any lower, but again, you have under-exceeded my expectations. You know damn well which one was the original. That, or you are a complete liar. I feel it's the latter. As a matter-of-fact, I'm sure of it! And by-the-way Svector, it's time to switch to another false persona, this one has lost all it's credibility. Blame the bowls.

[LunarTuner]

Ok, Sherlock, show us "the orginal" and prove that it is so. You can't.

[un4g1v3n1]

Stop bullshitting us Liarnar. They didn't vignette shit. The original was very dark, with the hot spots. The lighter versions are NASA retouch jobs to try and fool, well, you, and anyone who didn't see the original years ago, before you were born.

Your vignette fabrication is an insult, and lame NASA shill Apollogizing!

[LunarTuner]

Perhaps the question has nothing to do with Hasselblad cameras at all.

Whatever your persuasion, we can all agree that this photo is among the most powerful of the 20th Century. So, it has been copied, printed, re-printed, cropped, enhanced, tweaked & manipulation countless times. Typically, "vignetting" (the darkening around the edges of a film or photo) reflects the limits of copy lens optics. EVERY lens has some level of vignetting. Many copies only accentuates the issue. Copies = vignette.