# The strange Apollo visor

This video proves that YOU suffer from Pareidolia, without a doubt.﻿
View all 7 replies
Hide replies
learn how lenses and reflections work before humiliating yourself by making this.﻿
This video shows the clear struggling of conspiracy proponents to find mistakes where there are none. Because you just cannot find any, you invent them. Just as what you did all over this video like: "it must have..." "we surely would have..." "it would only be..." pulling these so-called "facts" out of your ass, claiming they are real anomalies, then polluting youtube with your garbage footage.﻿
Wow what an incredible video. 7:58 of the stupidest thing I have seen in a while. I watched this video because of a discrepancy I saw on a visor in one of the other videos. It is amazing that the only truly questionable reflection did not make the cut. What a tremendous waste of time. Dude buy a convex mirror if you are going to prove a point. You are not quilled to review photos. there is nothing here revealing to a trained photographer. Purchas a fish-eye lens for your camera and you may get a grasp on refraction.     ﻿
the face plate covers 90 degrees - and since the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection - so the angle of the face plate from the camera direction is half the angle seen by the astronaut. 45 degrees from the camera direction in the face plate is 90 degrees from camera to where the astronaut sees it. Now in 0:46 we have a guy standing 14 ft from a 14 ft wide LEM - 22.5 degrees either side - it appears in central part of the visor 11.25 degrees on either side. No problem with it.﻿
Spend some time with a convex mirror and check 0:46 - there really isn't the sort of problem you indicate. When the angle of the faceplate surface is 45 degrees relative to the camera direction, that spot will 'see' whatever is 90 degrees from the camera angle. A 14ft wide object 14ft away will cover only the central 11.25 degrees on either side of the line between the camera. The light areas extend beyond that - as they should! So, in this case, at 0:46 its perfectly normal.﻿
This is what we in the scientific world call "trying to pick gnat shit out of pepper".  I carefully examined each and every photo you claim contain "anomalies".  I found exactly ZERO.  Given the curvature of the visor, the directional shadows on the moon, the reverse image in the visor, everything appears exactly as it should.  You hoaxers seem to think you are some sort of anti-NASA sleuth, and pat yourself on the back for each new "clue" you think you find.  There was no hoax.  The moon landings were not faked.  And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support the veracity of each and every moon landing. I have seen some pretty far fetched videos on youtube, but this one shows an extreme amount of idiocy. Sorry, but there is no other word to describe it.﻿
The LEM had an ascent stage and a descent stage, not one single stage. The Moon has no atmosphere that you can enter/reenter. Even if it did, reentry speeds are not fucking arbitrary. They're entirely dependent on the orbit (ie, LEO reentry speeds are significantly lower than reentries from a lunar return orbit). What does any of this have to do with landing a bullet backwards? Get over yourself, champ.﻿
Something to consider: The cameras used to take "ALL of these pictures" were the Hasselblad 500 EL. I read years ago that they were not modified in any way to endure the extreme cold & hot conditions of space/moon. The film was not special "moon film" and they had no digital cameras then, so... the film would have went from freezing to roasting in a few seconds/minutes. Also the cameras were mounted on their chests, while the helmets did not allow them to "look down" and those cameras had the viewfinder on the top... It would have been impossible for them to "see" what they were shooting (and remember, these cameras did NOT have auto-exposure or auto-focus), so without being able to 'see' the SLR viewfinder, and making necessary adjustments, the pictures would have all been blurry, bad capture, frozen, roasted, under/over exposed, etc., etc. An just a side to all that: How many pictures were taken on the moon? The maximum film rolls were approximately #50... When and how did they "change film canisters"? Also: the shutters on those cameras will not function at +- 250 degrees F.﻿
Neil no serpent?﻿