Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 you might get a better idea of the difficulty from a side view
fleckneymike Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 You are quite right. Use your insightful and inquisitive mind to work out how a man could take a picture of just one foot. Admittedly this is not a MENSA level entry question but I'm sure you'll cope.
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 You are quite right. Use your insightful and inquisitive mind to work out how a man could take a picture of just one foot. Admittedly this is not a MENSA level entry question but I'm sure you'll cope. I'm afraid you'll have to tell if the camera is fixed to his chest, the foot is still on the ground and he can't see the viewfinder ah , did he use a mirror ?
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 and that err .....explains it? sorry mike can you be a little less esoteric , it's like doing the fookin times crossword sometimes trying to understand the point you're making
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 It's a bit like the hokey cokey. are you saying his leg is streched out in front of him , i really think not .
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 take another look at this pic and try to imagine where his foot would be to be in line with the camera .
marko Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 are you saying his leg is streched out in front of him , yet his whole foot remains fully flat on the ground ? i really think not . So the Americans/NASA got the Russians and Aussies on there side to cover up the whole "fake landing", but have come unstuck by taking a photo from a fixed camera that you think can't be taken? You say the camera is also pointing over his left hand and in front by a couple of feet, but you do realise he's allowed to move, right? He's not a statue.
marko Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 take another look at this pic and try to imagine where his foot would be to be in line with the camera . Are you fully au fait with those cameras? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they have a pivot mechanism that would allow the camera to be angled downwards to take shots of the floor?
breadandcheese Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 So the Americans/NASA got the Russians and Aussies on there side to cover up the whole "fake landing", but have come unstuck by taking a photo from a fixed camera that you think can't be taken? You say the camera is also pointing over his left hand and in front by a couple of feet, but you do realise he's allowed to move, right? He's not a statue. Basically, these governments are really smart, except on really stupid things, where they get busted. I still like the explanation of how the Cold War was a lie and actually USA and USSR were besties.
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 Are you fully au faie with those cameras? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they have a pivot mechanism that would allow the camera to be angled downwards to take shots of the floor? The camera is fixed in one position on his chest , the only way the astronaut could alter the direction was by altering his body position and guessing the shot Earlier in the thread the question was asked why no pics were taken of earth , the answer that mike gave was because the camera was fixed and it would require the astronaut to lay flat on his back to do that . So presumably if mike was telling the truth on that point , then the same reasoning applies here Or can you use contradictory answer for different questions with different problems ?
fleckneymike Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 Mike also very kindly posted this pic of the Earth.
marko Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 The camera is fixed in one position on his chest , the only way the astronaut could alter the direction was by altering his body position and guessing the shot Earlier in the thread the question was asked why no pics were taken of earth , the answer that mike gave was because the camera was fixed and it would require the astronaut to lay flat on his back to do that . So presumably if mike was telling the truth on that point , then the same reasoning applies here Or can you use contradictory answer for different questions with different problems ? Like I previously said the post before last, he is allowed to move to take the picture. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, but surely you can't be serious with some of your points. I mean, this whole fixed camera thing, do you not think other people would have picked up on this at some point in the last 40 years. It seems like you come up with desperate points that you don't think are possible when another poster puts forward evidence to support the moon landings.
fleckneymike Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 The Hasselblad was mounted to the chest and fixed in position. You are quite correct that the conspiracy now relies on the belief that astronauts couldn't bend, nor could they put their legs infront of them.
Zingari Posted 16 August 2012 Posted 16 August 2012 The Hasselblad was mounted to the chest and fixed in position. You are quite correct that the conspiracy now relies on the belief that astronauts couldn't bend, nor could they put their legs infront of them. Shouldn't you be in mourning today ,? it's 35 years ago today isn't it ?
Zingari Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 I was never really all shook up about it one way or the other really , but you're right , I do have a suspicious mind. .
Rincewind Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 If the landing was fake would not NASA or/and the government had drafted in some experts to go over any photos papers calculations before releasing them to the general public where 40 years later some conspiracy geek will notice some flaw that may support their theory? Would it not be more sensible to destroy the dodgy bits? Are Americans really that stupid?
marty78 Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 I was never really all shook up about it one way or the other really , but you're right , I do have a suspicious mind. . You really do have a wooden heart but I guess that is the wonder of you.
Rincewind Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 My uncle is one of the biggest Elvis fans in Leicester, and on that morning before he had seen the news a neighbour knocked on his door and said 'Hey, Mick I see Elvis has popped his clogs.' Needless to say he was a little upset as to how the news was broke to him.
Zingari Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 You really do have a wooden heart but I guess that is the wonder of you. Thanks, my boy, maybe it’s time for a little less conversation on this subject as it’s way down on my list of jobs to do today !
danny. Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 Mike also very kindly posted this pic of the Earth. I'm amazed that could fly around the block, let along from the moon to the earth - looks like it's made from badly fitting plasterboard and tin foil.
whoareyaaa Posted 17 August 2012 Posted 17 August 2012 If the landing was fake would not NASA or/and the government had drafted in some experts to go over any photos papers calculations before releasing them to the general public where 40 years later some conspiracy geek will notice some flaw that may support their theory? Would it not be more sensible to destroy the dodgy bits? Are Americans really that stupid? They have released and then re-released several photos that have been tampered with over the years so it wouldn't suprise me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.