11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClose enough. Although I do not know if there was a cameraman, or whether his name was Dan. But it would appear the camera was inside the cockpit looking out the starboard rear window and there was someone in the cockpit whose reflection is seen in the glass (or plastic if that is what the window is made of).
Let me see if I have you correct, as I'm a bit slow.
The camera is behind the glass, where the guys playing astronauts are supposed to be?
So it goes, in order:
• control room
• Dan (the cameraman)
• the camera
• the glass between the control room and the outside dock area
• the outside dock area
• the vacuum of deep, dark space
Is that a fair representation?
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadKind of spectacular, if you think about it.
Close enough. Although I do not know if there was a cameraman, or whether his name was Dan. But it would appear the camera was inside the cockpit looking out the starboard rear window and there was someone in the cockpit whose reflection is seen in the glass (or plastic if that is what the window is made of).
The camera, pointed directly out the window--- and most likely mounted right against it in order to avoid any mirrored reflections at all--- would have picked up its own reflection in the window’s surface, but we don’t see that.
It would also have picked up the lights in the room behind the person looking out the window, but maybe they turned those off in order to get a better shot… and yet it still picked up this dude.
So the only way for it to have captured his movement from the same side--- the inside--- of the window would be for the camera itself to be back far enough away from the window and inside the control room.
But let’s set aside those prickly issues for the reflection just for the moment, since there’s a bigger problem altogether.
Were this a reflection off the window from activity inside the control room, the reflection would not terminate behind the outer edge of the shuttle.
Whatever was picked up by the camera would have a termination equivalent to the outside frame of the window.
We don’t see any edge of the window’s frame, but instead, an image which is cut off by the shuttle’s outer edges.
We don’t see any imposition of a reflection from the control room across any part of the cargo area or anywhere at all on the pictured portion of the shuttle.
Instead, we see Dan’s head behind the shuttle.
Oops.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by divegeesterOh, they noticed it.
It's amusing that FKBH thinks that NASA would create a fake video and publish it without noticing a massive head in space.
They tried to say it was the camera picking up a reflection off the window.
But, as logic is still a thing currently in place, such a thing as depicted is simply not possible.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, not really. Reflections in glass and other smooth surfaces are common place.
Kind of spectacular, if you think about it.
The camera, pointed directly out the window--- and most likely mounted right against it in order to avoid any mirrored reflections at all--- would have picked up its own reflection in the window’s surface, but we don’t see that.
You assume too much. Clearly it was not mounted directly against the glass.
It would also have picked up the lights in the room behind the person looking out the window, but maybe they turned those off in order to get a better shot… and yet it still picked up this dude.
So the only way for it to have captured his movement from the same side--- the inside--- of the window would be for the camera itself to be back far enough away from the window and inside the control room.
Seems reasonable.
Were this a reflection off the window from activity inside the control room, the reflection would not terminate behind the outer edge of the shuttle.
And it doesn't.
We don’t see any edge of the window’s frame, but instead, an image which is cut off by the shuttle’s outer edges.
And, once again, your blindness is kicking in.
We don’t see any imposition of a reflection from the control room across any part of the cargo area or anywhere at all on the pictured portion of the shuttle.
Instead, we see Dan’s head behind the shuttle.
Oops.
Admittedly the sky is very dark and the shuttle is very bright, and the resolution is very low, so you won't easily see the reflection where the shuttle is, but it is there.
I strongly recommend you do some experimenting looking out a window at some bright and dark areas and see where the reflections are more visible.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, not really. Reflections in glass and other smooth surfaces are common place.
No, not really. Reflections in glass and other smooth surfaces are common place.
[b]The camera, pointed directly out the window--- and most likely mounted right against it in order to avoid any mirrored reflections at all--- would have picked up its own reflection in the window’s surface, but we don’t see that.
You assume too much. Clearly it was ...[text shortened]... oking out a window at some bright and dark areas and see where the reflections are more visible.[/b]
Yeah.
Sure.
That's what I was referencing.
Shiny objects, whistles: those are like laser pointers to a cat for me.
Jackass.
You assume too much. Clearly it was not mounted directly against the glass.
I assumed nothing.
Instead, I was offering scenarios in which the reflection might be possible.
And it isn't as obvious as you suggest: the video doesn't give enough information or clarity to determine in its lack the exact position of the camera in relation to the glass.
What is very obvious, very clear: there was nowhere near enough of a gap between the camera and the window to afford any type of reflection as is shown here.
At best the camera's position as shown could have possibly caught a reflection of its own lens... literally nothing else.
And it doesn't.
Ah.
More of your intransigence, more of your insistence on denying what is clearly depicted.
Without equivocation, the image depicts the rear of the shuttle with the image of a man behind it: literally no overlay from the front of the camera over the scene, and nothing at all across the field of the docking area.
So much so, his face is visibly blocked by the rear jet exhausts.
I strongly recommend you do some experimenting looking out a window at some bright and dark areas and see where the reflections are more visible.
Thank you for your recommendation; it isn't necessary to understand what is evident in the video.
In no less than eight additional images recorded from the same vantage point do we even once see ANY reflection whatsoever.
Not once.
Just to drive the point home, 6:48 shows outside light reflecting off the imperfections in the glass, or perhaps scratches on the lens: still no reflections.
Fail.
11 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo they faked it, noticed it, and published it anyway?
Oh, they noticed it.
They tried to say it was the camera picking up a reflection off the window.
But, as logic is still a thing currently in place, such a thing as depicted is simply not possible.
Or, they faked it and didn't check it before publishing it?
12 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA little touchy I see.
Jackass.
I assumed nothing.
and most likely mounted right against it in order to avoid any mirrored reflections at all
You assumed too much.
Instead, I was offering scenarios in which the reflection might be possible.
No, as quoted above, you specifically tried to find a scenario in which reflections would be minimised.
Kind of stupid really.
And it isn't as obvious as you suggest: the video doesn't give enough information or clarity to determine in its lack the exact position of the camera in relation to the glass.
There is a reflection. As you stated yourself, putting the camera up against the glass would eliminate that possibility. Therefore it wasn't up against the glass.
Obvious as an elephants hind quarters.
What is very obvious, very clear: there was nowhere near enough of a gap between the camera and the window to afford any type of reflection as is shown here.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
Without equivocation, the image depicts the rear of the shuttle with the image of a man behind it:
No, it does not.
So much so, his face is visibly blocked by the rear jet exhausts.
Or by the reflection of the camera.
Thank you for your recommendation; it isn't necessary to understand what is evident in the video.
But you clearly don't understand it.
In no less than eight additional images recorded from the same vantage point do we even once see ANY reflection whatsoever.
Not once.
And where are those 'eight additional images'? Where was the man standing at the time?
Originally posted by twhiteheadA little touchy I see.
A little touchy I see.
[b]I assumed nothing.and most likely mounted right against it in order to avoid any mirrored reflections at all
You assumed too much.
Instead, I was offering scenarios in which the reflection might be possible.
No, as quoted above, you specifically tried to find a scenario in which reflection ...[text shortened]... nce.[/b]
And where are those 'eight additional images'? Where was the man standing at the time?[/b]
Then, per usual, you see very little.
Me speaking of your status as a jackass is nothing more than stating the obvious.
You assumed too much.
Except for the pesky problem of the actual video which shows the camera within inches--- or less--- of the window.
No, as quoted above, you specifically tried to find a scenario in which reflections would be minimised.
Kind of stupid really.
Actually, I was trying to help your cause, offering possible scenarios in which a reflection could possibly be obtained.
With the camera in the position shown on the video, i.e., in such close proximity to the window, it is physically impossible to have caught the image of the person “operating” the camera--- which, as is also shown in the video, he isn’t “operating” any more than a person standing in the middle of their kitchen waiting for the pot to boil is “operating” the stove.
There is a reflection. As you stated yourself, putting the camera up against the glass would eliminate that possibility. Therefore it wasn't up against the glass.
So if it wasn’t up against the glass--- as it is clearly shown in the video from NASA--- where was the camera positioned in relation to the window, exactly?
Obvious as an elephants hind quarters.
We’ve already gone over this: your example was absurd and wrong.
Move on.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
That ridiculous claim is based on… wait for it… watching the video.
No, it does not.
Yes, it does.
We can do this all day, but the video is as described: the shuttle is in front of the image of the man operating the model.
If the image of the man was superimposed as a reflection off the window, it would be evident over the shuttle, not blocked by the shuttle.
It’s not rocket surgery.
Or by the reflection of the camera.
One small problem: the camera is nearly square, and shaped as a box.
That which blocks the man’s face is consistent with the rear jet exhausts.
But you clearly don't understand it.
Once again, your arrogance leads you to make a complete fool of yourself.
You would think you’d learn by now, but you simply don’t... for whatever reason.
You’re arguing a completely defenseless position (much like your idiotic elephant crap), and continue doubling down on a hard 12, trying everything you can do to make the assumption work--- despite the fact that it simply cannot hold water.
According to you, this image is of one of the astronauts peering out the window of the control room onto the loading dock area.
You’re contending that the image was captured by the camera in the control room, via a reflection off of the window separating the control room from the outside of the shuttle.
You are further insisting that the reflection of the astronaut is cast upon the entire scene and it is all due to the camera’s capture of the reflection off the window separating the control room from the outside of the shuttle.
In these assumptions, you couldn’t be more wrong.
And where are those 'eight additional images'? Where was the man standing at the time?
The rest of the video, of course.
Simple stuff: watch it and you will see no less than eight additional times when that camera is recording activity outside, and despite multiple applications--- including scenes which required zooming, or other forms of manual operation of the camera--- not a single time is a reflection of a person, persons or any part of the control room visible.
Weird, huh.
12 Jun 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm sure that is part of it. But I think he just falls for every video that even vaguely disses NASA or shows 'proof' of flat Earth. His religion is the god of conspiracy. For instance, he thinks since he claims to see 'all' of some buildings across the water from where he lives, that is proof Earth is flat, ignoring atmospheric refraction and such and when presented with about a dozen reasons such a POV is bogus, he just ignores the question and continues to ask the question, what about that photo I showed, etc. For instance, I have asked him several times why do humans see the southern cross south of the equator, say Australia, while we in the northern hemisphere cannot see it which should not happen on a flat Earth, he says my eyesight is too poor or some such, just a total off the wall comment, refusing to deal with the actual issue. That is just one of several problems I brought up against flat Earth but they were just ignored.
But he is joking, isn't he? Just joking? To see our responses? Nothing more? Right?
12 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseHey, numbnuts: you shouldn't be able to see ANY of the buildings and refraction isn't the cause.
I'm sure that is part of it. But I think he just falls for every video that even vaguely disses NASA or shows 'proof' of flat Earth. His religion is the god of conspiracy. For instance, he thinks since he claims to see 'all' of some buildings across the water from where he lives, that is proof Earth is flat, ignoring atmospheric refraction and such and when ...[text shortened]... That is just one of several problems I brought up against flat Earth but they were just ignored.
Try a different line, will you?