User talk:Stalkervision

Moon landing conspiracy theories
Hi,

I'd invite you to discuss your edits (which have been reverted) at Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please note that encyclopedia articles should have references to relaiable sources to support cliams made. Pedro : Chat  13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your comments. You must understand that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own original research. Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts that are published by third party reliable sources. If you have references from third party publications that support your cliams then that would be a different thing but as your edits were unsorced they have been removed. Please click on the blue links I've provided to find out more about our policies. Thanks, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! Pedro : Chat  14:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

;Thanks Pedro but please be aware that all third party verifications are not always reliable either. For instance have ever you watched the FOX Network News? :-)


 * Could you give me the source on the original info ? Is it from the Phil Plait clavis hoax site? This is a personal website hoax attack site if you aren't aware. I am certain it is looking at the site once again.

;This may help you. Clavis.


 * Phil Plait.." The photographers we consulted agreed that the fiducial washout was almost certainly the result of bright areas of the emulsion "bleeding" over the tiny fiducials. The fiducials are very thin, only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm). The emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much -- less than the thickness of a human hair -- in order to completely obscure the fiducial.


 * Several photographers have tested this phenomenon using hairs, wires, and other thin objects stretched over the film plane. With the assistance of Zig Zag Productions in London, we obtained a modern 70mm Hasselblad data camera fitted with a reseau plate (which is a standard accessory, not something made especially for Apollo). When we shot a roll of Ektachrome 160 film against brightly lit objects such as replicas of Apollo space suits, we found that the fiducials indeed were made fainter, and in some cases were completely obliterated, by the act of exposure alone. "

;You may notice If you look at this site that the "photographers" are never ever named and the photos that supposedly prove his point are never shown on the site whatsoever. Also notice this line.." Several photographers have tested this phenomenon using hairs, wires, and other thin objects stretched over the film plane."

;These original resolution marks are ETCHED into the glass plates.

;He then uses a hasselblad reseau plate which he says is "a standard axcessory" and finds the same effect displayed.

;"Emulsions don't "bleed" as Phil and his unnamed photographery sources assert.

;If they did and his "proof" self evident in these photos they claim they took then I would certainly like to see the photos wouldn't you?

;If he did and got the results claimed he would certainly believe he would publish them on his site ! There are loads of photos already there including the ones in question.

;His annotations are Photogrammetry books which is no proof whatsoever because they don't deal in the problems he talks about.

;I am new to wiki as you can certainly see but please make a notation on the page next to my original edits of the questionable accuracy of this info that I edited. You don't have to change it back just flag the veracity of these statements

;Thanks a lot Your friend Stalker

;BTW I'm not a stalker. The name is actually from a police camera system but that's a long story.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)