|
|
Post by comarre on Dec 24, 2009 12:34:47 GMT -4
I'm not sure if this has already been raised here. My apologies if it has. msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/I can't believe that a professor of mathematics could write such stuff.....I feel pretty sure it's a joke. Or he's off his rocker... There's also a discussion on youtube on this... |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 24, 2009 12:49:48 GMT -4
Does he believe Apollo was a hoax, or just that the photographs are fake?
When I saw this near the bottom of the PDF I knew he was not as much of an expert as he believes he is...
Anyone with the kind of skill in photography analysis that he claims to have would recognize that Jack White doesn't have that skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Dec 24, 2009 13:05:21 GMT -4
I don't see anything about him being a hoaxer.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 24, 2009 13:17:07 GMT -4
There are at least two problems with his analysis. First, he assumes the topographic map (Fig 5) is accurate, without much thought as to how accurate such a map would be, and second, he assumes that the same ridgeline is in each view. The difficulty here is that the actual ridge is rounded rather than sharp, so will have a different part tangent to the viewing line from each viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by comarre on Dec 24, 2009 13:19:38 GMT -4
Not sure if he's a hoaxer, but he's certainly saying that the surface photos are fake.
I find his conclusion "the surface photos are fake" such an extraordinary leap from his work up to that point, that I can't accept that he's serious. Well really it's more the fact that I wouldn't expect a professor to come to that conclusion - which is really shattering - without having done a lot more work.
Also the comment at the end of the paper "you need to use your critical abilities ... some are more anomalous than others" to be so ambiguous, as to make me think that he's really just having a bit of fun to see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by comarre on Dec 24, 2009 13:23:44 GMT -4
There are at least two problems with his analysis. First, he assumes the topographic map (Fig 5) is accurate, without much thought as to how accurate such a map would be, and second, he assumes that the same ridgeline is in each view. The difficulty here is that the actual ridge is rounded rather than sharp, so will have a different part tangent to the viewing line from each viewpoint. What he actually says is that, based on his derivation of the skyline based on the topographic data, either there's a problem with the topographic data, or with the station 7 photo. He then says we would not expect to see the same skyline from three separate points in any case, so therefore the surface photos are fake. |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 24, 2009 13:42:31 GMT -4
What he actually says is that, based on his derivation of the skyline based on the topographic data, either there's a problem with the topographic data, or with the station 7 photo. He then says we would not expect to see the same skyline from three separate points in any case, so therefore the surface photos are fake. Precisely my points - the topographic data cannot be relied on to the extent that he does, and the differences from the different viewpoints are not as unlikely as he claims. I've just tried printing off two copies of his Fig 8 and found that you can view the photos as stereo pairs, ie there are differences between the three views that give consistent stereo data. |
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 24, 2009 14:00:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Stout Cortez on Dec 24, 2009 15:41:20 GMT -4
Thanks for the link, trebor!
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 24, 2009 16:39:37 GMT -4
Anyone that thinks that Jack White has ANY photo analysis skills can't possibly know what they are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 25, 2009 4:00:33 GMT -4
Anyone that thinks that Jack White has ANY photo analysis skills can't possibly know what they are talking about. Well...he should be able to tell a photograph of a rock apart from the rock in the photograph, right? That's technically analysis... Of course, if it turns out he can't, I shall do my best to pretend to be surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 25, 2009 16:08:43 GMT -4
I wouldn't trust him even with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 27, 2009 2:12:05 GMT -4
Ditto. Jack White has demonstrated he has no photographic analysis skills whatsoever... unless you are a CT believer. In that case, all his claims are valid, even the ones that are most of the world's population prove wrong (that's because they are all out to get Jack, don'tcha know).
|
|
|
|
Post by andreas on Dec 27, 2009 16:31:29 GMT -4
The result of Colin Rourke, which looks serious in my eyes, is fully in line with the following threads where the lunar footage is called into question: - Why the Hoax Theory?
- Leonov claiming hoax?
In both threads a studio environment is addressed already in the first post. |
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 28, 2009 9:30:03 GMT -4
The result of Colin Rourke, which looks serious in my eyes, is fully in line with the following threads where the lunar footage is called into question: - Why the Hoax Theory?
- Leonov claiming hoax?
In both threads a studio environment is addressed already in the first post. Do you imagine no one here is going to notice that the person calling the material into question is you Andreas? Or that your efforts have been demonstrated to be fatally flawed by your insistence on arbitrarily assigning vertical and horizontal alignments without any reference point? Finding someone who is equally lacking in understanding of photographic analysis as youself doesn't lessen your mistakes. |
|
