|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 5:43:21 GMT -4
www.geocities.com/APOLLOSCAM/Number 19 is a composite panshot. That is, one stands in his place and holds the camera and click,click, click... It shows a small mountain/hill and a small LM, but the mountain /hill is just too near to the LM. Below it, pic 20 , shows a big LM and a big mountain behind it. However, in the first pic (19) the foreground shows that the LM is closer to the mountain. Look at the photographers shadow. It is too near to the LM. A slightly closer picof the LM , no. 20, shows a huge LM, and a huge mountain behind it. If someone can explain it, I would be greatful. It just doesn't get into my brain.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 1, 2005 8:56:17 GMT -4
We talked about this stuff on an earlier thread, specifically one where such claims were debunked. But you can read the "Fun with Parallax" thread to see examples of real photographs taken on Earth that show the same effect.
Regarding the web page you mentioned - the incompetence of that guy is pretty well demonstrated by about the fourth photograph down on the left. He says it's a colossal shadow on the ground, when it is obviously, to anyone who has the slightest clue about Apollo, part of an RCS quad in the foreground of the picture.
Please be careful about putting your faith in someone who would make such an elementary blunder.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 10:05:31 GMT -4
Please take a look at these threads: Fun with parallaxPhotos of ArmstrongThe second thread is 20 pages long and includes some stuff not particularily applicable to your question, but you should find quite a bit of helpful information there is you take the time to look it over.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 10:13:46 GMT -4
i have looked at them before and I am not convinced. I am not convinced that the LM in the 19th pic is too farfrom the photographer when the shadow is just seen to the right and one can see the foreground. The second photo is closer A BIT to the LM (imagine it relative to the shadow in the 19th pic) , yet the mountain is too big for the LM.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 1, 2005 11:17:10 GMT -4
Why is it hard to understand. The mountain is about 12 km away. In the first picture the LM is about 10 m away. The second image is about 100m away. That means that the distance to the LM would be 100:10 or a fator or 10x the distance of the first shot. That means the LM would be about 10% the size it started out as. The distance to the Mountain would be 100:12000 or 1:120, meaning it'd appear to be around 99.991% the size it was.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2005 11:21:48 GMT -4
If you've looked at those other threads, then certainly you must know about the need to normalize the scale in photographs before comparing them directly. See also this page: www.clavius.org/bigmt.html . Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have assumed the distance between photographer and LM has not changed simply because the LM is approximately the same size in both photographs. You're omitting the very important facts that the lower picture is a detail of a larger photo from which much has been cropped away, then the result enlarged. And the upper picture is a composite made of several full-sized originals that have been been shrunk down. This was prominently explained in the threads linked in prior responses.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 11:44:08 GMT -4
I just took the following photos: Neither the model LM nor the background box moved between taking these two photographs. How do you suppose this is possible?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 1, 2005 11:46:28 GMT -4
Must be photoshop!!!!! (if it's bold and with extra exclamation points that makes it more credible right?)
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 11:47:30 GMT -4
Dear JayUtah and Phantomwolf, this is the hall issue. The photographer's shadow is NOt 100 meters away from the LM as claimed. I can see the foreground. Even the uncropped photo that you presented is at odds with the 19th pic. I would appreciate it if you can find me an unshrunken photo of the pan shot. I would appreciate it also if you further explain to me the fudicials role. Do you mean that the photographer played with the fudicials so the lm seemed closer in the first pic and then changed them so the lm was bigger in the other pic? thnx for your efforts
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Oct 1, 2005 11:51:14 GMT -4
You cropped the second image Bob. I have seen the uncropped version of the 20th pic on Jay's link. I have to make sure the 19th pic is not cropped and resized. I asked Eric Johnes about every photo in this site. This particular photo, if I remember well, was not mensioned as cropped and resized.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 1, 2005 11:59:49 GMT -4
Try it yourself: get a camera with a zoom lens: go to some local landmark, say a statue or something, and take pictures. Try taking pictures from different distances from your subject, closer and further away. Use the lens setting to keep the subject about the same size in the frame.
Look at the pictures and see what happens to the backgrounds....
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 12:03:23 GMT -4
I understand that NASA did release photographs from two different "moon missions", which unfortunately showed identical foregrounds and backgrounds,despite the fact that they were supposedly taken several hundred miles apart.
When pressed, they initially denied they were the same backgrounds, then admitted that they were, claiming to have "made a mistake".
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 1, 2005 12:06:15 GMT -4
We've covered this before. They made that claim on the Fox moon hoax program... but what they didn't do is play the audio from the footage which proved it was from the same mission and the same location, filmed within minutes of each other.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 1, 2005 12:06:41 GMT -4
You cropped the second image Bob. Actually I used the camera zoom, but the effect is identical. If I had taken the bottom photo at the same zoom setting, I would have cropped the image in Photoshop and then enlarged it to the same size as the top. Using the zoom just saved me a couple steps in Photoshop without effectively changing the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Oct 1, 2005 12:09:22 GMT -4
I also understand that a photograph in Alan Shepard's book had been comprehensively proven to be falsified, by being created from two different photographs and then presented as a genuine record.
|
|