|
Post by nomuse on Sept 5, 2006 16:58:42 GMT -4
At the risk of... is Jack White legally blind? Any five-year old kid who can do the "find six differences between these photos" could find as many in this set with only a moment's inspection. Precision? Young's feet are a good six inches off. His body is twisted left, and bent further over. The flag is at a different angle -- it looks as it the photographer has moved to his right a little. Dish antenna, and a number of other visual details on the spacecraft, do not match up between the shots. Jack tries to fake it a little by using a small photograph and large lines, but they do NOT line up the way he seems to think they do. At least, not to any degree of "unerring" precision.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 5, 2006 19:43:01 GMT -4
Not to mention that the flap on the PLSS is above the white line on the first shot, and below it on the second. And that's using Jack's own version.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 5, 2006 23:30:57 GMT -4
At the risk of... is Jack White legally blind? Any five-year old kid who can do the "find six differences between these photos" could find as many in this set with only a moment's inspection. Precision? Young's feet are a good six inches off. His body is twisted left, and bent further over. The flag is at a different angle -- it looks as it the photographer has moved to his right a little. Dish antenna, and a number of other visual details on the spacecraft, do not match up between the shots. Jack tries to fake it a little by using a small photograph and large lines, but they do NOT line up the way he seems to think they do. At least, not to any degree of "unerring" precision. Yeah. It is pretty obvious that a tripod was not used and the photos are not identical but White still claims to be a "photoanalyst" and others still believe him.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 6, 2006 3:45:14 GMT -4
postbaguk and nomuse the claim of Jack is that the photo doesn't match the video, which means that it was taken on another time. This means you can't compar the movement of astronaut to the still photos.
Second, on clavius, you have discussed how does moving the camera down make tops of things line together, so it might bethe case here when comparing the two flag poles alignment. (I think it was discussed in the big mountain,small LM section).
As for the dust, I still can't see it. Can you circle the dust cloud?thnx
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 6, 2006 6:23:43 GMT -4
As for the dust, I still can't see it. Can you circle the dust cloud?thnx You can't see the big red marks in Post No. 27? I can. Postbaguk has carefully drawn them for you, with the comment: If you can't make out the dust, I've highlighted the area it is most visible below to make it easier to spot on the hi-res image.No wonder it is so hard for those of us who have a good knowledge of photography to discuss the subject with you. That is why I have stayed right away from your recent comments about photos. I remember getting nowhere trying to tell you that because two rocks bore a very vague resemblance to each other, it didn't mean that they were one and the same rock.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Sept 6, 2006 6:24:20 GMT -4
postbaguk and nomuse the claim of Jack is that the photo doesn't match the video, which means that it was taken on another time. This means you can't compar the movement of astronaut to the still photos. Lionking - just because Jack White claims something does not mean it is true! The video WAS taken at the same time as the Hasselblad images. There are no inconsistencies between them, and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Jack White claims that these photos are too perfect, and must have been taken using a tripod. Quite clearly this is untrue, as you can see by the alignment on the top of the the astronaut (Young) compared to the top of the flag in both photos (as I showed in my previous post). If you look at the two complete images, you can clearly see that they are NOT pointing in exactly the same direction - load up the following two images in your browser, then move back and forward from one to the other, and you can easily see this. Jack White is either lying, or he is incompetent. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339.jpgwww.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-113-18340.jpg I've already showed you very clearly with this image where you can see the dust in the original hi-res version of the image.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 6, 2006 6:41:55 GMT -4
Hi postbag I am not familiar with the tripod thing or what it should look like to take a photo, however, the dust thing is not clear to me, and I can see this effect in otehr places in the image.
Kiwi spare me your comments. I can't see the dust where he highlighted it.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 6, 2006 6:57:30 GMT -4
Isn't there a website that uses a 3D design program to recreate this scene, and which shows that the objects do align properly, thereby giving credence to the same time thatvideo/photo was done? I can't recall where, and i last saw it about 1 year ago.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Sept 6, 2006 7:15:56 GMT -4
Hi postbag I am not familiar with the tripod thing or what it should look like to take a photo, however, the dust thing is not clear to me, and I can see this effect in otehr places in the image. Kiwi spare me your comments. I can't see the dust where he highlighted it. lionking Everything you need to know about tripods can be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripod_(photography)If you can't see the dust in the area I've highlighted then I can't help you I'm afraid. It is faint, but clearly visible, especially when you look at the GIF I liked in an earlier post, as it disappears from one photo to the next. homepage.ntlworld.com/david.greer70/apollo/Jump2.gifWait for the GIF to load up. As it cycles between the two frames, look at the area below Young's feet as highlighted earlier. If you still cannot see quite clearly that there is dust present in one photo, which obscures details you can see in the other photo, well I don't think there's anything else I can do if you choose not to see what is quite plainly there. If you wish, you can continue to believe Jack White - but I can assure you he is either a liar or incompetent when it comes to analyzing Apollo photos. The choice is yours.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 6, 2006 7:24:54 GMT -4
thnx postbag now I can see what you mean after comparing the GIF photos on the last link you put. thnx again
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Sept 6, 2006 7:28:47 GMT -4
As the camera was fixed to his chest and he didnt move position for all practical purposes it was attached to a tripod, well, a 'bipod, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Sept 6, 2006 7:49:43 GMT -4
thnx postbag now I can see what you mean after comparing the GIF photos on the last link you put. thnx again You're welcome. I know it may not convince you that the Apollo landings were real, but hopefully it will help you realise that Jack White's interpretations of photographs simply cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Sept 6, 2006 13:24:56 GMT -4
Lion King, I put this video together a while ago to show that there was actually no dust in the video at the top of his jump. The video plays at normal speed until he jumps then it plays frame by frame of the video in really slow motion so you can see what I actually mean www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDKQL4Uc_Vk
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Sept 6, 2006 14:06:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Oct 17, 2006 1:37:41 GMT -4
|
|