|
Post by grashtel on Mar 15, 2007 21:00:33 GMT -4
Here's a rover with no tracks in front, behind or to the side. There's deep footprints all around it www.aulis.com/jackstudies_17.htmlA few footprints spray up enough dust to completely obliterate all traces of a tire track? Give me a break man. Why would they take the time to back up the rover? to fit it into a parking space? I don't see any tracks in front indicating it was backed up at all. Looking at the high rez version of the image you can see how churned up the dust is by those "few footprints", and that there are considerably more footprints than are visible in Jack's version, including quite a few that have been mostly filled in by kicked up dust (particularly look in the vicinity of the front wheel). Also if you look carefully at the right of the picture you can see some faint rover tracks. Finally AS15-88-11900 (the picture taken immediately before the one Jack uses) you can see that away from the area of dust churned up by the astronauts' footprints the rover's tracks are visible (though only faintly).
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 15, 2007 21:25:27 GMT -4
The flag does not have to move in order for these two photo sets to be valid. Look at Bob's illustration again and ignore the position of the mountain. I think my previous illustration could have been better because we are actually dealing with composities of multiple photographs, rather than single photos as my illustration seemed to imply. I believe the following is a better representation, though not to scale:
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 15, 2007 23:18:14 GMT -4
Well guys I presented an easy to understand 3D computer model that would prove in a court of law that those Apollo 16 photos are inaccurate. Not sure what else to do.
Your arguments sound very precise and technical and I applaud your ability to confound with them - but there is no avoiding the simple fact that the lander rotates 90 degrees and the flag 180 while the mountain in the back maybe 20 or so.
For the record I'm not sure if we went to the moon or not. Perhaps the lunar environment proved too harsh on film in those Hasselblads and they decided to just use shots done in a studio. Astronaut Brian O'Leary once made an odd comment to that effect.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 15, 2007 23:30:04 GMT -4
,,, because I only have super-slow 2.3 to 3.2 kb/second dialup.I can empathize, having done the 300 baud acoustic coupler thing a long time ago. Now I am thoroughly spoiled by cable modem. Whats up with this rover too? There's no tracks under the tires whats the deal with that?cygnusx1, let me ask you a question. If you don't notice rover tracks, which is the more likely scenario: 1. NASA faked the images, using a wheeled rover, but lifted it into position rather than thinking of rolling it along the path they claimed it took. 2. You are not noticing the tracks because of illumination effects or something else. Yeah I can't explain why I see a few footprints around the rover and no tracks from the tire. It really bothers me why the tracks aren't there. What bothers me even more is why you guys don't seem bothered by it's bothersomeness. Maybe they covered the studio floor with dust periodically and just started shooting where they left off - forgetting that they had wiped out the tracks. Saying that these smattering of footprints covered up the tracks completely is in my opinion ludicrous considering how deep the tracks are in other shots.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 15, 2007 23:45:45 GMT -4
Well guys I presented an easy to understand 3D computer model that would prove in a court of law that those Apollo 16 photos are inaccurate./quote] What an odd idea. The fact is, you'd have to do quite a lot to show that the Apollo record is inaccurate in a court of law, even supposing there was a reason to have it brought up there. However, either way, it would depend on the gullibility of the jury as to whether they believed in a hoax or not. If they can be persuaded by actual scientific evidence, they're not going to go for a hoax idea, because there's no scientific weight behind it. However, good science doesn't always mean the jury accepts it.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 16, 2007 0:34:17 GMT -4
Well guys I presented an easy to understand 3D computer model that would prove in a court of law that those Apollo 16 photos are inaccurate. Not sure what else to do. Your model wasn't accurate, because you moved to the opposite side of the vehicle for the second picture, whereas in the photos it's clear the LM has rotated only 90 degrees or so. Could you show us two pictures in which we see the vehicle from directions which differ by 90 degrees? Remember, not all of us are engineers or photography experts. I'm neither. But I'm willing to subject each argument to a bit of logical testing. In this case, I'd like to point out one little problem with your argument: How do you know the flag has rotated by 180 degrees? You seem to be assuming that in each photo the flag is at right angles to a line between the photographer and the flag. But you can't know that for sure. And if it isn't, your argument just disappeared. It's good to see you've got an open mind about whether we went. There are a lot of people who are domgatic about the idea that the landings were faked. If we could answer your concerns about the photos, would you accept the reality of Apollo?
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Mar 16, 2007 0:54:52 GMT -4
Here's a panorama I hastily composited together from computer game screencaps. The foregrounds don't match perfectly, but I assure you, the horizon is seen just as it was in the game. img170.imageshack.us/img170/1446/panoramafz0.jpgThe small house can represent the LM, the small palm tree the flag and the the right part of the Rock Mountain will be represented by the small faraway mountain, partly obscured by the big tree in the upper picture.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Mar 16, 2007 1:14:02 GMT -4
Is that Operation Flashpoint? It's been a long time since I've played it, but the graphics ring a bell...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 16, 2007 1:16:50 GMT -4
Well guys I presented an easy to understand 3D computer model...
...that didn't depict the right scenario.
...that would prove in a court of law...
You've obviously never been in a court of law.
Your arguments sound very precise and technical...
That's because they are. Some of us actually have training and experience in this area, unlike Jack White.
I applaud your ability to confound with them - but there is no avoiding the simple fact...
Your lack of spatial reasoning skill is not proof. You may be confused but we are not.
Perhaps the lunar environment proved too harsh on film in those Hasselblads and they decided to just use shots done in a studio.
The same film worked fine in the Keyhole satellites. What exactly do you think might have gone wrong?
Astronaut Brian O'Leary once made an odd comment to that effect.
I've spoken to Brian O'Leary. He doesn't remember having made any such statement, or in what context it might have been made. And he does definitely believe we went to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 16, 2007 1:33:54 GMT -4
Astronaut Brian O'Leary once made an odd comment to that effect.
I've spoken to Brian O'Leary. He doesn't remember having made any such statement, or in what context it might have been made. And he does definitely believe we went to the moon. [/quote]
Thats interesting he would say that. He stated on television. I'm pretty darn sure it's in the Fox moon special if you want to google video it. I don't doubt he believes they went to the moon - he's just not as blind as you people are to all the anomalies in the photos.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 16, 2007 1:47:55 GMT -4
How do you know the flag has rotated by 180 degrees? You seem to be assuming that in each photo the flag is at right angles to a line between the photographer and the flag. But you can't know that for sure. And if it isn't, your argument just disappeared.
How do I know? Cause you can draw a straight horizontal line from the lander to the flag on both pictures that proves that the pictures are almost 180 degrees of each other unless the flag was moved. Even a 90 degree turn would move that mountain considerably farther along the horizon.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 16, 2007 1:49:08 GMT -4
Your arguments sound very precise and technical and I applaud your ability to confound with them Confound hell. We’re trying clear up your confusion because you clearly don’t understand what you’re looking at. but there is no avoiding the simple fact that the lander rotates 90 degrees Well, technically the lander hasn’t rotated at all. The photographer has moved around the LM approximately 90 degrees and photographed it from two different lines-of-sight at right angles to each other. But I get your point and yes I agree. The flag has been photographed from approximately opposite directions and those two photographs have been used in the creation of two different composites. You do realize that the parts of the composites containing the flags are from different photographs than the parts containing the LM, don’t you? Just because the LM was photographed from directions 90 degrees apart, why do you expect the flag must have been photographed from the same directions when we are dealing with entirely different photographs? while the mountain in the back maybe 20 or so. 20 degrees is a gross underestimation and entirely without justification. There is ample evidence to conclude the background has shifted 90 degrees relative to the LM. By the way, if you think the background has shifted only 20 degrees between the top and bottom photos, then clearly the panorama cannot by 160 degrees wide because the mountain has shifted far more than 1/8th of the panorama width. You are therefore at odds with Jack White over the interpretation of the photographs. Do you think Jack is simply mistaken about the 160 degrees or do you think he is deliberately lying? Or perhaps you might be ready to concede you may have underestimated when you came up with the 20-degree figure?
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 16, 2007 1:50:33 GMT -4
Well guys I presented an easy to understand 3D computer model that would prove in a court of law that those Apollo 16 photos are inaccurate./quote] What an odd idea. The fact is, you'd have to do quite a lot to show that the Apollo record is inaccurate in a court of law, even supposing there was a reason to have it brought up there. However, either way, it would depend on the gullibility of the jury as to whether they believed in a hoax or not. If they can be persuaded by actual scientific evidence, they're not going to go for a hoax idea, because there's no scientific weight behind it. However, good science doesn't always mean the jury accepts it. I'm not trying to prove Apollo was a hoax just these pictures. Do you guys read what I write?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 16, 2007 1:58:35 GMT -4
I'm not trying to prove Apollo was a hoax just these pictures. Do you guys read what I write? I have read what you wrote, but I don't think you are doing a very good job of trying to prove your point. Rather than argue with us, why don't you try debating Jack White and tell him you don't agree with his statement that the panorama is 160 degrees wide? Come back and tell us how it went when you're finished.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 16, 2007 2:08:45 GMT -4
It really bothers me why the tracks aren't there.Okay, fine. You're bothered. What are the candidate explanations and which is most likely? You seem to have jumped immediately to the conclusion that missing visible tracks in photographs can mean only some sort of studio fakery. What bothers me even more is why you guys don't seem bothered by it's bothersomeness.Because we didn't immediately jump to a farfetched conclusion. We first consider those that are less radical. You're shocked by the implications of what you've latched onto. In the real world, that farfetchedness is usually the reason to reject a conclusion. First we see whether Jack White has altered the picture in any way. You'd think that wouldn't be necessary, but it is. White has been caught many times cropping photos so as to cut away important information that disputes his claims. He has also habitually resized the photos, often making details invisible so that he can say they're missing. And after seven years of reminding, he still often does not supply the photo ID number so that we can find it among the 20,000 still photos and examine it more closely ourselves. Second we learn all we can about what the photo purports to be. We try to see if there's any commentary or dialogue that relates to what it depicts. We look for other photographs of the same area or object to see whether a new perspective helps. We look for drawings and maps. We try to see where the particular copy of the photo came from. Third, we look for important general things like lighting angle and time reference to see whether that might determine what should be visible or not. In the case of missing rover tracks we look for evidence of thin soil, or whether the rover was backed in, or whether the photo was taken at the beginning or the end of the stop. We look at the highest-resolution versions available to see whether it shows detail we might miss in smaller copies. We look at possible terrain variation. All these help us decide whether the tracks would be visible, if they would be in the spot in the photo where we're looking, and whether they might have been obliterated by post-driving activity. Saying that these smattering of footprints covered up the tracks completely is in my opinion ludicrous considering how deep the tracks are in other shots.Why do you think it's valid to compare photographs like that. Does every photograph taken in, say, the desert look like every other photograph taken in the desert? Why can't the lunar regolith differ in depth from place to place? In real photographic analysis you have to justify expectations like that. As for the smattering, you need to take a couple of days and look through all the J-mission footage on DVD or other good-quality reproduction, not the little thumbnail clips you can download. When you get a feel for how the dust moves under the astronauts' feet, it becomes far less difficult to imagine how a few footsteps can throw dust all over rover tracks. Have we done that? Yes, we have. Are we geeks for having done it? You bet we are, unabashedly and unreservedly. But most historians and technicians are. That's the familiarity with the available data that you need in order to draw defensible conclusions. Get a camera, drive your car out into the desert, and take pictures from all different angles and lighting scenarios. See whether tracks you think should be visible really do show up on photographs. For example: Picture of a tire track taken toward the up-sun direction. The same track photographed seconds later toward down-sun. Where did it go? Not visible! If you understand phase angle and projection, you know why. We do, so we aren't surprised when tracks aren't very visible at certain phase angles. Again, a desert shot at night with unidrectional lighting. And the same spot again from the opposite direction. You see, we have good, demonstrable reasons not to expect every shot to show every detail. We're not sticking our heads in the sand. Instead we simply have realistic expectations derived from considerable study, considerable experiment, and considerable familiarity with the Apollo record. Jack White can claim none of that. And that's why it does you more harm than it does us to say we argue as we do only to confound. Confusion is what White peddles. We offer facts and understanding.
|
|