|
Post by showtime on Mar 6, 2007 8:23:41 GMT -4
LOL ;D ;D ;D>>>>DOG You should know better than to give a Hoax believe any ideas ;D ;)Theres no telling what will happen to it in the hands of a HB LOL, didn't realize a few posts constituted a blitzkrieg
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 6, 2007 9:04:29 GMT -4
You like smilies, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 6, 2007 9:10:43 GMT -4
Isn't the curvature of the moon suppose to be roughly the same if they were in orbit going around the moons equator?
The curvature is the same. The angle of the horizon to the frame of the picture is different, but since the pictures were taken by a man floating weightless in the spacecraft holding a camera with his hands, why should that be suspect?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 9:52:44 GMT -4
Here the Apollo8 photos of earth rise that were suppose to be taken minutes apart.
Photo IDs, please? I'll verify for myself how much time elapsed between them.
Isn't the curvature of the moon suppose to be roughly the same if they were in orbit going around the moons equator?
First, they weren't orbiting around the moon's equator.
Second, what exactly do you mean by curvature? It's likely you won't get a good answer unless you're more specific.
Anyhow,, you can see the horizon has changed in these photos too but some of same craters visible.
Which exact craters do you believe are the same, and why?
You have gone on for pages now without stating what your point is. Indicating this photo or that photo and saying they don't "look right" to you doesn't mean anything. Kindly state your point.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Mar 6, 2007 10:33:31 GMT -4
The uneven, rough terrain difference of the horizon can be explained by the 2 spacecrafts being in a different spot in orbit, either higher or lower & further along in the horizon & the angle of the shot. That doesn't mean that some of the same features wouldn't be visible. ;D Which they are ;D Here the Apollo8 photos of earth rise that were suppose to be taken minutes apart. Isn't the curvature of the moon suppose to be roughly the same if they were in orbit going around the moons equator? Anyhow,, you can see the horizon has changed in these photos too but some of same craters visible ;D ;D ;D I can see the same craters in both photos. the photo to the right on the rightest edge shows a crater and to the left of that crater are too "lines" that r the same in both photos. however, I don't know if I understood the "curvature" well. Do you mean the lighted part of the moon should be roughly the same in both shots? If so, they r.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 10:33:45 GMT -4
my mistake,,I meant to say that you refuse to believe that they do look alike..
Begging the question again.
If you propose that these two photographs show the same lunar terrain, you have the burden of proof. No one is required to accept your proposition simply because you stated it.
In attempting to carry that burden of proof, you showed a superficial correspondence among three features. That is not enough. You must show a high degree of correlation. That requires a mathematical and geometric argument. It also requires you to show that all, or nearly all, the salient features reasonably congruent between the photos are, in fact, in the same places and have the same shape, tone, and geometrical relationship to other features. You must explain salient features that appear in one photo but not in the other, because that would be evidence that your other matches are coincidence. It is possible to prove coherence, but it requires detailed study and patience.
You have not done this. I and others have given you our reasons for rejecting your proposition. Kindly address them.
Many areas of the Utah desert where I live look alike. Pictures of one area can be "matched" with pictures from a completely different area if you only consider two or three of the salient features to be roughly in similar positions, and if you completely ignore the very salient differences.
Finally, since you have not stated anything remotely resembling a conclusion or belief, I have to ask why it's important for us to believe that the two photos at the top of this thread show exactly the same terrain? You've titled this thread Fake Photos???, so I presume you want to claim these two photos are fake. Please supply the line of reasoning by which you arrived at that hypothesis.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 6, 2007 10:41:57 GMT -4
Here the Apollo8 photos of earth rise that were suppose to be taken minutes apart. Isn't the curvature of the moon suppose to be roughly the same if they were in orbit going around the moons equator? Anyhow,, you can see the horizon has changed in these photos too but some of same craters visible ;D ;D ;D Here are the photos rotated to roughly the same orientation: Earth's diameter as viewed from the Moon is about 1.9 degrees. We can therefore deduce Earth has risen about 3 degrees between the time of the first and second photos. Since Apollo's orbital period was about 2 hours, the spacecraft moves 3 degrees per minute. This means the two photos were taken about one minute apart. The general curvature of the horizon is the same in each photo, however the specific terrain features visible along the horizon has changed. This is entirely expected. In one minute's time the terrain under Apollo shifts by more than 90 kilometers. This means that the ridgeline we are seeing along the horizon in the second photo is about 90 kilometers away from the ridgeline seen in the first photo. This results in considerable different contours along the observed horizon.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 11:18:22 GMT -4
I can see the same craters in both photos.
As can I. In lieu of photo IDs I found the photos in my own high-res collection.
I agree that the large crater near the horizon at the right edge of the frame in the first photo corresponds to the large crater near the bottom right corner of the second photo, and that several features to the left of this crater correlate favorably.
I don't know if I understood the "curvature" well.
Neither do I. In geometry, curvature describes the amount or curviness over a given paremeter. A straight line has no curvature. A circular arc has a constant-valued curvature as you progress across the arc. High-order curves such as parabolas have varying curvature -- it's a function of its arc traversal. Saying that the curvature is different implies that more of the arc is visible in one frame than in another.
I think Showtime means the orientation of the regularized visible horizon changes between frames. And if that's what he means, there's no reason to expect them to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 6, 2007 11:52:26 GMT -4
Showtime
Back to your original post -- see Grashtel's post No. 25 for the hi-res versions of your photos:
If you look up the entire sequence of photos from AS11-44-6547 to AS11-44-6564 (I have them on my CD-ROM version of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal with Targa file-numbers 20129506 to 20129523) you can see that the command module is moving over Mare Smythii on the eastern margin of the moon as viewed from Earth.
At centre right of the lunar landscape in AS11-44-6559HR (it always pays to view high-resolution copies for this purpose) you can see the clear-cut, deep, light-coloured crater Peek, 13km diameter. It has a light-coloured ray passing from its upper right to lower left, and it is at 2.6 degrees north, 86.9 degrees east.
At 10 o'clock from Peek is a shallow crater of about 30 km diameter with central mountains. It can be seen moving toward the camera in the sequence of photos.
Neither of these two craters are to be found in your Apollo 8 photo, AS8-14-2383HR, so the lunar landscape is not identical in the two photos.
I hope that you are capable of seeing this for yourself and will admit that it is true.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 6, 2007 12:13:18 GMT -4
I'll start the betting pool now. One dollar. Flameout at 125 posts.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Mar 6, 2007 12:24:30 GMT -4
Nice photos. Interested to know where you're going with this - is it your claim that this is evidence the photos were faked? Or are you more interested in setting "logic traps" and trying to catch people out who are genuinely interested in the subject and wish to help others understand it as well? Really? Please point out the features that match up. Thanks.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 6, 2007 13:14:40 GMT -4
I just thought of a new experiment to try with these photographs. I've already estimated that Apollo 8 has moved about 3 degrees around the Moon between the first and second photos based on how much the Earth has risen. Is it also possible to estimate how much Apollo 8 has revolved based on the change in the position of terrain features? Below I have drawn a line through what I believe are the same features in each photo and estimated (based on Earth's diameter) the angular distance of these features below the horizon: I'll spare you all the trigonometry, but below is a sketch showing all the angles and lines (not to scale): Bear in mind that my measurements are very crude and thus some error is to be expected. Using the terrain features as a guide, my calculations show that Apollo 8 has moved 3.4 degrees between photos (comparable to about 67 seconds of flight). This compares nicely to my estimate of 3 degrees using the angle of Earth above the horizon. Using two completely different methods to arrive at essentially the same answer lends much credence to the authenticity of the photographs.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 6, 2007 13:19:23 GMT -4
I wish I could do that... (math, that is)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 6, 2007 13:24:21 GMT -4
Nice work. I do wonder, tho, if that set of fairly well-matching craters you are using are the same ones the OP has been pointing at.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 6, 2007 13:26:18 GMT -4
Please point out the features that match up.
He has, in post #11. The consensus so far is that the three features he identifies in one don't match the features he identifies in the other, and that there are plenty of other features he ignores that are just wildly different between the photos.
Showtime cited two photos from Apollo 8 that are undoubtedly taken at roughly the same time and show roughly the same terrain. And after some study, we were able to correlate certain features between the two photos. We also agreed that the horizon detail differed in the Apollo 8 pictures, and that this was okay.
But it appears Showtime wants to argue that only a low degree of correlation is necessary in order to claim two pictures are of identical terrain. I don't agree, and I note that he cannot achieve the same degree of correlation in his first two photos that we can in the Apollo 8 pair.
|
|