|
Post by BertL on Feb 13, 2012 20:15:15 GMT -4
Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this? Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything. What about rural areas or other places? Where I grew up there are no mountains or distinguishing landmarks anywhere. I have some pictures of me standing in a grass field in the Netherlands, but there are no coffeeshops, mills or wooden shoes in the picture. How on Earth would this mean I never went there?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 30, 2012 4:19:42 GMT -4
With the advancement of technology so far the photographs have only been confirmed to be genuine. Remember the whole Venus incident with showtime, or the very consistent comparisons between Apollo and LRO photographs?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 28, 2012 17:07:40 GMT -4
let me make this simple so you may understand what space is and what it is not. thought experiment. you are in space you take 1 molecule, you are able to place this molecule in space, and are able to place it so that it is completely stationary. what will make it move? which direction will it move and why? where is the "vacuum" of space now? How does this thought experiment in any way, shape, or form explain in the least what is space and what is not space? More importantly, how in the world does trying to redefine "space" pertain to the matter of dust being blown away by the LM? It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to answer the question "How will this pressure affect dust in the vacuum of space?" with something along the lines of "Well, that just depends on your definition of 'vacuum' and 'space', really." What's next, a thought experiment where we examine what "dust" is by waving around brooms in dimly lit rooms?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 28, 2012 16:29:00 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 22, 2011 15:58:01 GMT -4
I'm confused, are we working for NASA or the CIA? What do you mean, or?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 22, 2011 6:45:31 GMT -4
I forget the name of the camera technique for a moment but Hitch popularized it in the signature shot of his "Vertigo." It is also used (usually more subtly) in other feature films and even in some television dramas. The technical name is a dolly zoom, but it may also be referred to as a Vertigo shot or trombone shot.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 21, 2011 12:54:10 GMT -4
Psh, our holidays started weeks ago with Sinterklaas. ;D
Happy holidays, everyone.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 21, 2011 7:02:16 GMT -4
Also the size of the Earth in the photos taken from the moon's surface shouldn't be the exact size of the moon taken from the surface of the Earth. Are they the same size?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 20, 2011 10:02:25 GMT -4
I've seen soviet era photomanipulation. It fooled the viewer for about one microsecond. Well, of course there are examples of people who were erased from Soviet photographs. However, the quality of those photographs doesn't compare to Apollo records by a long shot, so I don't think it could be comparable.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 2, 2011 16:39:09 GMT -4
When I was younger, I used to wonder why old paintings were in colour. Clearly they shouldn't have been, I mean have you seen how the world looked like before colour photography?!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 27, 2011 11:02:05 GMT -4
I'm reposting this for playdor as he seems to have missed it last time. Sorry for the possible feeling of a déjà vu, everyone. playdor, Whoever these "experts" are, they are wrong. Front screen projection works by means of projecting an image over the whole scene. In 2001 that would mean that the background (the wide scape with the mountains) is also being projected upon the foreground (the apes, the more orangy rocks, plants cetera). The reason this doesn't produce any shadows is because (using one-way mirrors) the projection comes from the exact same place as the camera. It's similar to a camera with flash on it - the light source comes from the same place as the lens is watching from. So why do we see the projected image on the background, but not on the foreground? Because the projected image is very faint and there is a very reflective screen at the back of the set. However, anything that is even faintly reflective will reflect the screen back, giving a ghosting effect. This can be seen in a number of shots in 2001, for example where a lion(?) looks into the camera, and in a case where a prop rock in the foreground reflects the background, giving a slightly ghostly feeling. Now in the case of Apollo, the astronauts are wearing these incredibly reflective visors. If front screen projection was used, it would appear that the background would continue on in the visors. Nowhere in any of the footage do you see this effect. So what I'm wondering is who these "experts" are, why you blindly believed them, and why yo uand they make these ridiculous claims. Can you answer this?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 26, 2011 16:16:20 GMT -4
playdor, Whoever these "experts" are, they are wrong. Front screen projection works by means of projecting an image over the whole scene. In 2001 that would mean that the background (the wide scape with the mountains) is also being projected upon the foreground (the apes, the more orangy rocks, plants cetera). The reason this doesn't produce any shadows is because (using one-way mirrors) the projection comes from the exact same place as the camera. It's similar to a camera with flash on it - the light source comes from the same place as the lens is watching from. So why do we see the projected image on the background, but not on the foreground? Because the projected image is very faint and there is a very reflective screen at the back of the set. However, anything that is even faintly reflective will reflect the screen back, giving a ghosting effect. This can be seen in a number of shots in 2001, for example where a lion(?) looks into the camera, and in a case where a prop rock in the foreground reflects the background, giving a slightly ghostly feeling. Now in the case of Apollo, the astronauts are wearing these incredibly reflective visors. If front screen projection was used, it would appear that the background would continue on in the visors. Nowhere in any of the footage do you see this effect. So what I'm wondering is who these "experts" are, why you blindly believed them, and why yo uand they make these ridiculous claims. Can you answer this?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 26, 2011 14:58:46 GMT -4
No. Front screen projection would be an utterly useless technique to fake Apollo video or images. If you had bothered to do any research and thinking into how front screen projection works you would have known this.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 24, 2011 13:28:53 GMT -4
BertL yes mirrored my photo program uses the term flipped AS11-44-6611 quite definitely isn't mirrored. In the Digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas of the Moon I found this image depicting the same area AS11-44-6611 was taken over. It shows the Daedalus crater, the most prominent crater visible on AS11-44-6611. Here is a comparison of the most visible features surroundinɡ the Daedalus crater between AS11-44-6611 and the Atlas picture I linked to. (Unnotated version here.) Those features match exactly! Moreover, if we imagine a line that begins at the center of biggest (green) crater and goes through the centers of the two smaller (red and yellow) craters, it will bend off towards the left in both pictures: If the Apollo 11 had been flipped, the line would have bended off the other way: We do not see this happening: this means that either both pictures are mirrored, or neither. I don't know about you, but I'm going with neither.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 24, 2011 13:03:08 GMT -4
BertL you tell me is image AS11-44-661 correct as published? That's not an answer to me question. I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
|