|
Post by gezalenko on May 11, 2006 11:32:48 GMT -4
It's worse than that. On the pentagonal lens flare, he's effectively saying "My car is blue; therefore all cars are blue. That [pointing at blue car] cannot be a car because it's red"
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on May 11, 2006 8:23:39 GMT -4
The one about the lens flare almost debunks itself ! Quote - "the camera used for these images was allegedly a Hasselblad with a pentagonal leaf shutter that would not produce a sphere-like result."
But looking at the original, the flare/dome clearly looks as if it is not a perfect circle - still less a sphere ! It looks to me as if it could indeed be a pentagon with rounded corners and edges - four corners are visible above the horizon, and the fifth would be below the horizon, round about the left shoulder of the LM.
So, they are claiming that a pentagonal shutter should produce a pentagonal lens flare. I don't know enough about photography to know if that is true or not, but the shape does appear to me to be pentagonal, which in their own words would make it consistent with the lens flare hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Apr 25, 2006 8:07:45 GMT -4
Jay - could you tell us a bit more about those mechanical displays ? Or is there a link somewhere ? They sound intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 23, 2006 10:47:37 GMT -4
LotR - thanks for reply #36 elaborating what you meant about the moon photos. I understand what you mean, but I don't agree with you that the photos look anomalous. I agree that, based on the map, the far side of the valley should be more than 1 KM away from the camera. I also agree that it LOOKS as if it's closer than that. But what evidence do you have that it actually IS less than 1 KM away ? In an earlier post, James gave a very good example of the way that distant objects on earth appear to be paler, because light is scattered by the atmosphere, and by dust and water vapour suspended in it. None of these effects happen on the moon, because there is no atmosphere. The distant objects in your photo are not paler, because there is no atmospheric light scattering. Objects that are far away may look very close, particularly when there are no other clues to distance, such as houses or trees.
Bear in mind also that the landscape in the photo looks very different from the "aerial" photo with the EVAs marked on it, but that is not surprising - aerial photos of the earth will often be difficult to reconcile with photos taken on the surface.
So, in conclusion, the photo may LOOK as if it couldn't have been taken at Station 2, but in fact it could have been.
But EVEN IF IT WASN'T taken at Station 2 as shown on the map, how does this prove that the moon landings were faked ? What if Station 2 was marked wrongly on the map, and it was actually closer to the valley than people thought ? (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that it was !) All that that means is that your photo was taken on the moon, but perhaps in a slightly different location.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 23, 2006 9:46:28 GMT -4
I endorse a lot of what Vonster said in his opening posts.
Bringing the topic back on to the moon, can LordOfTheRings or anyone else explain exactly what is wrong with the moon photos LOTR linked to ? Are you claiming that the photo wasn't actually taken at station 2 shown on the map ? If so, why ? And if it wasn't taken at station 2, how does that prove that the moon landings were faked ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Sept 8, 2006 7:54:41 GMT -4
Argument #1 - NASA were willing and able to produce fake photos of the moon landings
Argument #2 - the absence of remote photos of Apollo equipment on the moon (eg from Hubble or observatories on Earth) is proof that Apollo was faked.
Contradiction - if NASA were able to produce fake photos, why not simply fake some "Hubble" photos or similar ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Nov 4, 2005 10:12:32 GMT -4
I find it incredible that HBs still go on about the "C" rock, as if that proves Apollo was faked. There's a very good (and to me, plausible) explanation of how the "C" was introduced to later versions of the image, and was not on the original. Even if you don't accept that explanation, another obvious possible explanation is that the C wasn't on the rock, but appeared on the original image due to some flaw - perhaps a flaw in the film, dust on the lens, or similar. Even if you don't accept THAT explanation, and insist that the C was actually on the rock, another obvious possible explanation is that it's just a feature of the rock, caused by natural processes, and it just happens to look like a C because of the way the light is falling on it, and our brains' inbuilt tendency to find meaning in random shapes. The idea that it MUST have been painted on by the studio team is just absurd. And the idea that this is common practice in the film industry is also absurd. Which leads me to another angle on this subject. Despite the best efforts of film production teams, many blockbuster films are littered with obvious production mistakes. Check www.moviemistakes.com to get a flavour of this. Picking a popular film related to space flight, the entry for Star Wars alone contains 244 (as of today) alleged mistakes submitted by film fans. It's open to debate whether or not all these mistakes are genuine, but even so, it's clear that movies in general often do contain mistakes. It is alleged that Star Wars contains about a dozen errors in the category "Visible crew/equipment" such as cameras being reflected in surfaces such as C3P0's head. Are there any genuine mistakes like this in the Apollo footage ? I doubt it. Sure, the cameraman's reflection is often caught on astronaut's visor, but the cameraman is another astronaut. Yes I know we've had claims that, for example, astronauts look as if they are on wires, but is there actually any footage of the wires themselves ? For Star Wars, it is claimed that there are indeed scenes in which you can actually see sticks holding up the Millenium Falcon. And Star Wars allegedly contains many many "Continuity" errors - for example "When Obi-wan and Luke are watching the hologram of Princess Leia projected onto a small table, the objects on the table change position and number in each shot" Does the Apollo footage contain errors like this ? Again, I doubt it. So if Hollywood film-makers have been making this type of error so often, for the best part of a century, how on earth did the Apollo "fakers" manage to avoid them ? Oh and by the way, it seems as if the makers of Star Wars did at least avoid one mistake - leaving the C rock / C droid / C plant pot / C whatever in picture.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 31, 2005 11:42:17 GMT -4
That's a reference to Dr Neville Jones, whose website states "My position in this and other research is that the Scriptural account has absolute precedence. If science is involved at all, then it is secondary and is adjusted as necessary to harmonize with the Hebrew Scriptures (or Tanakh). " Link - www.geocentric-universe.com/page59.htmHe's entitled to hold that position, but if he does, I think we're entitled to question whether he is a scientist in the normal sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 29, 2005 7:37:30 GMT -4
Reading through the threads started by Margamatix, I was often frustrated by his persistent unwillingness to address the substance of the many responses to his questions. If he found the responses persuasive, it would have been polite to say so, while if he disagreed with the responses, it would have been nice to see his rebuttals. In passing, I looked at his profile, where there’s a link to his own website, www.truckdrivinginrussia.co.uk/ which describes some truck journeys he made from Britain to Russia a few years ago. As my job involves dealing with the UK road haulage industry, I really liked his site - I found it interesting and a lot of fun. I then thought – for a bit more fun – what would it be like if I approached his story from a HB viewpoint ? Let me say from the outset that I am not generally a HB, and I am convinced that Margamatix actually did make the journeys he claims to have made. This is also not intended to be an ad hominem on Margamatix or anyone else – if it comes across that way, I apologise in advance. On his very first page, there’s a photo of Margamatix allegedly negotiating with a policeman. There’s so much wrong with this photo, I don’t know where to start. But the most obvious problem is – who took the photo ? He never mentions anyone accompanying him on his journeys, therefore he must have been alone. So how could this picture have been taken ? It must have been staged. Like Margamatix, I live in the UK. Unlike Margamatix, I do not claim to have ever been to Russia. Nor have I ever driven a truck. The idea that it is possible to drive a truck from the UK to Russia is absurd. I know trucks can travel a few hundred miles the length of the UK, and maybe even across Europe, but Russia is a whole lot further away – it just can’t be done. Margamatix claims that the Russia missions stopped in 1998. Seven years have passed without a UK-Russia journey. Why ? If we had the technology then, surely we must still have it now ? Some of the photos on his site are suspiciously well framed – they were obviously posed in a studio. Quote – “during the winter, temperatures often drop to -40 degrees Celsius.” Human beings can not survive these temperatures, therefore the Russia missions were fake. Margamatix claims that summers in Russia are very warm, and winters extremely cold. No camera could cope with such a range of temperatures, yet his site carries photos purportedly taken in both summer and winter. He states “roads are in very poor condition” but includes one photo on page 3 of a straight, wide road, with very little traffic and no obvious road defects. This type of inconsistency must have been deliberately introduced by whistleblowers to alert the public to the Russia missions scam. On page 3 there’s a photo of a big truck crash, and Margamatix himself says that there were many more accidents. It is obvious that truck technology was not up to the job at that time, and the authorities knew it. Therefore they faked the Russia missions. On page 4 there’s an episode about two dead chickens talking to each other. Live chickens can not talk to each other, let alone dead ones, therefore the Russia missions were faked. So, the question for Margamatix is – how would you respond to these claims ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 19, 2005 6:25:11 GMT -4
I'm not an expert on this, but I think there's another factor contributing to the illusion, in addition to the ones mentioned above. Because the LM seems to be oriented roughly the same way in both pictures relative to the camera, this creates an expectation that both pictures were taken along roughly the same line of site (apologies if that's not the right technical term). But on closer inspection that doesn't actually seem to be the case. In the picture on the left, the camera seems to be positioned relatively low down, pointing slightly up towards the LM, making the LM seem to loom high above the landing site and level with the top of the mountain. In the picture on the right, the camera seems to be positioned higher up, helping the LM to appear to sit lower in the landscape. You can see this clearly if you compare the relative positions of the LM and the distinctive boulder with a sharp peak and a shoulder, away to the right of the LM. In the picture on the left, this rock is just inside the right margin of the picture, and is on a level with the gold foil area on the lower half of the LM. In the picture on the right, this rock is now much higher up, almost level with the white area on the top of the LM. This suggests that not only is the camera much further away in the second shot, it's also higher up. Maybe only a couple of feet or so, but it changes the relative positions of all the subjects significantly. Furthermore, I'm not sure about this, but it looks as if the camera was moved around to the left between the shots. In the left picture, there's what looks like a large rock above the rear wheel of the rover. In the right picture, there's a large rock below the mid-point between the two crosshairs. IF these are both the same rock (and they MIGHT not be the same rock) then it's clear that the camera WAS moved round to the left. Even if they're not the same rock, a close inspection of the LM suggests that the camera was moved to the left.
So, in conclusion, there's an expectation that both pictures were taken along roughly the same line of sight, which leads to expectations about the relative size and position of the subjects. But close inspection suggests that the line of sight was significantly different.
This, combined with the change in distance from the LM, and the fraudulent enlargement, create the "anomalies" whereas in fact there is no anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 23, 2006 9:51:57 GMT -4
Oh I see. But again, if you look carefully, some of the balls do look darker on the underside - such as the big purple one in the bottom left of the photo in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 22, 2006 13:12:44 GMT -4
I think they do actually form shadows, but perhaps not as dark as you might expect. If you look at the photo in the first post, I can make out lots of light grey spots on the road, which I think are shadows. From my memory of seeing the ad, I think shadows are visible if you look carefully.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 3, 2006 8:25:10 GMT -4
Apologies for replying to my own post, but if you click on the links in my last post, you need to include the @n00/ bits too.
I have no posting skills - sorry !
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 3, 2006 8:21:38 GMT -4
I too was convinced it must be fake, but a bit of research and I'm now (fairly) sure it was real. Check this out for example www.flickr.com/photos/62838934@N00/(found on here www.flickr.com/photos/49503155830@N01/28841983/)which shows a bit more about how it was done. Interesting example of something that looks so amazing that you'd be forgiven for thinking it must have been faked, but when you do a little bit of research, it turns out that, well, yes, it was actually possible to do it for real. And apparently the balls didn't all end up in the sea. Which was nice.
|
|
|
Peeves
Oct 19, 2005 8:33:40 GMT -4
Post by gezalenko on Oct 19, 2005 8:33:40 GMT -4
We used to have a departmental secretary who confiscated any abandoned ringing phones, and would only give them back on payment of £1. Every few months the money she collected was donated to a local charity.
Results 1- Local charity benefits 2 - People quickly learn to switch 'em off or take them with them 3 - Bonus result - occasional mad race between phone owner and secretary to reach ringing phone first !
|
|