|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 29, 2009 7:10:31 GMT -4
Like other hoaxers, he also seems to lack simple math skills, as show in comments like this... Distance to the horizon at 5 ft off the ground (chest-mounted cameras) on the moon is <1.5 miles. Even at 50 ft off the ground it's <5 miles.Actually, the math looks about right to me, if over-simplifying the problem. Mean radius of the moon: 1,737.1km Via pythagoras (straight-line distance to horizon point): sqrt( ( 1737100 + 1.5 )^2 - 1737100^2 ) = 2282.8m (1.4 mi) sqrt( ( 1737100 + 15 )^2 - 1737100^2 ) = 7276.5m (4.5 mi) But this assumes a perfect sphere, which the moon obviously isn't, and the fact that the base of the "hill" isn't necessarily visible in all the images presented.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2009 12:24:48 GMT -4
But this assumes a perfect sphere, which the moon obviously isn't, and the fact that the base of the "hill" isn't necessarily visible in all the images presented. The concept of a local horizon due to local topography being much closer than a perfect-sphere horizon seems to be lost on the average HB. Perhaps they should get out more.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 2, 2009 19:46:02 GMT -4
Actually, the math looks about right to me, if over-simplifying the problem.. OK... I stand corrected. To be fair I'll post that his math is indeed correct. But as you said, he is assuming that the moon is a big, gigantic, smooth marble! Which, we can all agree is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 2, 2009 19:55:07 GMT -4
Even if his math is correct, the rest of his logic and *assumptions* are most definitely not! Thanks to the help from all of you I posted the following. I've yet to receive any type of rebuttal from him over the past several days. me: I asked someone who knows a bit more about lunar topology about the features you point out in your video. He wrote...
"Bear rises some 300m above the valley floor, and the peak of the East Massif is over 2km above its base, and nearly 1.4km higher than the "mole" indicated by the YouTuber near the light foothill." Also, I would like to inquire if it was just a slight *oversight* on your part that you didn't include any photos that DO show the LM in the far distance, such as AS17-139-21204. An even more dramatic shot of the LM in the distance would be this one... AS17-136-20799 Look in the distance past the LM. Do those look to be "small hills" to you? Here's another! AS17-136-20862.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 3, 2009 12:05:36 GMT -4
Heh, if you really wanna see the LM off in the distance, pull up 21496. See it?
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 3, 2009 13:40:01 GMT -4
Heh, if you really wanna see the LM off in the distance, pull up 21496. See it? Umm... no I don't. Strangely, I do see a few stars! :-)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 3, 2009 13:59:28 GMT -4
The "light patch" of disturbed soil gave it away...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 3, 2009 14:03:20 GMT -4
Look to the right of the peak of the large rock in the foreground ("Tracy's Rock," so named for Gene's daughter), it's the vaguely gold-colored speck just about dead in line with the right-most column of fiducials.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 3, 2009 16:27:06 GMT -4
Look to the right of the peak of the large rock in the foreground ("Tracy's Rock," so named for Gene's daughter), it's the vaguely gold-colored speck just about dead in line with the right-most column of fiducials. AH Yes!... That's pretty cool! I hate to tell you this, but all that proves is that the NASA built sound stage is MUCH LARGER than anyone of us ever anticipated!!!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 3, 2009 16:44:15 GMT -4
Heh, if you really wanna see the LM off in the distance, pull up 21496. See it? From my super scientific calculations I have been able to deduce that the distance between the astronaut and the LM is about 1.35 kilometers, about 0.84 miles, away. Is that anywhere near the actual distance between the photographer and the LM, or do I have to brush up my mathmatics?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 4, 2009 5:29:46 GMT -4
Heh, if you really wanna see the LM off in the distance, pull up 21496. See it? Umm... no I don't. Strangely, I do see a few stars! :-) Fiveonit -- I pointed out the LM there in the last two lines of post 118. Did you miss that? (I guessed that you knew how to find captions and photos at the ALSJ.) apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2239&page=8#68912The telephoto shot (also mentioned there) of the LM by Jack Schmitt from the same place is a "don't miss"-- AS17-139-21204Caption: Jack Schmitt took this superb picture of the LM from Station 6 with the 500-mm lens. Note the lighter surface around the spacecraft, produced by the sweeping action of the descent plume. Station 6 is about 3.1 kilometer from the LM, which is about 7 meters tall. The two large craters beyond the LM with prominent rim boulder fields are probably Hess (left) and Mackin (right), which are both about 6 km from Station 6 on higher ground than the landing site. Each of the craters is about 600 meters in diameter.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 4, 2009 5:36:28 GMT -4
...do I have to brush up my mathmatics? Yep, you do. But reading the captions to the photos in the image libraries at the ALSJ is much easier. The distances to a number of things from Station 6 is mentioned:-- AS17-140-21493 Clearer view of Henry and its boulders. The small, boxy, slightly orange-colored object above Henry and to the right of Tracy's Rock - about 1 1/4 fiducials left of center - is Challenger at a distance of about 3.5 km. The distance from Gene to the point where the slope of the South Massif runs down behind the darker slope coming from left is about 10 km, an indication of the deceptive nature of judging lunar distances. (Note that these frames were taken with a 60-mm lens and not the 500-mm lens.) AS17-140-21494 A better exposed view similar to 21493 with a very apparent Challenger about 3/4 of a fiducial left of center. Bear Mountain is the low domed structure immediately above Tracy's Rock. AS17-140-21495 View centered on Tracy's Rock. The full lateral extent of Henry can be seen on both sides of the Rock. The orange-gold insulation foil can be easily seen on Challenger. The foothill slopes to the left of Tracy's Rock lie about 8 km away. Note the dark-colored outcrop on the distant hillock at the left and in subsequent frames. AS17-140-21498 The outcrop on the smaller hill at right just above and between the two fiducial crosses can be clearly seen in the A17 CSM vertical pan view of the valley (see 2309 in previous section). The outcrop lies approximately 18 km (!) from Gene's present position though it seems just a short hop and skip across the valley! Also note the boulders on the East Massif at the left. Jack has moved behind Tracy's Rock. AS17-140-21499 An imposing view towards the east (left). Note the string of boulders (to the right towards the central fiducial cross) that have rolled down the flank of the East Massif. Boulder trails can be seen in the images of this area. The largest of these boulders, about halfway down the side of the mountain, can also be seen in the Apollo 17 Pan Camera frame of the valley floor (2309 above; picked out on labeled version by white arrow). The peak of this mountain is about 20 km away from which one may surmise that the boulders in the line are considerably larger than Tracy's Rock! The corner of Jack's PLSS can just be seen disappearing behind Tracy's Rock.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Apr 8, 2009 0:28:23 GMT -4
I thought I was rid of him, but I should have known that now his video is up he needs to defend it no matter what. He seems to keep repeating the same old arguments...
hoaxer:Thanks for commenting. If it is a large mountain then it is obviously far away, as it fits easily into the shot. But if it is far away then the base of it shouldn't be seen ... and it clearly is visible. The distance to the horizon on the moon is less than 1.5 miles at 5ft off the surface and less than 5 miles 50ft off the surface. If it is a large mountain, the base of it shouldn't be easily seen.
me:Your Math is correct, but you are assuming that the Moon is one giant, smooth sphere. Obviously it is not! Have you even bothered to look at any of the topographical maps of the Apollo 17 landing site?
"If it is a large mountain, the base of it shouldn't be easily seen." Who ever said it could? How do you know that is the base you are seeing?
Hoaxer:Additionally, the zoom shots show nearby objects like astronauts and the hill/mountain in question both in focus. This tells me that they are not far apart and that the hill/mountain is not large and far away. Can you imagine having a picture taken of you in front of a large far away mountain that easily fit into the shot and having both come out in sharp focus?
me:This is about the 5th time you've dodged this question.. why WOULDN'T IT be in focus. There is no Atmosphere on the moon so there is nothing to cause haze. Just guessing here, but you seem to know little of light and optics.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 8, 2009 2:25:25 GMT -4
why WOULDN'T IT be in focus. There is no Atmosphere on the moon so there is nothing to cause haze. I don't think he's referring to atmospheric haze here, but rather depth of field. Clearly not a photographer, much less a landscape photographer, and obviously unfamiliar with the concept of focus at infinity. Have him do a Google image search for "mountain" to see a veritable plethora of deep landscape photos in which everything in the frame is at least as sharply focused as the average Apollo photo. Here is one I found by doing exactly that, which perfectly demonstrates what he finds so unimaginable. [edit: stray tag cleanup]
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 8, 2009 4:53:29 GMT -4
Can you imagine having a picture taken of you in front of a large far away mountain that easily fit into the shot and having both come out in sharp focus? Not only can I imagine it, I have deliberately done it, many, many times, and have done the opposite many times as well, throwing usually the background out of focus and keeping the subject sharp, but sometime vice-versa too. Poor Jack, his knowledge of practical photography really is minimal. It's no wonder his "analyses" are so often way off the mark, but in his ignorance he has no idea that they are and doesn't understand the explanations given by knowledgeable people. He seems to be indicating that not only is he unfamiliar with depth of field (area in focus) and how to use it, he probably doesn't know what the term hyperfocal distance means. I don't have the photography data I had years ago when I was a very active amateur and later a professional photographer, so can't give a precise definition, but all lens focal lengths have a hyperfocal distance for any given aperture, which means that everything from infinity and back as close to the camera as physically possible is in focus at that particular setting. Some examples, using lenses for 35mm cameras:-- For a 24mm lens set at f22, the hyperfocal distance is just under 1 metre (3 feet). Everything will be sharp from half a meter to infinity. At f8 on the same lens, the hyperfocal distance is just over 2 metres, with eveything sharp from about 1-1/2 metres to infinithy. 50mm lens, f11, hyperfocal distance 9 metres, sharp from 4 metres to infinity. 105mm lens, f32, hyperfocal distance 10 metres, sharp from 5-1/4 metres to infinity. Moving to the same format as used on the moon, an early-1970s chart I have for a Mamya-C 65mm lens for a 6x6 cm (2-1/4 inch square) film format, which is almost the same as the equipment used on the moon, shows that at f16 the hyperfocal distance is 15 feet, giving everything sharp from 6 feet 6-3/4 inches to infinity. In other words, it's quite easy to do exactly what Jack White thinks can't be done. As the figures for the 35mm camera show, wide-angle lenses have the most depth of field and telephotos have the least. All this is just experience and knowledge. For instance, when using a long telephoto lens in dimmer light than sunlight to take a full-face, tight-in portrait of an adult, by focusing on the eyes it is possible to throw out of focus the tip of the subject's nose and the ears. That may or may not be desirable. On the other hand, little kids, who jiggle around much more than adults, compensate somewhat by having much flatter faces and usually being much cuter, bless them! When taking a tight-in full-face portrait of a collie dog in a studio, it's essential to focus partly along the nose and use the right aperture, otherwise the tip of its nose or its eyes will be out of focus, perhaps even both. And forget about the ears -- they're gonners. Under some difficult photographic circumstances I would often set the hyperfocal distance or some other one on the lens and simply eyeball the distance to the subject and take a step in the right direction to quickly get it into focus, rather than mess around focusing like so many learner-photgraphers do. Doing that was often faster and more accurate than any automation could produce.
|
|