|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 21, 2012 19:55:27 GMT -4
Just a few minutes ago, my youtube account, "unparallelshadows" received a message from a hoax nut.. He sent me the following image: aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/SpacePlanets4/Compare.jpgwith the caption, "Try 'splaining this". I told him I would and so, of course, like an Apollo defender, I don't back off when I'm challenged to perform an experiment. I told him I would go outside and take a picture of some mountains. I would then move so that the foreground was different but the background was not. The mountains, being only about 2 miles (the Apollo mountains about 11) caused me to have to move rather slightly, but the answer is still evident. The foreground shows a different number of telephone poles, different bushes etc. So, Peyotecactus, this one is for you: Notice how the mountain is the same shape, location, size etc. Now look at the foreground. I assure you, I didn't take these in a studio with artificial backgrounds.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 22, 2012 0:13:27 GMT -4
;D There seems to be some common attributes to the 'hardy' hoax believers.
One of the saddest of these traits, is that it appears they have never actually gone outside.. - or if they have, their eyes are kept tightly shut - or if their eyes are open, they don't actually use them to *observe* things around them, like perspective - or if they do, they can't actually remember or understand what they are seeing.
I'd rather think they are just trolling for the s&g's - because to actually live life like that is too depressing for me to contemplate...
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jan 22, 2012 6:34:21 GMT -4
Show him this.........I have put two simple marks relating two points on the landscape. It is obvious they are different.....the pictures are shot from different views. You could do this with other points....and different colours, if you wanted to press the point. Don't expect him to believe your explanation though....these people are a bit fixated. s18.postimage.org/t4lcawbrt/Compare.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 23, 2012 0:33:02 GMT -4
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 23, 2012 0:52:12 GMT -4
A video game may not be the best example as a fairly common tool to reduce processing and memory needs is to replace far off objects with a flat image of said object instead of the polygon mesh. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 23, 2012 1:02:49 GMT -4
A video game may not be the best example as a fairly common tool to reduce processing and memory needs is to replace far off objects with a flat image of said object instead of the polygon mesh. Just sayin' The whole thing is mesh. It does change eventually if you move very far. The mountains are a couple of miles away and you can get to them. All of the visible things in this game (except the Earth) are 3 dimensional. It's a NASA game that was done very realistically.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 23, 2012 1:06:39 GMT -4
A video game may not be the best example as a fairly common tool to reduce processing and memory needs is to replace far off objects with a flat image of said object instead of the polygon mesh. Just sayin' The whole thing is mesh. It does change eventually if you move very far. The mountains are a couple of miles away and you can get to them. All of the visible things in this game (except the Earth) are 3 dimensional. It's a NASA game that was done very realistically. Oh, those video game developers are tricky. They can replace it with a mesh as you get closer. Still, it could very well be a great example, I haven't played the game to say.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 23, 2012 23:53:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 7:42:52 GMT -4
Not sure this is the right topic but it sort of rings a bell with it. www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16745015The article is quite interesting but the thing that sticks out is that after all this time, it is still not quite there. Edit. I was sure there is another topic this would fit better under....
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 28, 2012 18:21:24 GMT -4
Just a few minutes ago, my youtube account, "unparallelshadows" received a message from a hoax nut.. He sent me the following image: aboutfacts.net/LargePictures/SpacePlanets4/Compare.jpgwith the caption, "Try 'splaining this". I told him I would and so, of course, like an Apollo defender, I don't back off when I'm challenged to perform an experiment. I told him I would go outside and take a picture of some mountains. I would then move so that the foreground was different but the background was not. The mountains, being only about 2 miles (the Apollo mountains about 11) caused me to have to move rather slightly, but the answer is still evident. The foreground shows a different number of telephone poles, different bushes etc. So, Peyotecactus, this one is for you: Notice how the mountain is the same shape, location, size etc. Now look at the foreground. I assure you, I didn't take these in a studio with artificial backgrounds. I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 28, 2012 18:35:40 GMT -4
I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. Been there have we? Lets see your holiday snaps then.
|
|
|
Post by philthy on Jan 28, 2012 22:17:21 GMT -4
[quote author=forthethrillofital board=theories thread=3328 post=98230 time=1327789284I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. [/quote]
Show just ONE officail NASA picture from any Apollo mission that is "fake." Just one. If you manage to pull off this feat, (won't happen), you will be world wide famous! Here's you big chance!!
Phil
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 29, 2012 0:33:11 GMT -4
But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. So, the supposed problems you see in the photos aren't severe enough to have already falsify their authenticity? Sounds like fairly trivial problems in that case. Perhaps we can help you understand where you are going wrong in your assessment of the photos?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 29, 2012 14:23:54 GMT -4
But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. Lets see your analysis that proves a forgery!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 29, 2012 21:02:12 GMT -4
But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. That claim has been made for decades, and so far the only thing proven to be forged is the expertise and qualifications of all the self-proclaimed photographic "analysts" who stumble comically through their painfully obvious layman's misconceptions. Let me guess: you're going to tell us the Apollo 11 photographic record is suspicious because there isn't enough Armstrong in it.
|
|