Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by nataylor


Thanks Nat..
Putting the two pics side by side shows how that works

reply to post by backinblack

The dish on the left is casting a shadow right..
The flag on the right is casting a shadow left

Are you saying you don't understand perspective? The "vanishing point" concept, in a two-dimensional representation fo a three-dimensional scene?





Also, in photography....you MUST know the lens focal length, in order to comprehend the image better.....makes big differences.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Are you saying you don't understand perspective? The "vanishing point" concept, in a two-dimensional representation fo a three-dimensional scene?

I know enough to realise if the light source is behind then the shadows could look left on the left side and right on the right side..
This pic shows the opposite..The shadows converge..

reply to post by backinblack


Your thinking is opposite.....

This pic shows the opposite..The shadows converge..

You quoted from my post, so I assumed you read it? AND looked at the two examples I linked?

Did you miss out on Art class, somewhere...and the very basic principle of the "vanishing point" concept? (It isn't just for "art"....it's for those who wish to draw or paint in order to depict what is seen in nature, due to perspective).

Oh, and I guess my mention (and nataylor's) of the lens focal length was overlooked as well.....


A quick and easy visual example:

www.usa.canon.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Your thinking is opposite.....

This pic shows the opposite..The shadows converge..

You quoted from my post, so I assumed you read it? AND looked at the two examples I linked?

Did you miss out on Art class, somewhere...and the very basic principle of the "vanishing point" concept? (It isn't just for "art"....it's for those who wish to draw or paint in order to depict what is seen in nature, due to perspective).

Oh, and I guess my mention (and nataylor's) of the lens focal length was overlooked as well.....

edit on 7 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Can you EVER post without being rude and insulting??
It's why I said I didn't even want to question the pics but Tom and Nat were very polite and said go ahead..

You?? You're just plain rude and arrogant..
Please leave the replies to the others..
I'm sure they may say the same as you but in a pleasant tone...

reply to post by FoosM


Just so everyone understands why Weed seemed so frustrated, this is the second time in only 160 pages that FoosM has tried the "Sidi Yaha Gambit." It was discussed at appropriate length starting here. We're not avoiding it, we're just trying to move this thread forward, rather than backward.

Originally posted by backinblack
This pic shows the opposite..The shadows converge..

A wide-angle lens will make parallel lines appear to converge:

reply to post by nataylor


I get that thanks Nat..
But pic AS12-46-6751 does not appear to use a wide angled lens..
If it did wouldn't the flag pole would also appear to angle in..?
It doesn't..It's dead straight...

reply to post by backinblack


It's using a 60mm lens, which is wide-angle for the 70mm cameras.

Vertical and horizontal lines that are parallel to the plane of focus (which in most cases is the the same as the plane of the film) will not exhibit the distortion. Only lines that are not parallell to the plane of focus will be distorted.

This is why a lot of architectural photos use perspective control lenses. They allow the plane of focus to be shifted away from the plane of film, so that horizontal and vertical lines remain undistorted even if the camera is not parallel to them. That makes buildings look more natural. I'm currently saving up to get one for my Nikon.

Hi Peeps...

Here is what I like about Jarrah... contrary to what some NASA lovers will have you believe, not only does young Jarrah admit to making mistakes, but he also creates quite cool video rebuttals to the criticisms of his films.

This to me is a very mature way to conduct ones arguments... rather than the 'I know better than you' way many on ATS like to proceed.

This film here talks about IMAX protecting its film from radiation using bags of water. Jarrah readily corrects some errors and admits to his faults... y'all you should learn something from that.



Has this one been 'debunked'?

I also always like this:

I must say that a massive problem I have with argueing the Lunar landings is that I'm convinced that NASA faked lots of photos, but they might have actually landed on moon.

So when I argue about photos of the LM on the moon... the lack of blast crater... the lack of dust on LM landing feet... that's not me argueing about the landing... its about the photos.

It's complicated. I think its obvious the photos are faked. But I can't say 100% the landing didn't happen.

The reason I can't be 100% that we DID land is... unlike Julius Caeser and World War 2... there is no conclusive INDEPENDANT evidence that men walked on the moon.

Everything comes from or through NASA and so I can't believe it 100%... why should I?

What other Government bodies to you believe everything they say without questioning?

I don't believe Jarrah is intentially trying to decieve people.

But I do believe that many people in this thread are intentionally trying to tell people to close their minds about Apollo conspiracy claims. Which is a shame.

Is this thread really still active....?!?!

Originally posted by Smack
We all know Foo likes videos, but he doesn't seem to like this one much.
I wonder why.

Why you no like Foo?

Through the magic of mathematics, information is gathered from multiple photos over time. The images are run through various algorithms that aggregate data from each to form an improved image.
Get the details here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

So the proof of the LM comes from... NASA !! Surprise, surprise.

No independant conclusive photographic proof of man landing on the moon then.

But because NASA says we did then I guess we did..

And you Smack, stoop to using enhanced Youtube videos as proof of your beliefs... ok! Each to their own.

Smack your bottom for having a shuttered brain.

reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx


Hi Aftermath...
Do you think its possible NASA faked some of the Lunar photos?

reply to post by manmental


I watched the "no crater" video..
I do wonder why there is no sign of any ground movement under the engine..
I've also looked at many pics of the landing pads and have yet to see where one has even skipped/slid a little..

Were they all perfect landings with NO lateral movement or have I just not come across the right pics yet.??

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nataylor

 

And this pic..



The astronauts shadow is over to the right but appears reasonably straight..

The dish on the left is casting a shadow right..
The flag on the right is casting a shadow left..

Off-center shadows are analyzed in these series of videos:

example:

The photographer's shadow betrays Apollo
From: hunchbacked | December 19, 2010 | 65 views
This video shows how the photographer's shadow has been used to create incoherencies.
It shows first that the orientation of the photographer's shadow depends on its position on the photo, and second that the orientation of other shadows depend on their position relatively to the photographer's shadow.
The knowledge of these facts allows to spot numerous incoherencies on the Apollo photo which have been intentionally created by the fakers who knew eveything about the properties of the photographer's shadow.

Originally posted by nataylor

154:41:07 Duke: Roger. Would you ver - We've lost comm with you for about the last 10 minutes. Would you verify that the S-band track switch is in Reacq? Over.

154:41:17 Aldrin: Negative. It's not. Last time we broke lock, we went to Auto, and I left it there. Sorry.

154:41:22 Duke: Rog. We'd like to - have you to put it in Reacq, and monitor. In about 2 minutes, we'll be coming up on the High Gain. Would you monitor the Reacq? If it doesn't take, acquire manually. Over.

You'll have to explain what I am reading here.
Why are they getting other signals?
And didnt this also happen to Apollo 12?

Originally posted by manmental
Hi Peeps...

Here is what I like about Jarrah... contrary to what some NASA lovers will have you believe, not only does young Jarrah admit to making mistakes, but he also creates quite cool video rebuttals to the criticisms of his films.

This to me is a very mature way to conduct ones arguments... rather than the 'I know better than you' way many on ATS like to proceed.

JW's entire tone and style of argument is holier than thou, narcissistic BS.

Jarrah mature? Just dig around the net a little bit and you'll see his true colors.

Check out these gems from Jarrah insulting with someone who actually knows a thing or two about astrophysics: tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com...
(scroll down to find Jarrah's responses)
ralphrenewaswrongmate.com...

Jarrah mature? Hardly.

reply to post by Facefirst


Brilliant You can see why Jarrah has stopped conversing with people directly in forums and now hides behind his shills while distributing his brand of idiocy on YouTube. Isn't the Internet wonderful, if you dig around and find stuff from the good old days when he did post, he really exposes himself as being the idiot he truly is. The only person that get's any 'whipping' is him.
Most of his statements show that he does not have even the most fundamental understanding of the topic at hand, I'd wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a creationist and flat earth believer amongst other things.
And he claims he has an IQ of over 150? I sincerely doubt that and even if it is true, what's the point of having the latest, greatest i7 based PC if you only run Windows 3.1 on it ?

reply to post by backinblack


That depends on the enhancement method. If they used an algorithm, it is valid as evidence. If it is retouched by hand, it isn't.