Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM

Hey I cant help it if the professional/hobbyist photographers who have practiced on foreign manual cameras have all become silent. I guess they assume that I am asking a trick question, I'm not, its a very straight forward question. But maybe they think if they answer the question I'll trap them with evidence to the contrary. How could I? If the Apollo photographs are real, than I cant possibly find any discrepancies to counter them... right? Im sure if I ask a question about stars though, the Ill be flooded with responses...

What exactly is the question, FoosM? Are we going back to this again, now?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed796767291.jpg[/atsimg]

Sorry, backinblack.

Please take a look at these pictures:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2dc0389c20cb.gif[/atsimg]

www.lpi.usra.edu...
Mission: 17
Magazine: 138
Magazine Letter: I
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Sun Elevation: 27°
Mission Activity: EVA 2

www.lpi.usra.edu...
Mission: 17
Magazine: 133
Magazine Letter: J
Lens Focal Length: 60 mm
Sun Elevation: 28°
Mission Activity: EVA 2

Ok, these pictures are very similar in composition and they are from the same mission.
Except, we have, IMHO, some significant differences that simply dont make sense to me.
I would like to know from all of you what you think about it.

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, these pictures are very similar in composition

No they are not, why do you think that they are?

Except, we have, IMHO, some significant differences that simply dont make sense to me.

As you have shown you know very little about photography that they make no sense to you is not at all surprising.

I would like to know from all of you what you think about it.

Why do you just post 2 random dissimiliar pictures and ask for comments? Why not just state what makes no sense to you about them?

Then it can be explained to you

reply to post by FoosM

If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?

And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?

I dont understand why this is difficult

Both objects remain the same size. You do have a problem with object continuity. As has been pointed out, the south massif is much more distant and the effects of perspective would be less noticeable. Before you start drawing lines on photos, be aware that the terrain is uneven.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by FoosM
Ok, these pictures are very similar in composition

No they are not,

Its obvious you will not be able to offer a good discussion after that comment.
If they are not similar in composition, then you should explain why.
Thanks for participating though.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

If the astronaut would walk towards the LM taking pictures with the South Massif as a background.
Would the South Massif get smaller or bigger? We know the LM would get bigger in the picture, right?

And if he would walk away from the LM, with the South Massif as a background, would the South Massif become smaller or bigger as he is taking pictures? We know the LM would get smaller right?

I dont understand why this is difficult

Both objects remain the same size. You do have a problem with object continuity. As has been pointed out, the south massif is much more distant and the effects of perspective would be less noticeable. Before you start drawing lines on photos, be aware that the terrain is uneven.

So, to be clear, what you are saying is going forward (towards the LM) or going backward (away from the LM) will not change the size of the background Massif. The only thing that should change is the size of the LM.

Can you offer any examples please.

Why is it that I seem to be the only one who remembers that this thread is about that "Young Aussie Genius," Jarrah "Never Forgive A Slight" White. His latest video is hysterically funny! Check it out, before he revises or deletes it:


This video speaks for itself. In order to convince people that his work is "peer reviewed," he showed a photo of a scientist with his face blacked out, implying that it was censored because the reviewer wanted to remain anonymous. Someone identified the photo as being a (presumably) stock photo taken from a webpage. Any normal human being would would apologize, or at least ignore the exposure. Not Jarrah. Jarrah has to claw back spewing venom. First, he rationalizes the lie, by citing an "e-mail" wherein he claims it's just a "visual aid."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc4f3228ddfc.jpg[/atsimg]

Visual aid? Are Jarrah's supporters such morons they need a visual aid? The photo was clearly intended to convey the completely false impression that Jarrah's videos are being screened by an anonymous scientist. Utter fabrication. If you read the part of the e-mail that Jarrah quickly blocked out, you will read this remarkable and revealing passage:

Look, despite what you said, I still feel it necessary to at least mention the fact that my films are proofread. Like I said, false claims that my films have not been approved under peer review are libalous [sic] and are damaging to my reputation.

[italics mine --DJW001]

In other words, Jarrah does not understand what the peer review process is. It is not proofreading; it is a process wherein qualified colleagues confirm that the experimental design is sound, the data accurate and the interpretation reasonable. If possible, the peer review board will attempt to duplicate the results. It is not having one of your mates watch your video and say: "cool." Not content with merely flaunting his ignorance, Jarrah is so petty and narcissistic he cannot suppress the urge to go on the attack. He spews venom at his critic and attacks his credentials:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a1a2cdab0e8.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/264275acb30d.jpg[/atsimg]

Apparently, Jarrah thinks that styling one's self "BSc, PhD" is proof that one is a fraud. If Jarrah had ever actually opened one of those books he uses at set dressing, he would know that is the proper British custom! Remember, the UK is a society where no one raises an eyebrow at monickers like "Admiral Sir Nelson Spiggott, RNVR, OBE, CMG, FRAS (Hon.). But does he leave it there? If he had just claimed he believed the titles were bogus, he might have been able to weasel out of this one, but he goes on:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b615bb032f56.jpg[/atsimg]

No, it's not... idiot.

reply to post by FoosM


"Hello, hello....is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me......"

Can you offer any examples please.

Huh?? Posted.

Just answer the question Weed if you want to participate.

OH, so you're the arbiter, now, of who may, or may not "participate"?? The response in your (what seems to be preferred) format, i.e. visually, has been presented. It speaks for itself, my typing out more reams of text won't add much to it.

VIDEO, made by YouTube user "AstroBrant2" (I highly, highly recommend ALL of his extremely informative videos.

Oh, and YES!! He does have several that specifically address that silly boy, "Jarrah White", and his idiotic claims and videos.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

"Hello, hello....is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me......"

Can you offer any examples please.

Huh?? Posted

.

Directed to DJ before I went to your post.
And still directed to DJ unless you are DJ with another account?

Just answer the question Weed if you want to participate.

OH, so you're the arbiter, now, of who may, or may not "participate"?? The response in your (what seems to be preferred) format, i.e. visually, has been presented. It speaks for itself, my typing out more reams of text won't add much to it.

To answer the question does not require reams of text.
Its either, smaller, bigger or no change.
Make a choice. Stick your neck out, dont let Astrobrant speak for you, unless you are Astrobrant too (See what I did there, lol)

reply to post by FoosM


The reason I asked the questions Foosm was the simple fact that although it was obvious on the Astronaut and lunar rover photo that they were not on level ground you drew lines trying to make out they were.

As the distance to the SM was 10km as stated by Phage there would not be a great change in size unless some other factor was change thats why I asked about the lens used ,direction, terrain etc.

reply to post by FoosM

Directed to DJ before I went to your post.
And still directed to DJ unless you are DJ with another account?

As usual, I'm not sure I understand what it is you don't understand, understand?

Originally posted by DJW001
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who remembers that this thread is about that "Young Aussie Genius," Jarrah "Never Forgive A Slight" White. His latest video is hysterically funny! Check it out, before he revises or deletes it:

This whole series was posted by me not too long ago.
You are late.

This video speaks for itself. In order to convince people that his work is "peer reviewed," he showed a photo of a scientist with his face blacked out, implying that it was censored because the reviewer wanted to remain anonymous.

Ummm.... anybody with common sense could figure out he used it as a visual aid prior to him having to explain it to any idiots who watched his videos thinking they caught him in a lie.
Such silly point to bring up, really.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

The reason I asked the questions Foosm was the simple fact that although it was obvious on the Astronaut and lunar rover photo that they were not on level ground you drew lines trying to make out they were.

If you dont think the ground was level, you didnt provide any evidence to support it.
The wheels of the Rover and the feet of the astronaut are/were pretty much inline.
Can you point out where they are not?

As the distance to the SM was 10km as stated by Phage there would not be a great change in size unless some other factor was change thats why I asked about the lens used ,direction, terrain etc.

Ok, well throw in a change. How would adding another lens affect the size of the Massif in the picture?
What if the astronaut stood as close to his LM as possible to and used a 500mm lens vs him standing 3 to 4 kilometers away using a 500mm lens?

How would the Massif look in relation to the LM in the picture with 500mm compared to the 60mm?

reply to post by FoosM

Ummm.... anybody with common sense could figure out he used it as a visual aid prior to him having to explain it to any idiots who watched his videos thinking they caught him in a lie.
Such silly point to bring up, really.

Why did he use it as a "visual aid?" What was he aiding? The impression that his videos are peer reviewed, His e-mail proves they are not, they are merely "proofread." What's more, the video in question was not proof-read very effectively or his "peer" would have spotted his howling error.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Ummm.... anybody with common sense could figure out he used it as a visual aid prior to him having to explain it to any idiots who watched his videos thinking they caught him in a lie.
Such silly point to bring up, really.

Why did he use it as a "visual aid?" What was he aiding?

His voice over.
I guess if you never made a documentary yourself you wouldnt understand that.
Its not fun for a viewer to watch a black screen while somebody is narrating.