Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


I'm not sure what you're hoping to show by doing that. You're overlaying two photos, taken and different focal lengths, different viewing angles, etc... do you really expect to be able to overlay them accurately like that?

And yes the surface isn't very flat. In that Apollo 11 photo you use, the area where the shadow falls is on a small rise, you can't see the distant horizon anywhere in that photo.

link to high res version: AS11-40-5931

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by FoosM

 

I'm not sure what you're hoping to show by doing that. You're overlaying two photos, taken and different focal lengths, different viewing angles, etc... do you really expect to be able to overlay them accurately like that?

And yes the surface isn't very flat. In that Apollo 11 photo you use, the area where the shadow falls is on a small rise, you can't see the distant horizon anywhere in that photo.

link to high res version: AS11-40-5931

Ahhh yes, a small rise explains it.
So the best thing to do is walk AWAY from the LM to see the horizon better behind the LM.
That makes sense!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1390d360a6b7.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b232618965df.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7361541e0ea2.gif[/atsimg]

wow did not see that before... when studying the horizon if find:


img221.imageshack.us...


img411.imageshack.us...

reply to post by FoosM


[QUOTE]Yeah... miles of dead undulating ground [/QUOTE]

sigh - more utter dishonesty - is this tactic the key to your entire " argument " ?

why dont you stick with the topic instead of grabbing a random shot from the ether ?

please go back to :

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and then review the 5 images precceding and following that one

then for the killer jump to :

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and compare it to

www.hq.nasa.gov...

still persistant in your " backdrops " fantasy ???????

reply to post by FoosM


Apollo Image Atlas ... AS11-40-5854
It is now NASA's responsibility to explain this anomaly in a 25-page report.

Originally posted by FoosM
wow did not see that before... when studying the horizon if find:

img221.imageshack.us...


img411.imageshack.us...

Are you kidding? That looks more like an artifact from developing and not an actual object on the Moon.

Ahhh yes, a small rise explains it.
So the best thing to do is walk AWAY from the LM to see the horizon better behind the LM.
That makes sense!

Sure it does, if you're going to higher ground. There are also photos taken from inside the LM, looking out the windows and you can see the horizon further away.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM

 

[QUOTE]Yeah... miles of dead undulating ground [/QUOTE]

sigh - more utter dishonesty - is this tactic the key to your entire " argument " ?

why dont you stick with the topic instead of grabbing a random shot from the ether ?

please go back to :

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and then review the 5 images precceding and following that one

then for the killer jump to :

www.hq.nasa.gov...

and compare it to

www.hq.nasa.gov...

still persistant in your " backdrops " fantasy ???????

Oh dear....

I dont know how old you are, but I gather you probably have seen blockbuster films and their sequels.
What usually happens with sequels? Bigger, badder, and hopefully better.
You cant compare Apollo 15 special effects to Apollo 11.
Every subsequent Apollo mission tried to push the envelope in special effects and incredulity.

But lets examine the photos you supplied:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/111a07a5bf05.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e27e2f4ce66d.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e89b0c5c9ea9.gif[/atsimg]

All show the hallmark a definitive split between the foreground & background.
This means it could have easily been created with various different tricks:



I mean, I dont suppose these guys are really on the moon right?

Originally posted by jra

Ahhh yes, a small rise explains it.
So the best thing to do is walk AWAY from the LM to see the horizon better behind the LM.
That makes sense!

Sure it does, if you're going to higher ground.

If you can show he was going to higher ground!

As far as I recall, Apollo 11 landing site was pretty much flat and level.

You can see this with the pans:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1800ad6a1526.gif[/atsimg]
moonpans.com...

Yeah man, that horizon goes on forever!
You know whats funny though.
I recall Armstrong talking about how he saw hills in the background.
What hills?

To all the Moon landing believers, I don't have a problem if you believe their lies, you can believe whatever you want. I'm only explaining what I'm seeing from examining Apollo images. I was willing to accept the idea that we went to the Moon, I think it would be cool, but unfortunately when you look at the pictures, you see how fake it is. Whoever lands on the Moon in the future will be the first, assuming they don't also fake it.

Although I have seen a few pictures that seem to show some continuity between the foreground and background, most do not show continuity, but what rather appears to be a wallpaper/background prop. I can link to a thousand such images over and over but some people apparently refuse to recognize what they are seeing.

I ask you to examine these photos and look at the difference between the background and the foreground. Look at how there are rocks on the surface but no rocks once you get to the background. It is important that these images are more widely known, so people can know about the lie they've been sold for decades.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by FoosM

 

Apollo Image Atlas ... AS11-40-5854
It is now NASA's responsibility to explain this anomaly in a 25-page report.

Looks like they managed to get a whole alien out of it on ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by FoosM


Oh dear. Not the front projection riff again. I think you watch too much TV. Here, let's go back a few hundred pages and see how this gambit usually turns out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Mercurio

I ask you to examine these photos and look at the difference between the background and the foreground. Look at how there are rocks on the surface but no rocks once you get to the background. It is important that these images are more widely known, so people can know about the lie they've been sold for decades.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4942c402890.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio

 

I ask you to examine these photos and look at the difference between the background and the foreground. Look at how there are rocks on the surface but no rocks once you get to the background. It is important that these images are more widely known, so people can know about the lie they've been sold for decades.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4942c402890.jpg[/atsimg]

Except the photos I posted are close up to the background prop. You can clearly see that the background is not a mile away, it's a few feet away. Did you even look closely at the photo? Probably not.

reply to post by Mercurio

Except the photos I posted are close up to the background prop. You can clearly see that the background is not a mile away, it's a few feet away. Did you even look closely at the photo? Probably not.

How far away is it? What are you using to determine that distance? How far away is the mountain in the photo I posted? What information are you using to determine that?

Originally posted by Mercurio
Except the photos I posted are close up to the background prop. You can clearly see that the background is not a mile away, it's a few feet away. Did you even look closely at the photo? Probably not.

What exactly your process for determining the distance in the photo?

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Mercurio
Except the photos I posted are close up to the background prop. You can clearly see that the background is not a mile away, it's a few feet away. Did you even look closely at the photo? Probably not.

What exactly your process for determining the distance in the photo?

Using my brain.
When you believe NASA, it's easy to believe that it is a hill 1000 feet away. Except it obviously isn't.


Posting this picture again. It's the closest you get to looking at the background props. Look at the shadows. Unless you get smaller and smaller as you walk closer, there is no way that it is at a far distance. It is a background prop, on a soundstage.

reply to post by DJW001


reply to post by jra


he has no idea - and is just making it up

he has to claim that " the bacground is close " inorder to sustain his delusion

he doesnt look at the pics that show perspective and scale

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by DJW001

 

reply to post by jra

 

he has no idea - and is just making it up

he has to claim that " the bacground is close " inorder to sustain his delusion

he doesnt look at the pics that show perspective and scale

Whatever. I'm done arguing. You can go back to hassling everyone else that doesn't worship NASA, I'm no longer going to entertain YOUR delusion.

Originally posted by Mercurio
Using my brain.
When you believe NASA, it's easy to believe that it is a hill 1000 feet away. Except it obviously isn't.

Not an acceptable answer. How do you determine the distance in a 2d image like this? especially one photographed in an environment with no atmosphere, so there's no atmospheric perspective. Or any familiar objects to judge scale from.

Now how do I judge the distance? I compare the photos to satellite and topographical maps as well as to 3d terrain data of the area. And this data doesn't just come from NASA, but JAXA as well. Even China and India have acquired 3d terrain data of there own. There's also the technique i showed earlier of overlaying certain images to see if there is a parallax shift. Hopefully you've read up on that by now to see why that's significant.

Posting this picture again. It's the closest you get to looking at the background props. Look at the shadows. Unless you get smaller and smaller as you walk closer, there is no way that it is at a far distance. It is a background prop, on a soundstage.

Well that photo was taken some meters away from the rim of Elbow crater. The crater itself is roughly 300m in diameter.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio

 

I ask you to examine these photos and look at the difference between the background and the foreground. Look at how there are rocks on the surface but no rocks once you get to the background. It is important that these images are more widely known, so people can know about the lie they've been sold for decades.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4942c402890.jpg[/atsimg]

Where is the foreground / background line in that photo?