Quote:
Originally Posted by eburacum45
You don't care that the story has been thoroughly debunked? If it has debunked that seems to expose the whole story a bunk.
No, they don't, not completely. Some craters are in the wrong place, and others are completely absent from the original. For instance the crater ringed in pink, and the uppermost crater ringed in yellow are very different in each photo. Obviously a fake. But thanks for the comparison photos, they show quite nicely that the faked images are not perfect.
|
You must have given them a cursury exam. The differences are due to shift in viewing angle as expected in a three dimensional object. The difference in shadow angles makes some features show up better in metrics and not in A15. Some better in A15 and not in metrics for same reason. Yet the correlation between them is clearly visible.
Shifts in perspective and shadow angle should have expected differences.
Remember the face on mars? Trick of illusion in shadow and light. Took photos from another perspective to prove the idiots wrong.
The features showing up in all 4 photos are consistant with such shadow and light play. The A15 has slight random pattern from film grain. The A15 has flattening of landscape from large focal lenght lens effect.
The metrics lose detail because they are low res scans of high res image.
Many years of experiance with photo editing so know what I see. Seeking source of original photos could prove these were edited. Seeking the truth here not on a campaign to prove anything either way.
Thought someone here might know where to find such metrics. Originals end debate either way.
I could easily fake the metrics from originals. I could easily fake them if creating pure fantesy. Not so easy to do and keep authentic match to A15 detail. Have worked on movie projects so know this from years of experiance.