This site http://mypage.direct.ca/b/bohn/moonshot

has some great everyday photo recreations of many of the photographic anomalies from the site you all have been discussing. Particularly the Alan Shepard pic with the ostensibly diverging shadows. Cig, you should take a look.

Here's one more for you. The two Apollo 15 shots where the background mountain seems to move. Well, I found hi-res versions of the same photos, simply took the first one and rotated it 10° clockwise, and put them side by side just like the example on that page (after shrinking them a bit, of course [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]).



So, what do you think now?

(Added
I feel the need to clarify my post a bit. I think my exercise shows that the background in both photos is really the same, as it should be, but it's really the foreground objects that have shifted. In this case it is pretty obvious that the second photo was taken from a position a couple of meters to the left and farther away than the first photo. This movement was enough to shift the perspective compared to the background, but not enough to see a very noticable difference in the objects themselves. If you look closely however you can see that there are a few subtle differences. The flag is a bit shorter than before, for example.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(fixed format & added part)</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-11-22 06:17 ]</font>

I think you have powers beyond reason!

Seriously, I need to learn photoshop.

Yes, exactly: Jay and others have seen twinkies claim problems with photos X, Y, and Z, and they have addressed photos X, Y, and Z. Should they be expected to have addressed photo W as well? I mean, there are thousands of photos out there and probably hundreds with quirks that require some thought. You can't cover all of them individually - you'd think a representative sample would be enough.

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-11-22 12:12 ]</font>

Furthermore, it is very difficult for trained engineers/photographers/astronomers/etc. to debunk HB claims that have not yet been made because to a knowledgable person no anomalies appear. Everything works out just as it should, when one looks at the evidence with a properly trained eye.

Clearly, we need to develop untrained eyes! Then we should go through all the ALSJ photos so we can pre-debunk all future HP claims. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Oops, I'll get right on that. hehe

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

Well said. An excellent point by point analysis.

I sympathize with your frustration. I've been traveling, and normally I would respond in detail and in depth to your concerns.

The problem Infocusinc notices -- and it's a very relevant problem -- is that hoax believers try to inundate their readers with a sheer volume of evidence. This is so that the debunker can never get to all of it, and the hoax believer can say, "All this evidence must mean something." It's a calculated tactic, and it's very common in polemical pseudoscience.

But in fact many of these hoax believer arguments do fall into categories of phenomena, or at least categories of misunderstanding. And so by simply noting that the hoax believer doesn't understand, say, parallax, an entire category of alleged evidence can be dealt with in a single rebuttal. And that's perfectly valid. The same mistake made twenty-eight times doesn't have to be corrected twenty-eight times.

Unfortunately many of the readers themselves don't understand the phenomenon being described either, and so they don't understand just how and why the rebuttal is effective. This gives rise to sites such as the one you refer to, which claim the answers from debunkers are unsatisfying and there remains additional unaddressed data.

Parallax, for example, cuts both ways. It can appear to show a very similar background with radically different foregrounds. Or it can appear to show a similar foreground with very different backgrounds. This principle has been used by magicians for years to make things like the Statue of Liberty disappear.

I certainly don't want to appear smug. The old joke goes, "Those people who think they know everything are terribly annoying to those of us who do." It's terribly difficult to separate the appearance of arrogance from the legitimate claim to a more complete understanding of the physical world. Most of us here work in professions where our livelihood depends on knowing about the physical world in ways and to an extent that general public doesn't need and therefore doesn't care to acquire.

The two Apollo 15 shots where the background mountain seems to move. Well, I found hi-res versions of the same photos, simply took the first one and rotated it 10° clockwise

John Witts made an excellent superimposed composite of these photos, with guide lines, about a year ago. I hope he still has it available.

Hoax believers use the astronauts as a registration reference. By aligning the astronauts, they attempt to show a vast difference in the background. They fail, generally, to note that nothing much else lines up in the photo as well.

Photogrammetric registration requires a high degree of coherence in order to be useful. If they had done as John did -- use the flagpole, LM struts, and other fixedfeatures as registration references -- they would have seen that the mountain ridgeline corresponds almost exactly, and that the only point of inconsistency is the posture of the astronaut.

John Witts made an excellent superimposed composite of these photos, with guide lines, about a year ago. I hope he still has it available.

Somewhere... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

You guys have all been great. Thanks for the help.

OK, I found the pic. Now, how do I post it? I don't have a website, so I can't link to it. Don't you already have it Jay? Didn't I send it you for Clavius? If not, do you want it, to post at Clavius and to post here for the cigman? Let me know...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-11-22 18:28 ]</font>

John-

If it's under 3MB, then send it to me at fbrj_q@yahoo.com .

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-11-22 18:40 ]</font>

IanR, there's a couple of images on their way to you right now. Thanks for the help. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

<center></center>


<center>

CLICK ON THE IMAGES ABOVE TO OPEN THE FULL-SIZE VERSIONS</center>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-11-22 20:36 ]</font>

That's much better.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-11-22 19:48 ]</font>

LMAO Ian R. Yes, those pictures ARE huge LOL. I reduced them and they can be found here http://www.geocities.com/cigaretterepairman/witts.html Feel free to replace your large ones. The pictures are good BTW.

Edited to add this: The LMAO that I typed here is in response to Ian R's first post after he posted the pictures (which surprised him by being like 2000x2000 resolution) when he said "HOLY HECK!!!, those pictures are huge..." or something to that effect. He has removed that post. He should have left it, it was hilarious IMO.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-22 19:56 ]</font>

Hey thanks CR - I'll change the HTML link to your smaller version.

There they are...Thanks Ian.

BTW, leave the biggies in, or at least links. It takes some serious zooming in Paint Shop Pro to get the edges to match, and they do match, to a high degree of accuracy. Honestly folks, it's well worth the wait of the download...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-11-22 19:59 ]</font>

Not working too well now is it?

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Remember the links to the biggies???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-11-22 20:05 ]</font>

CR, I have a feeling that Geocities restrict direct access to images stored on their servers. Fortunately, Homestead is a much better place to store images (if you want to display them on public forums, that is).

Thanks for your help, anyway.

-*-

EDIT: Hehehe, the big pictures caught me unawares - I guess I should have checked the JPEGs that John sent me before I pasted the links into this thread. Got there in the end, though (with a little help from Paint Shop Pro).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-11-22 20:49 ]</font>

I believe you are right. I put the images in a post and they worked at first and then they didn't. So I deleted the post. Oh well, what can you expect for free? lol. If it wasn't for the gaping security holes in IIS I would host them on my Win 2k server machine. Maybe I should install Apache B-)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cigarette_repairman on 2002-11-22 20:49 ]</font>

Sorted. Thanks guys.

Jay, feel free to borrow these for Clavius.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-11-22 20:49 ]</font>

CR-

Homestead's a free service too - it's only 8MB of space, but it gets the job done.

-*-

John-

I'll keep those two images of yours on my server indefinitely, so hold onto the URLs in case you want to use them at a different forum.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-11-22 20:55 ]</font>

That sounds good, I'll look into that.

g99 said:
Now hold on. What is your justification for calling cigarrette_repairman a hoax believer? He didn't say that is his web page. He didn't say those are his arguments. He didn't say he believed the web page. He just asked for us to supply answers to the questions so he would know the answers. That does not make him a hoax believer, just someone who sees their arguments and is looking to for the explanations that the HB didn't provide. We wouldn't let an HB get away with jumping to conclusions like that, and it reflects badly on us to go accusing everyone who asks a question of being an HB. So put up or shut up.

cigarrette_repairman, I do agree you've been polite and well behaved. Sorry others have felt they have done those questions to death. But since I missed it, too, I don't think they've been done to death.

Regarding Allan Shepard's shadow, there's another point to consider. A human is a lot smaller than the LM, whereas the rocks are in the near foreground while the Shepard is in the distance. That makes his shadow a lot harder to see just because of distance. Then consider that if the terrain is rough, there could be a rise between the camera and Shepard. That would obscure some or all of the shadow while leaving Shepard in view. In fact, one of the other new pages uses that very picture to show how the LM may have part of its shadow obscured by the terrain.
http://mypage.direct.ca/b/bohn/moonshot/shadows2.htm

[quote]4: Why the 2 opposite effects of same foreground, different background as compared to same background different foreground? to explain one effect disputes the other effect it seems. [/quote[

Because the movement of the astronaut was different. The first example, the one that Ian Goddard demonstrates, is a linear translation. If you point the camera at a distant mountain with a near object, then move 50 feet to the side and point the camera at the same mountain, they will look very similar but with different foregrounds. However, the second example, the one on this new page, is a rotational translation. When the astronaut moves 50 feet to the side and keeps the same distance from the LM, then turns and points the camera at the LM instead of at the background mountain. Now the nearground and object look somewhat similar, while the background looks very different.

You can tell this is what is happening because if you look more closely, the near objects don't look quite the same. Notice the distance between the flag and the LM changes, and the amount of the flag face visible to the camera changes. That should be a big visual clue that something is different - the camera is in a different place. Also notice the LM looks somewhat different. A close inspection shows it is seen from a different position. You can see this in all three sets of his pictures, though the third set is a little more difficult because the LM is so small and there are no other near objects.

Irishman, rotational vs. linear...that makes a lot of sense. In fact, I was starting to come to that conclusion today while I was sitting in the parking lot of my school looking at some distant mountains. Thanks for the explanation, it is a good one.

As for being called a "hoax believer"...I am not offended easily. I am new to this board and no one knows me. I make a lot of first impression type conclusions about people that sometimes turn out to be wrong or they may turn out to be right. I think that everyone does.

After looking through some of the older posts on this board I have been very surprised to see the amount of credentials here all gathered in one place. The thing I miss most about being in school was instant access to people with incredible knowledge. From my 5th grade teacher who taught me Chess to my freshman Earth Science teacher. There were so many people that could field nearly any question that could be asked. The school I am in now is computer specific so questions about astronomy or other sciences are not likely to get much of a response. This forum is a great resource.

I should have brought this up earlier. Here is the site for which I am the webmaster:

http://www.clavius.org/

I hope it can answer some of your questions.

If i ofended you i really do apologize. Sorry!! I did not mean it in a negative way at all (shown by my saying that you are the most polite, ect....). I take back what i said. I am not ashamed to say i am wrong. I am wrong often. It only makes me smarter.

I am glad you are asking questions. One of my favorite quotes (other than "The chickens is coming!!!" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] (grammar mistake intended)) is "if you don't ask questions, who will?" I will always keep on asking and learning, you should too.

Keep up the good work.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

G99, no sir, you did not offend me at all. Your comment was clearly a positive one and that is the way it was received.