Yes - NASA did go to the moon
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: The Moon Hoax
Give this idiot his own thread where he can attempt to convince the gullible few that man went to the moon. The stuff he has already posted in a premeditated attempt to break the flow of this thread should be moved to the derailing room.
Re: The Moon Hoax
And how convenient that it failed, eh? http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/humanexplore/e ... t1/LSG.htmstevenp6 wrote: Lunar Surface Gravimeter - This experiment was part of the ALSEP package on Apollo 17 and was intended to make highly accurate measurements of how the Moon's gravity varied with time. The primary purpose of this experiment was to search for gravity waves, which are predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. In addition, these measurements would have contributed to studies of lunar seismology and of tidal deformation of the Moon. It was designed to measure lunar gravity to one part in several billion – ...
Yes, this one can't even muster a half-arsed attempt at logic, so it's not even a "useful idiot"SmokingGunII wrote:Give this idiot his own thread where he can attempt to convince the gullible few that man went to the moon. The stuff he has already posted in a premeditated attempt to break the flow of this thread should be moved to the derailing room.
Re: The Moon Hoax
What's the matter Smoking Gun - frightened of somebody who knows and understands science rather than made up baloney?
Please explain how I am an idiot in your eyes.
I simply asked you guys to write down your 3 most important reasons that you believe men did not walk on the moon. Why is so hard for you?
I would expect a reply such as...
Point 1 - Brief summary of point
Point 2 - etc
Point 3 - etc
Why is it that you guys are incapable of writing down in plain language your main points?
If you did that we could go through them and discuss.
What is the problem?
Please explain how I am an idiot in your eyes.
I simply asked you guys to write down your 3 most important reasons that you believe men did not walk on the moon. Why is so hard for you?
I would expect a reply such as...
Point 1 - Brief summary of point
Point 2 - etc
Point 3 - etc
Why is it that you guys are incapable of writing down in plain language your main points?
If you did that we could go through them and discuss.
What is the problem?
Re: The Moon Hoax
Yes Maat the Lunar Gravitimeter did fail - well spotted. How does this change anything? Are you suggesting that they should have thrown rocks about instead? Not everything went according to plan.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Maat said
That's completely nuts.
You are honestly telling me that you think both the hammer and feather were attached to fishing lines that were then somehow let down gently to both reach the ground at the same time and stimulate lunar gravity?I really love the hesitant wobble on the hammer handle as it's laid down carefully with its fishing line after landing — and the bounce flip of the "feather" (looking more like a piece of metal or plastic )
That's completely nuts.
Re: The Moon Hoax
stevenp6 wrote:Your point being exactly?brianv said
Slither and slide and you don't know why "we went to the moon".
Is there a point?Man's greatest achivement indeed! How about the wheel? Something completely practical and in use every day in trillions of applications.
It can be scientifically proven that you need a telescope over 100m to see something about 4m across on the lunar surface. its all about optics and angular resolution, something that you'd know nothing about or you wouldn't make such a stupid remark. Have you guys ever opened a science book or do you make things up as you go long?p6, you say you are a physicist, you have got access to a powerful telescope? Can you upload some photos of the lunar landing sites taken by your good self?
What was the point in going to the Moon? Did it have some purpose other than the ability to say "we went to the moon".
Re: The Moon Hoax
Stevenp6,
Firstly, you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that since you came here claiming to "know" science and how we are "wrong", that the burden of proof is on you.
If you really read all 63 pages of this thread then you should be quite capable of finding what you claim to be able to "educate" us about. We're still waiting.
But apparently your problem is comprehension (as well as spelling), by this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmLWGExPX6U
@ http://youtu.be/KDp1tiUsZw8
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdr_gj20Gc4
Firstly, you seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that since you came here claiming to "know" science and how we are "wrong", that the burden of proof is on you.
If you really read all 63 pages of this thread then you should be quite capable of finding what you claim to be able to "educate" us about. We're still waiting.
But apparently your problem is comprehension (as well as spelling), by this:
I suggest you read what I actually said again, carefully, and watch the 1st video I posted before making a bigger ass of yourself, i.e.stevenp6 wrote:You are honestly telling me that you think both the hammer and feather were attached to fishing lines that were then somehow let down gently to both reach the ground at the same time and stimulate lunar gravity?Maat wrote: I really love the hesitant wobble on the hammer handle as it's laid down carefully with its fishing line after landing — and the bounce flip of the "feather" (looking more like a piece of metal or plastic )
That's completely nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmLWGExPX6U
@ http://youtu.be/KDp1tiUsZw8
How funny then that they would throw a hammer away from the camera at a distance no one can see, instead of across the view field (to left or right of screen) so we would see how far it really went. Brilliantstevep6 wrote:Yes Maat the Lunar Gravitimeter [sic] did fail - well spotted. How does this change anything? Are you suggesting that they should have thrown rocks about instead? Not everything went according to plan.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdr_gj20Gc4
Re: The Moon Hoax
Right, so if it can be faked then it must have been faked - is that how it works?
The throwing hammer video - two guys a quarter a million miles from home in spacesuits. Oh dear they couldn't get the camera angle and field of view you wanted. What a shame. They weren't even trying to prove they were on the moon. Perhaps if they were in a film studio they would have faked it perfectly to your liking?
Still you guys seem afraid to name your 3 most important points. Why is that I wonder? Scared your delusions will crumble into moon dust?
I do not intend to argue every silly point or crappy you tube video you throw around - give me your 3 best points and I'll shoot them down big time.
The throwing hammer video - two guys a quarter a million miles from home in spacesuits. Oh dear they couldn't get the camera angle and field of view you wanted. What a shame. They weren't even trying to prove they were on the moon. Perhaps if they were in a film studio they would have faked it perfectly to your liking?
Still you guys seem afraid to name your 3 most important points. Why is that I wonder? Scared your delusions will crumble into moon dust?
I do not intend to argue every silly point or crappy you tube video you throw around - give me your 3 best points and I'll shoot them down big time.
Re: The Moon Hoax
I notice that you evaded my question!stevenp6 wrote:Right, so if it can be faked then it must have been faked - is that how it works?
The throwing hammer video - two guys a quarter a million miles from home in spacesuits. Oh dear they couldn't get the camera angle and field of view you wanted. What a shame. They weren't even trying to prove they were on the moon. Perhaps if they were in a film studio they would have faked it perfectly to your liking?
Still you guys seem afraid to name your 3 most important points. Why is that I wonder? Scared your delusions will crumble into moon dust?
I do not intend to argue every silly point or crappy you tube video you throw around - give me your 3 best points and I'll shoot them down big time.
I will re-state. What was the point in going to the Moon? Did it have some purpose other than the ability to say "we went to the moon".
I have a thousand more questions, but I'm not giving you any room to slither!
Re: The Moon Hoax
Honesty brianv I am not interested in the question. It’s pointless and I have no view on why they went - just glad they did - it was an amazing feat. They went and that’s the end of the matter. I gave you some possibilities earlier. If you are trying to trap me into some political argument – well sorry I’m not interested. I’m solely fascinated in the science behind the landings, not your conspiracy paranoia.
Anyway, I asked my question first.
Anyway, I asked my question first.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Sorry, so far you have not proved anything; rather the opposite. But I am a nice, generous guy and offers anybody € 1 000 000:- to show that small tops C of any structure can crush the structure A below that carried the top C initially ... on Earth or Moon or anywhere ... you decide. Visit http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm for details. You seem to be a genious! Have a go!stevenp6 wrote: What facts would you like me to produce? – Want me to prove you an idiot again?
Re: The Moon Hoax
Thought it wouldn't be long before some nutter brought 9/11 into it.
Re: The Moon Hoax
What scientific advancement has been made as the result of the Moon landings? Where is the low grav/zero athmosphere Lunar Telescope for instance? Where is the Lunar Base after seven visits? Where is the Stepping Stone to Mars? Where is the giant Coke advert visible from earth? If the "Septics" went there, that, I'm sure, would be a major priority!stevenp6 wrote:Honesty brianv I am not interested in the question. It’s pointless and I have no view on why they went - just glad they did - it was an amazing feat. They went and that’s the end of the matter. I gave you some possibilities earlier. If you are trying to trap me into some political argument – well sorry I’m not interested. I’m solely fascinated in the science behind the landings, not your conspiracy paranoia.
Anyway, I asked my question first.
Re: The Moon Hoax
No, same idiot as before according to your language. Did your mother bring you up like that? Or father? Or you were found in some dump and brought up by nuns or monks? You seem to lack ... education.stevenp6 wrote:Thought it wouldn't be long before some nutter brought 9/11 into it.
-
- Member
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
(full credit http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm)stevenp6 wrote:
Anyway, I asked my question first.
[quote= "OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine"]
Photographs taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo missions are regarded as the most compelling pieces of evidence that mankind went to the Moon.
The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.
The word parallax derives from the Greek parallaxis meaning "alteration" where parallax is the difference in the apparent position of objects caused by shifting camera position. To achieve such a result, images are overlapped and are deducted/subtracted from each other using the function "difference" in an image processing application such as Photoshop®. Optical transformations are used when images are subtracted. During image convergence simple operations are applied: x and y axis scaling, rotation and distortion plus two additional processes: perspective and shift.
Such processes are referred to below as "optical transformations". Objects further than two kilometres distant, with a minor camera shift, have zero parallax.
Using Photoshop® the sequence of steps deployed is as follows:
If any given image was taken inside a pavilion or dome with a panoramic background, i.e. when there are no distant objects with null parallax, then such a 2-dimensional object can be detected among any 3D bodies. In the case of such a finding, reaching the conclusion that there was deception could be stated with confidence.Fig. 1. A stereoscopic image or ‘wiggle’ stereoscopy. GIF-animation allows the creation of a crude sense of dimensionality, even with monocular vision. Stereoscopic imagery can also determine the relative position of objects in space and enable judgment of their remoteness. Image Wikipedia
>>>>
Images are processed in a GIF-animator to obtain a stereoscopic image:
Fig. 4. Stereoscopic image of the Zmievskaya power plant.
It is now possible to measure the parallax and the distance to all remote objects. The distance La to any
object A, is calculated as follows:
Knowing the distance to the front edge: 5 m, and the front edge offset: 85 mm (can be measured by a ruler, the two white grasses), plus the offset of the nearest electric pylon, about 1.2 mm. From the proportions ratio the distance to the nearer pylon is acquired, namely 350 metres; to the second pylon with the parallax of 0.6 mm is 700 metres. Distance to the trees (offset is about 0.2 mm) is close to 2 kms – at the boundary of parallax occurrence.
Conclusion: These simple image transformation operations preserve perspective proportions.
(BUT BY COMPARISON, FROM THE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD)
>>>>
Similarly, as in the case of examining the parallax of the Apollo lunar surface images – where, according to NASA maps of the landing sites, the distance to the mountain background should be more than 5 kms – evidence of stereoscopic imagery is expected. If such evidence is absent, the image cannot have been taken in the stated environment, such a image must have been created elsewhere in a studio.
Having looked at stereoscopic parallax in images of terrestrial objects, some Apollo images are studied from the photographic record.
>>>>
Nearby objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim are shifting relative to each other. The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. (Moreover, the shadow is changing on the mountains and the crater.) This finding indicates that it is less than 300 metres to the background (the ‘mountains’) instead of 5 kilometres!Fig. 7. The subtraction of the two photos after the transformations of scaling, rotation, and distortion is shown on the left. The right image shows the parallax achieved after merging the two frames.
Therefore, with such a small alteration to the camera position in Dave's hands (several tens of centimetres), the mountains should not move, they should remain static (zero parallax).
In addition, the Apollo 15 stereoscopic photos feature a clear separation line between the ‘mountains’ and the foreground. Based on the distance between the camera and rover, the distance to the panorama of the ‘lunar’ scape cannot be more than 150 metres.
Conclusion: It is very probable that these images were taken on Earth in a studio stage.
>>>>
Distortion grid of background lunarscape
The remote terrain in a stereoscopic pair of images can be converged precisely with each other. To do so it is necessary to go beyond the optical transformations applied to the image as a whole and introduce digital distortion to the sections of the image.
This method can determine the nature of simulation of any background 'land'scape i.e. build a distortion grid and inspect it. Obviously, if the distortion grid has a curved surface, then it corresponds to projection at the rear onto a circular panorama screen, creating a simulation of a remote background scape on the projection screen. Instead of taking pictures in a remote lunarscape the ‘astronauts’ take pictures of a foreground with the background projected onto a screen.
The radius of the circular panorama can be roughly estimated by a distortion grid.
Fig. 19 below shows the distortion grid. A million pixels were involved in the transformation of these two images. In mathematical terms this is a system of a million equations solved with sub pixel accuracy.
Fig. 19. Digital distortion grid of background objects in AS15-85-11423 after optical transformations converging with AS15-85-11424.
>>>>Fig. 20. Illustrates the logic and simplicity of a simulated Apollo lunar surface panorama.
The grid represents the projection screen which surrounded the Apollo simulation studio.
Study Conclusion
Professor of University of California G. Schiller has noted: "To be successful, manipulation should remain invisible. The success of the manipulation is guaranteed when the manipulated believe that everything happens naturally and inevitably. In short, manipulation requires a false reality in which its presence will not be felt". Very often this false reality is amplified by the media.
In the convergence of these Apollo 15 pictures, more than a million equations (the number of pixels in the images) were calculated obeying the laws of optics. In order to obtain a zero stereoscopic effect for a remote landscape, typical distortion grids were generated around the photographic session sites.
Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.
The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:
the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
than a few hundred metres;
the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections.
Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.
These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.
Dr Oleg Oleynik
English translation from the Russian by BigPhil
Aulis Online, April 2012
[/quote]
ALL VIEWABLE IN FULL AT http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
.....................................................................................................................................................
Do you have any initial response to this proposition by analysis, stevenp6? Any immediate counter-interpretation?
Although I personally am not a CPhys, I have a number of friends that are. A few of them (those that can be trusted to listen to what is being said, not just dismiss it out of hand) have real problems with much of the Apollo imagery. When faced with reasoned analyses such as Oleynik's, at least one of them's been tempted to adopt a fallback position, along the lines of "well, perhaps some of the imagery was re-shot on earth. Research funding is vital to maintain...and if the guys back then had to do a little re-working of the data in order to keep-up the momentum of their programme...can you blame them? NASA, EPSRC, it's alway hard to get funding, and harder to keep it ".
At this point, my temptation to say falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is very strong. Perhaps you might at least agree why I would feel this to be the case.
From my perspective....parallax, and all that
So you may think we're waiting for the line judge to call: but for now, it's new balls, and it's your serve...
ps after this, maybe you can teach us about HEP, here on Clues. I'm a very keen student. But perhaps a bit over-analytical...