The moon landing is fake.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Yant0s, Mar 28, 2019.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There is no blooming and burning of the image into the vidicon tube in the scenes we have been talking about. There is, however, blooming in other Apollo scenes where the scene is obviously overexposed but not in the scenes we were talking about.

    Yes, we can find other scenes where blooming is obvious as you did with your astronauts drilling gif. The reflection does decrease in size somewhat; but so does the entire outline of the astronaut due to obvious blooming. Even with the exposure adjustment the reflected image does not represent what the sun should look like. Why don't you address that issue?
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Enough of your bullshit! Answer the evidence properly.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The scene being discussed is where a rod passes in front of the visor and cuts the Sun completely. A mild amount of residual light remains, mainly from the astronaut proximity to the camera! You are just ************.

    Bullshit. There is blooming on every visor scene where the high intensity solar reflection overloads the video camera

    So what! WHY does the solar reflection get smaller? Less light entering the lens, less blooming on the tube.

    Bullshit. The Sun looks exactly what it should look like through the camera used and STILL you ignore the fundamental fact of what is being seen!

    On both gifs a narrow rod makes the big circular blob disappear. How can you be so dumb not to get the reason for this?

    There can be no other explanation than the width of the light, ie. its angular diameter is less than the width of the rod. Ergo we MUST be seeing a reflected image that is much wider than the actual angular diameter and it MUST be caused by light blooming. You are simply afraid to address this and are doing everything to divert away from it.

    Your trouble is that you are incapable of conceding this because it is so very fundamental to this bullshit hoax! Without the bullshit "superlight" there is no way that massive area gets lit up at night (even with it, this is still impossible!). Without an explanation for lighting you have no case. This is why you cannot honestly address the LRO traverse video, post above.

    Cowards the pair of you.
     
  4. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Congratulations! You found a good example of blooming, and it affects the entire astronaut, not just the visor image. :applause:

    visor6.gif
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Congratulations jackass, it shows blooming. What remains is the intense light from the Sun still causing it!

    Meanwhile, gif number 2. The LRV traverse video. AND the major point you keep running away from - in both gifs, a narrow rod blocks the path of the Sun to the visor.
     
  6. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I don't know what brought up the jeep/rover traverse issue - but since you did - why does the background have a lower resolution than the foreground?

    Hmmmm... must be a reason

    rover_res_a.jpg
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't. Are you an idiot?

    It's called evasion. You really are so very fearful of being wrong aren't you. So sad the pair of you.
     
  8. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Beta, once again I think you have reached conclusions that are not warranted by the facts.

    First, there is no blooming and burning of the image into the vidicon tube, at least not in this particular video sequence. There is blooming in other Apollo scenes where the scene is obviously overexposed but not in the scenes we are talking about.

    The phenomenon observed in your #2 gif is that the incident light and the reflected light ARE BOTH BLOCKED AT THE SAME TIME AND AT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANGLES! This manifests as TWO SEPARATE RODS blocking the image at the same time - and we should expect the light to be appreciably dimmed by this effect. I suspect that this effect is at least partially responsible for other instances of this anomaly.

    We can clearly observe the effect here:

    visor4.gif

    I think other instances of this anomaly are just a combination of factors such as this double blocking effect and the nature of a large studio light. The real issue to be addressed here is why the sun's reflection does not look anything like it should.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again I must point out that what you think, means nothing to me. The facts indicate exactly what I suggest and your understanding of this simple thing is indicative of your poor grasp of science.

    The two things are completely different. Blooming is caused by too much light striking the conducting material. This was proven to be the case when the camera aperture was adjusted in mid shot and the size of the reflection diminished in size. Burning is caused when the light is of sufficient intensity to leave a residual image on the conducting material.

    There is blooming of the Sun on the visor.

    Scenes overexposed merely increase blooming to other areas. When the exposure is reasonable for the suits, the sun reflection is still too high for the conductors in the tube. Your claims are horseshit.

    They are not phenomena. It is a very high light source overloading the conducting material in a vidicon tube.

    Putting this hogwash in capitals doesn't suddenly make it correct. If the incident light is blocked by the rod, there will be NO reflected light. This is what we see.

    I suggest you put your bong down and get some sort of grip. There are not two rods either manifested or otherwise. One single thin rod is able to stop incident light completely and stop full reflection! Right there is your slam dunk proof that the incident angular diameter must be less or equal to the width of the blocking object.

    Right there is proof that the small dot of the Sun is blooming on the visor.

    You have offered no "effect". Your horseshit observation is ludicrous and these are not anomalies. They are exactly what an extremely bright object looks like reflected in a visor on the Moon through a vidicon tube.

    We can clearly see a single thin rod blocking the width of the Sun and stopping all reflection. You lose.

    And more of what you "think". Keep it to yourself, it's fairly dumb.

    It looks exactly what it should look like in a vidicon tube and you have again avoided getting owned again.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The picture in post #210 shows what the reflection of the sun should look like...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...landing-is-fake.553296/page-9#post-1072160649

    ...but we still have all of those other pictures that show the too-big reflection. I'm wondering if that picture was taken later as a damage-control measure.

    edit
    ------------------------

    The background in the Apollo 12 footage looks different from the footage from the other missions. I'm wondering if that particular footage was taken outside.
    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/

    That would explain the difference in the reflection in the visors.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2020
  12. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    The real reason the flag moved...

    turkey_moon_a.jpg
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You clearly don't know the difference between actually addressing things and making idiotic comments. Glare is excessive reflected light!

    The Sun scatters across windows as it does on different surfaces. It blooms as it overloads the camera.

    All of this 100% moot, since the most salient point is that the whole reflection is blocked by a narrow rod. This proves irrefutably that the width of the Sun must be no more than the width of this rod. Case closed. We now know the scene must be lit by the Sun, only ignorant and dishonest people will fail to acknowledge this or recognise its significance.

    It's broad daylight and the sky is black. Distant mountains miles away never getting closer. Single crisp dark shadows. Checkmate - on the Moon and you know it.

    Jackass makes his regulation ad hominem. I've update my page for others to copy the details of your disturbing behaviour:-

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: A very troubled individual. (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you ignorant fool. That's what the reflection looks like through a fast shutter, perfectly exposed image on a Hasselblad camera.

    No we don't. We have pictures of varying exposure that cause too much light to enter the lens!

    There was no damage to control and all images were released to news, educational and commercial outlets soon after each mission. It's amazing the things your puny mind "wonders" about.

    There is no footage on Apollo 12 since the vidicon camera was ruined at start of mission. The images show no major differences to any other Lunar landing mission
    .
    There was no footage you ignorant layman! All the images were taken outside though, just like every other one taken. On the Moon.

    Hmmm, now let's look at the problems with this. Firstly, this jackass has taken a clear sky and used a modern software to blunder up a night sky. He compares this to a picture released in the 70s to news outlets! The picture is one of many hundreds that show items on the ground impinging onto the sky, in this case the radio dish and another item on the rover. Smoothly doing this was difficult when the internet first placed the images on line, doing this kind of thing in the 60s and 70s is a ridiculous claim. If it was daylight on Earth, atmospheric scattering would soften all the shadows significantly.

    Underneath, your website moron uses an end of roll image to compare it to a sunset. Why do you fail to see how stupid this person is? Is it because he is on a par with your own limitations?

    Perhaps the spammer would care to explain the LRV traverse footage, but this time use that unused portion of his mind that deals with honesty and integrity! Obviousoy this video checkmates you all on its own!

    Ignorant layman. The differences are caused by different camera exposures/apertures/light receiving systems/recording media and the different surfaces the light falls on.

    Here's a question for these two comedians. In this footage we see the actual source for my first gif (6 mins on), then the camera zooms about 50 metres away to Schmitt and sees a reflection on his inner visor. In this same sequence, the camera does a complete 360 degree sweep! So how the crap does this disproven "superlight" illuminate all that area!

     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  15. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    No, Beta, YOU LOSE. Anyone who carefully examines the evidence will see that I am right.

    The phenomenon observed in your #2 gif is that the incident light and the reflected light ARE BOTH BLOCKED AT THE SAME TIME AND AT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANGLES! This manifests as TWO SEPARATE RODS blocking the image at the same time - and we should expect the light to be appreciably dimmed by this effect. I suspect that this effect is at least partially responsible for other instances of this anomaly.

    The effect can clearly be seen here:

    visor4.gif


    You can clearly see the visor image through the rod and its shadow (two rods) It is not completely blocked.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are not the spokesperson for "anyone". The evidence shows a narrow rod blocking the light completely. Case closed.

    You appear to be confused here. The incident light is incoming and creates the reflected light! Or maybe you are just plain dumb.

    Quite clearly, the top of the SINGLE rod is visible on the white part of the top helmet.

    Repeating this completely ridiculous claim again doesn't suddenly make it correct. I suggest you put your bong down and get some sort of grip. There are not two rods either manifested or otherwise. One single thin rod is able to stop incident light completely and stop full reflection! Right there is your slam dunk proof that the incident angular diameter must be less or equal to the width of the blocking object.

    Right there is proof that the small dot of the Sun is blooming on the visor.

    You have offered no "effect". Your horseshit observation is ludicrous and these are not anomalies. They are exactly what an extremely bright object looks like reflected in a visor on the Moon through a vidicon tube. We can clearly see a single thin rod blocking the width of the Sun and stopping all reflection. You lose.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I found a little here.

    The Incredible Journey of Apollo 12 - 4K

    I should have said still pictures instead of footage.

    There's a join line in this picture. I think it's from Apollo 15.
    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/14/15/2D66777700000578-0-image-a-66_1444831715399.jpg

    There's no join line in this picture from Apollo 12.
    https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/48/7071.jpg

    Nor is there one in this picture from Apollo 11.
    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/bb5pw3/as...lunar-landing-1969-astronaut-edwin-bb5pw3.jpg

    There are some examples of join lines half way down this page.
    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

    This is consistent with the theory that Apollo 11 and 12 were filmed outside while they prepared the studio for the later missions.

    That would also explain the difference in body movements between the Apollo 11 missions and the later ones. The theory is that they used a crude fifty percent slow-motion for the Apollo 11 footage and a sixty seven percent slow-motion plus wires for Apollo 14 through 17.

    Historic Apollo 11 Moonwalk Footage
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...86A12F5EEE82DB69E8DD86A12F5EEE82&&FORM=VRDGAR

    Apollo 17 - 114:40 - 122:40
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...-26&sk=&cvid=0087680A4D91497CAD9C05A8F4F02A03


    Also, look at the above video at the 5:08:00 time mark. There are some good examples of too-big reflections of the sun in the visors there.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Laymen always make idiotic mistakes with simple things.

    Apollo 17. Please stop "thinking" - it always results in fail. It isn't a join, it is a break in terrain.

    [​IMG]

    They are on a gentle down slope in an area with no mountains nearby.

    [​IMG]

    These are examples of variable elevation on distant terrain. There is no atmospheric distortion from pollution or heat haze, so distance is very difficult to gauge.

    It's consistent with a moronic theory that ignores presented evidence. These pictures match perfectly with video footage that zooms in many hundreds of metres.
    • It includes dark skies that you have not explained
    • It includes many miles of illuminated terrain that you have not explained
    • It includes 360 degree pans that you have not explained
    • It includes single crisp dark shadows that you have not explained.
    You ignored the LRV transit video and have failed to offer anything that could possibly explain any of it.

    There is no difference in body movements only in the frame rate by which the footage was captured

    Jackass. Disproven by many videos I have presented, all of which you ignored. The dust on the John Young jump, falling in line with him and the dust on the Gene Cernan jump hitting the ground in sync are two examples that you cowardly evade.

    Jackass, The "too big" reflections have been shown to disappear completely when a narrow rod passes in front of the Sun's path to the visor. The "too big" reflection has been proven to diminish in size when the aperture is closed.

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: A very troubled individual. (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    "Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :-

    1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."

    He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such.

    2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source.
    or
    "That's a disinfo site."

    He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations".

    3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "

    For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax.

    3. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. "
    or
    "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly."

    This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement.

    4. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."

    This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".

    5. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

    This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored.

    6. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...."

    So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked.

    7. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked."

    He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so.

    8. Idiotic Closes: "You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..."

    or

    "you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video"


    The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel.



    This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome."
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  20. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know that similar scenes can be found on Earth but it seems to be in all of the Apollo footage. It all looks the same.

    It's explained here.
    https://www.aulis.com/deliberate_errors.htm
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You lost spammer. Yet another irrefutable piece of evidence and all you can do is act like a jackass and deny it.

    The following gif was found on the internet and is part of a sequence famous for Gene Cernan hopping along on the Moon. There are clowns on the internet who claim this is on wires.

    • This forms part of a long continuous 30 minute EVA sequence.
    • There is no jerkiness on his motion that would indicate any center of gravity changes from wires.
    • As he rises he kicks soil ahead which clearly reaches the same height.
    • The soil clearly strikes the surface at the same time as he lands.
    • Unless the soil is on wires, neither can he be!
    • He moves with perfect lunar motion.

    [​IMG]

    This video was an analysis I performed showing the motion consistent with lunar freefall:-



    Quite clearly, the figures do not work when the speed is altered. The only speed that matches the height is lunar freefall, as proven by the dust.

    Only a dishonest person can deny any of this.



    7. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked."

    He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. He also does the same action for irrefutable evidence.

    There are no anomalies and you are a dishonest spammer. Over 17 years you have been sucked in to the stupidity of a Moon hoax, your whole social online existence a complete waste of time. You fully realise the game is up, your whole claim is over and you know it.

    The footage is exactly what distance would look like absent of atmospheric distortion. There is no scale to assess how far away mountains are. But luckily we have a perfect yardstick for this and one you are scared to address.



    The distant mountains never get nearer, the sky is jet black as are the shadows. One single light source lights tens of square miles evenly. When the rover turns across sun, we see the unique properties of the lunar soil and its retro-reflective nature lessened.
    It must be so difficult for you knowing that you are such a failure.

    Maybe this jackass is expecting shrubbery or something.

    You confuse a stupid website with knowledge and authority. Besides:

    2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source.
    or
    "That's a disinfo site."

    You are the checkmated Black Knight, ejected from the debate hall for being too dumb.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2020
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,096
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are a disgraceful spamming jackass. You already posed this bullshit and ignored the expert response given!

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...movie-set-mod-warning.403884/#post-1064897864

    Then we get your idiotic evasion tactics on Windley!

    3. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. "
    or
    "I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly."

    This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement.

    4. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."

    This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".

    Then I posted his points itemised:

    A quick summary:-

    1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

    2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

    3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

    4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

    5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

    6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

    7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

    8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

    9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

    10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

    11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

    12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

    13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.

    I await your standard avoidance, obfuscation, diversion or other spammed response.


    I attribute all 13 items to the expertise of Mr Windley.


    Then just like a transparent jackass and after more huffing and puffing, another one of your cowardly evasion tactics!

    3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "

    For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax.


    This is one tactic I didn't list.

    9. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish gallups away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.

    You failed to honestly address the LRV traverse video and you will keep doing so because you are a coward. It answers the question posed here. The mountains are many miles away and if you move to a different EVA site a mile or two away, the foreground will be different, but the distant mountains will be only changed very slightly.

    Go and look at all the images of this mountain!

    kilimanjaro - Google Search

    [​IMG]

    Sometimes there are not words to fully convey how moronic a claim is. The fact you post this is testament to your gullibility and stupidity. For starters the mountain contains NONE of the surrounding mountains seen on the pictures, the foreground is dark ash, it may be similar but so what! Now, this is a popular tourist area, so do you think they would have noticed men prancing around in space suits, or a mock up Lunar Module dumped in front of it?


    Now, try again spammer:-



    The distant mountains never get nearer, the sky is jet black as are the shadows. One single light source lights tens of square miles evenly. When the rover turns across sun, we see the unique properties of the lunar soil and its retro-reflective nature lessened.
    It must be so difficult for you knowing that you are such a failure.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2020
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have the background to deal with that but I'm not going to simply take your word for it considering your record of sophistry on this forum (see post #310).
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...anding-is-fake.553296/page-13#post-1072246090

    I'm mainly posting stuff like that for the viewers to check out. Maybe a person with the necessary background will comment on it. Anyway other anomalies* have already proven the hoax so this isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it.

    Here's something else for the viewers to check out.
    https://www.aulis.com/PDF/hadley_study.pdf


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
     

Share This Page