A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 6th 03, 03:34 PM
Volker Hetzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here


"Nathan Jones" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...

Another completely fake/contrived Apollo photgraph: AS14-64-9089
You can find it on the aulis.com website (nasa12 or something) or
alternatively you can get it from the nasa online archive.

Look at the astronots matchstick leg shadows. They should be much
wider than shown. Yap until you are hoarse but it will not change
the facts. The photograph is completely contrived.

Look, we just had this two days ago.

This is the second time it happened that someone shows some "evidence",
gets shot down and a few days later some other guy pops up with exactly
the same stuff.
Is there just some concerted action of the HOAXlers going on or what?
If you want an answer , look the old thread up at google.

Greetings!
Volker
  #2  
Old November 6th 03, 08:55 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here

Nathan Jones writes:

Yap until you are hoarse but it will not change the facts.


Indeed, so why are you yapping so much?

  #3  
Old November 6th 03, 09:22 PM
Anon Imous
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here

Nathan Jones wrote:
Another completely fake/contrived Apollo photgraph: AS14-64-9089
You can find it on the aulis.com website (nasa12 or something) or
alternatively you can get it from the nasa online archive.

Look at the astronots matchstick leg shadows. They should be much
wider than shown. Yap until you are hoarse but it will not change
the facts. The photograph is completely contrived.

NJ


Though little would be surprising from the american culture and
politics, I dont believe this is evidence.

I guess that the only, and well known, argument to this kind of
discourse is that Russia has closely followed and never questioned
authenticity of Apollo missions.

Ivan

  #4  
Old November 7th 03, 01:54 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here


"Anon Imous" wrote in message
...
|
| I guess that the only, and well known, argument to this kind of
| discourse is that Russia has closely followed and never questioned
| authenticity of Apollo missions.

That is certainly the opinion of the astronauts and cosmonauts of that time.
While they were in a sense colleagues, they were also in another sense
rivals.

I have received correspondence from people who were involved with Apollo
security and they claim that the Soviets actually penetrated the Apollo
project and knew of its authenticity first hand. We know they tracked the
spacecraft and listened to the voice transmissions; NASA made no attempt to
hide them, although the equipment required to pick up the signals was by no
means common.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #5  
Old November 7th 03, 04:33 AM
Curtis Croulet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here

Since you have, of course, examined an original large print and the negative of
the entire image to see what is really going on, and since you have taken into
account the focal length of the lens used on the camera (and hence the implied
distance of the photographer), the terrain, the angle of the Sun relative to the
camera axis, the altitude of the Sun above the horizon, the exact orientation of
the astronaut's legs, etc., I congratulate you for your carefully considered
conclusion.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33 27' 59" N, 117 05' 53" W


  #6  
Old November 7th 03, 04:59 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here


"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| Look at the astronots matchstick leg shadows. They should be much
| wider than shown.

And again, this is simply another claim built upon simplistic and
questionable assumptions and expectations. The observation doesn't match
the conspiracist's expectation, and so the observation "must" be fraudulent.
But when you ask the conspiracist to justify the expectation, he seems to
think it's intuitively obvious or beyond discussion. That's a pretty clear
abrogation of intellectual responsibility.

| Yap until you are hoarse but it will not change the facts.
| The photograph is completely contrived.

Then why wasn't it "contrived" correctly? What possible motivation would
there be to remove the shadows that would have been cast by the light source
that illuminated the astronaut in the original photograph, and to paint in
unbelievable shadows?

Again the answer lies in what Aulis either doesn't know, or what Aulis knows
but declines to share with the reader.

The photo in question is of astronaut Ed Mitchell trying to get his bearings
on the slopes of Cone Crater. That's the part Bennett and Percy don't tell
you. The surface is quite steeply pitched and undulating, but it's not
apparent in just the one photo that the authors show you. It is, however,
apparent in the dozen or so photos that Alan Shepard took in his pan from
that same location, but which the authors haven't bothered to consult.

What does this mean? Shepard is much lower on the slope. His chest-mounted
camera is much closer to the ground than it normally would be. And from the
other photos we can tell that Mitchell's shadow falls across the upper
portion of a sort of "lump" sticking out of the slope.

If a shadow falls transverse to the optical axis, the dimension most closely
associated with the axis will be foreshortened, especially when the view
angle is shallow. There are numerous examples of this on my web site; it's
not just something I'm making up. And that's what's happening to Mitchell's
legs.

And that's not even the punchline.

Reproduced a dozen or so times in Aulis' materials is the famous
AS11-40-5903 (the "classic" of Aldrin). Buried in the appendix of DARK MOON
is an attempt to analyze the photo to determine the camera's height above
the ground. And part of that analysis uses the variable thickness and
direction of the shadow of Aldrin's leg in the crater to estimate the depth
of the crater he is standing in. You can clearly see how the shadow is
narrow on the inside of the crater (where the view angle is shallow) and
thickens as the view angle increases. The authors accept the appearance of
the shadow here as valid, and even try to base one of their other
conclusions on it. But when that same principle explains away one of their
"anomalies" they can't seem to forget it fast enough.

Just one of the dozens of contradictions in Aulis' materials. Ask them
about it. Oh, wait. They don't take questions anymore.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #7  
Old November 7th 03, 02:35 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another obviously fake nasa photo - see here

In message , Jay Windley
writes

"Anon Imous" wrote in message
...
|
| I guess that the only, and well known, argument to this kind of
| discourse is that Russia has closely followed and never questioned
| authenticity of Apollo missions.

That is certainly the opinion of the astronauts and cosmonauts of that time.
While they were in a sense colleagues, they were also in another sense
rivals.

If the Russians were part of the global conspiracy why did they launch
an unmanned probe at the same time as Apollo 11? They reassured the
Americans that it would not cause any problems for the rival mission.

I have received correspondence from people who were involved with Apollo
security and they claim that the Soviets actually penetrated the Apollo
project and knew of its authenticity first hand. We know they tracked the
spacecraft and listened to the voice transmissions; NASA made no attempt to
hide them, although the equipment required to pick up the signals was by no
means common.

It was common enough for well-equipped amateurs to have some at the
time, though. There are several articles about listening to voice
transmissions. I know there was talk of receiving the ALSEP telemetry,
but I can't recall if that actually happened.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
NASA is coming along just fine now. Cardman Policy 2 July 8th 04 07:33 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 03:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.