 Three views of Mount Hadley, ...from Apollo 15 landing site. |
  |
 Nov 28 2008, 10:48 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 Super Member  Group: Members Posts: 6613 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667  |
Edited to correct error in graphic.
Jack This post has been edited by Jack White: Nov 29 2008, 07:03 PM |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 04:58 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
Errr - huh?
In one view you are looking to the south (SSW) of the LM, and in the other you are looking to the west (WNW). Remember the directional system associated with the LM?  The ladder is on the 'west' side, and the big flat panel at the back of the LM is on the 'east' side. So the views from the LM are about 90 degrees apart. So what is the problem with the images? BTW, please remember to identify what images you are using by the catalogue number. That way people can independently confirm what you are saying. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 06:38 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 6613 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 |
Edited for error.
Jack This post has been edited by Jack White: Nov 29 2008, 07:01 PM |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 08:27 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
Is there a reason that you seem reticent to give the image numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 10:56 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
I don't think Jack will be back to reply, so let me explain why I asked for the image numbers.
The images are from different Apollo missions. The top-left image is a composite shot including AS17-147-22515 through AS17-147-22520. It shows the South Massif in the background.  AS17-147-22517 The bottom image is a composite pan shot including AS15-87-11835 through to AS15-87-11839. It has Mt Hadley in the background.  AS15-87-11838 I don't know why Jack would post this for amusement; it simply reinforces his track record of being sadly lacking in any skill regarding Apollo image analysis. If it was meant to be some type of joke ("amusement"), it was far too subtle. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 05:18 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 6613 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 |
Graphic being reworked. Website I obtained the image from identified
this photo as showing Mt. Hadley. I am checking to see whether that is correct. Jack This post has been edited by Jack White: Nov 29 2008, 07:11 PM
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 08:43 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 6613 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 |
QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 29 2008, 04:18 PM)  Graphic being reworked. Website I obtained the image from identified this photo as showing Mt. Hadley. I am checking to see whether that is correct. Jack Yes...I doubled checked my graphic and it is correct. The two different views from the landing site are mutually exclusive. Jack
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 09:11 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 6613 Joined: 26-April 04 Member No.: 667 |
QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 29 2008, 07:43 PM) QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 29 2008, 04:18 PM) Graphic being reworked. Website I obtained the image from identified this photo as showing Mt. Hadley. I am checking to see whether that is correct. Jack Yes...I doubled checked my graphic and it is correct. The two different views from the landing site are mutually exclusive. Jack This shows that the two views are mutually exclusive. Jack
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29 2008, 10:00 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
And still no image numbers...
ETA: BTW, like the way you have removed all evidence of your previous gross error. I think in time to come, you'll claim you never made the error. This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Nov 29 2008, 11:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2008, 01:25 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
Okay, I don't expect an answer.
The views are "incompatible" because they are images of different features. One is of Mt Hadley, the other (the B&W copy of a colour image, AS15-87-11832) is of Swann Range. 
Hadley___Swann.jpg ( 930.95K )
Number of downloads: 2See here. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 30 2008, 12:35 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
You can actually see the 'missing' portion from what Jack has chosen to show you here:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.1472712pan8.jpg Jack, for reasons known only to himself, has chosen to crop the image... which - if he had shown the whole image - would have easily explained the "discrepancy" that Jack "found". As per usual, Jack is wrong and demonstrates his complete lack of ability when applied towards Apollo image analysis. This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Nov 30 2008, 12:36 PM |
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2008, 07:57 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Super Member Group: Members Posts: 3351 Joined: 20-January 05 From: NSW, Australia Member No.: 2326 |
QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 30 2008, 07:11 AM) QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 29 2008, 07:43 PM) QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 29 2008, 04:18 PM) Graphic being reworked. Website I obtained the image from identified this photo as showing Mt. Hadley. I am checking to see whether that is correct. Jack Yes...I doubled checked my graphic and it is correct. The two different views from the landing site are mutually exclusive. Jack  This shows that the two views are mutually exclusive. Jack And you start a new thread... where your mistakes aren't seen? Tsk, tsk, Jack. This post has been edited by Evan Burton: Dec 1 2008, 07:58 AM |
|
|
|
 |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th February 2010 - 08:33 PM |