Jack White Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 Bernice...post new study here. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 B.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The pictures weren't taken from the same location Jack, the second picture was taken from at least a few feet to the left of the first one, hense the parallax effect that is clearly visible between the foreground and background. The dots are only aligned vertically because you scaled and cropped the images to get them to match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 The pictures weren't taken from the same location Jack, the second picture was taken from at least a few feet to the left of the first one, hense the parallax effect that is clearly visible between the foreground and background.The dots are only aligned vertically because you scaled and cropped the images to get them to match. Nonsense. Parallax does not make rover tracks disappear. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 First off, let's look at the full frame comparisons of the two images, without any cropping: Now, between the two shots the crew were dusting off the LRV, working at the MESA, working at the ALSEP, doing closing out activities from EVA-2, preps for EVA-3, LRV start preps, changing positions for the photos, etc. The tracks have been covered over by the activity, that's all. Take a close look behind the astronaut in the two images, between the astronauts and the LM; see the LRV tracks? (highlighted by yellow arrows) See how the track is in both images? Take a look at the other images around the ones shown here: AS15-92-12448, 12449, 12450, and 12451 (Black & White) AS15-88-11863, 11864, and 11865 (Colour) They all show that same track mark in the background. Activity on the lunar surface has covered up the tracks in the foreground - nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 16, 2007 Author Share Posted September 16, 2007 More nonsense. Cropping does not change the location of the LRV tracks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 More nonsense. Cropping does not change the location of the LRV tracks.Jack I never said that - please do not put words into my mouth. I said the activity covered the tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Now, one may ask why did I put the two uncropped images side-by-side? Firstly, I always think it is important to see the full frame image before you start looking at certain areas in detail; take the holistic approach, if you will. This is especially important when comparing two images. Next, what did Jack say about those images? "... repeated the flag salute pose from almost the same spot." "Like identical notes on a musical scale, the flag, the LEM and LRV were identically relocated (color dots)." My bolding and underlining. Now, if we are referring to the flag and the LM, then there is no reason for them to move. They are fixed. If an astronaut stands next to the flag, at about the same distance, then YES! We have the objects in almost an identical position. Even the salute...; I can tell you from 20 years experience that ever time I salute, it is almost always in exactly the same position and my fingers will ALWAYS be in the same position. The use of the coloured dots, however, give the impression that the image was taken from exactly the same spot - perhaps by use of a tripod that was left out overnight. This is clearly NOT true. The images are taken from about the same azimuth but the full frame (no cropping) comparison shows just how different they are. The mountain is in a different position, the LRV is in a different position - as is to be expected. In summary, the flag and the LM are not expected to move and they haven't. The LRV didn't appear to have been driven anywhere between the images, but the aspect with respect to the LM has changed so we can see that the photographer was in a different location when he took the images. This is further backed up by the silhouette of the LM against the mountains. Finally, the LRV tracks have disappeared in the forground - to be replaced by multiple footprints - a sign of activity and explaining why the tracks are no longer visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 First off, let's look at the full frame comparisons of the two images, without any cropping:Now, between the two shots the crew were dusting off the LRV, working at the MESA, working at the ALSEP, doing closing out activities from EVA-2, preps for EVA-3, LRV start preps, changing positions for the photos, etc. The tracks have been covered over by the activity, that's all. Take a close look behind the astronaut in the two images, between the astronauts and the LM; see the LRV tracks? (highlighted by yellow arrows) See how the track is in both images? Take a look at the other images around the ones shown here: AS15-92-12448, 12449, 12450, and 12451 (Black & White) AS15-88-11863, 11864, and 11865 (Colour) They all show that same track mark in the background. Activity on the lunar surface has covered up the tracks in the foreground - nothing more. I am constant stunned at the massive ignorance White continues to display when it comes to photography. You want to know where the tracks went? The astronaut IS STANDING ON OR NEAR THEM as he takes the closer of the two frames! He is STANDING CLOSER to the flag and the LM. White's study has nothing to do with the Apollo imagery. It is however a perfect study of White's incompetence as it relates the the field of photograpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) Jack ... Here's my e-mail reply to you earlier today .... It's EXACTLY what I told you they would say ... " Jack , Thanks for your new study ... I can hear the debunkers already ! The first one will say that the tire tracks have gone missing because the astronot's boots kicked dust all over them and covered them up ... and of course the rest of the debunkers will say that you don't understand perspective , etc etc etc and blah blah blah .... " ROTF !! You want to know where the tracks went? The astronaut IS STANDING ON OR NEAR THEM as he takes the closer of the two frames LMAO !!!!! Edited September 16, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 No, sorry Craig - I disagree. Possibly the nearest of the tracks in 12447 are out of frame in 11866, but the ones nearest the astronaut would be in frame if they hadn't been covered over by the activity. Duane - do you say that the area where the tracks were in 12447 is not covered with footprints in 11866? Do you say that the tracks behind the astronaut in 12447 are not same tracks that are visible in 11866? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The pictures weren't taken from the same location Jack, the second picture was taken from at least a few feet to the left of the first one, hense the parallax effect that is clearly visible between the foreground and background.The dots are only aligned vertically because you scaled and cropped the images to get them to match. Nonsense. Parallax does not make rover tracks disappear. Jack No, people walking around on them makes them disapear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) Jack ... Here's my e-mail reply to you earlier today .... It's EXACTLY what I told you they would say ..." Jack , Thanks for your new study ... I can hear the debunkers already ! The first one will say that the tire tracks have gone missing because the astronot's boots kicked dust all over them and covered them up ... and of course the rest of the debunkers will say that you don't understand perspective , etc etc etc and blah blah blah .... " ROTF !! Well, to me it doesn't seem a difficult concept to understand, that astronaut movement on the moon kicks up a lot of dust. You see it in many different videos from different missions. So it's not a huge leap of faith to realise that this may be a plausible explanation for the tracks being covered up. Fortunately in this particular case, in addition to rational thinking, we also have hard evidence that demonstrates this happening at this very place, in between the time of the 2 photos. The 2 photos Jack supplied are AS15-92-12447 (EVA2 Mission time 148:55:33) and AS15-88-11866 (EVA3 Mission Time 163:59:05). Both photos were part of a set of so called "tourist photos" that the astronauts took of each other. Here's a more complete list, with Jack's examples in bold:- EVA2 These four were taken by Dave of Jim AS15-92-12444 AS15-92-12445 AS15-92-12446 AS15-92-12447 They swapped positions (and camera) and Jim took these four of Dave AS15-92-12448 AS15-92-12449 AS15-92-12450 AS15-92-12451 EVA3 Jim took this of Dave AS15-88-11863 They swapped positions (and camera) and Dave took these three of Jim AS15-88-11864 AS15-88-11865 AS15-88-11866 I'm assuming that both Jack and Duane are inferring that it's impossible for the astronauts to kick up sufficient dust to cover up tracks in the time between the two photos. The evidence says otherwise. Check out this study below, taken from crops of AS15-92-12447 and AS15-92-12450. These two photographs were taken just seconds apart, after the astronauts had swapped positions and camera. The new bootprints and kicked up dust are clearly visible. It's also clear the effect they've had on the rover track in question, which has been partially obliterated by this small amount of activity. My first question has to be, does either Jack or Duane think it impossible for astronauts walking on the surface to kick up enough dust to obscure rover tracks in the light of this evidence? The second photo in Jack's study was taken well after the ones shown above (which were both from EVA2). Having looked at the 12 images in question for some time, I agree that the bottom set of tracks in 12447 would be out of frame in 11866, but I think the middle set would be in frame (were they not covered up with dust and bootprints of course!) Edited September 16, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) No, sorry Craig - I disagree. Possibly the nearest of the tracks in 12447 are out of frame in 11866, but the ones nearest the astronaut would be in frame if they hadn't been covered over by the activity.Duane - do you say that the area where the tracks were in 12447 is not covered with footprints in 11866? Do you say that the tracks behind the astronaut in 12447 are not same tracks that are visible in 11866? Evan, Im only concerned with the big tracks in the foreground, as thats the big "push" White is making. Regardless of the foot traffic which is plentiful, the camera was moved forward by a substantial amount. White tried his standard 'trickery' in an atttempt to fool the unknowing, by cropping the photos to remove evidence harmful to his case. Rather dishonest in my opinion, but regardless, if he is as skilled in the craft, art and science of photography as is his claim he should have understood the implications of a camera moving forward. I'm left thinking there are only two reasons for this failure by White. 1. He simply is ignorant when it comes to photography. 2. This was a deliberate act, as witnessed by the cropping of the photos, to hide critical evidence from the readers to advance a claim he knew was false. Edited September 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) No, people walking around on them makes them disapear. Would those "people"moving around be the stagehands or the astro-actors ? .. Duane - do you say that the area where the tracks were in 12447 is not covered with footprints in 11866? Do you say that the tracks behind the astronaut in 12447 are not same tracks that are visible in 11866? The tracks behind the astronot are not the ones in question . Every singe tire track tread in front of the astronot could not possibly have been completely covered over by kicked up dirt ... especially in the area where there are no bootprints . We have all had this conversation before , so I don't see much point in rehasing it , as it never goes anywhere except around in circles . Edited September 16, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now