Evan Burton Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Jack, don't forget to say WHAT you have done to go from the original image to the one you say there is a wrecker in. The professionals need to assess your process, not necessarily the result. Are you happy for the Photoshop people to make an assessment? Or is there another (professional or certifiably competent) group that you would have more confidence in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 (edited) This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo . Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them. Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us? The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM). Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be the SAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack Edited December 19, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. Shameful! Jack Jack Anyone can click on the two links I gave which show hi-resolution scans of both images. Quite clearly the rocks are different sizes in both images. Yet another example of you refusing to change or withdraw your study when you have been proven to be wrong. Even worse than that, you have the gall to accuse someone else of being deceptive! I don't think you're fooling anyone. Maybe Duane, but in fairness to him the jury's out since he hasn't responded yet. I'm sure he's quite capable of clicking on the links and proving to himself that the rocks are indeed a different size. Here are the images themselves, with links to higher-resolution versions as well. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be theSAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack It is the same size in both photos (to all intents and purposes). Your study showed the two photos scaled differently, in order to make the rocks look the same size. This, of course, made the mountains appear different sizes. you can check this by looking at the images on NASAs self-serving website, or by checking the relative size of the fiducials in Jack's self-serving study. Shameful indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo . Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them. Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us? The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM). Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be the SAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack No Jack it is YOUR study that is BOGUS! You don't have a CLUE how to normalize the images for size. You simply SCREWED UP and got a BOGUS RESULT! The proper way to scale the Apollo images is easy. You simple match the crosshairs for size in each picture. THEN and ONLY THEN will you be able to see how things match up in the images. You simply made a beginner mistake when you attempted to scale the images. Greers study shows the CORRECT aspect of all the items in the images in question, and shows you to be a hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion. But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies . Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings . Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow, or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton. I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the dentist now. Jack Here is my original study of the wrecker on the moonset. The image appeared very faint in the darkness of the "sky". It looked to me like a pickup truck. As you will note, this was several years ago, as seen in my original file. Having recently learned from a friend how to use the PhotoShop Magic Wand, I applied it to the light area, and was surprised at the area the computer highlighted...much bigger than the unaided eye could see. I did nothing...the computer program selected the area to highlight. Using the Magic Wand, the operator can choose any color to fill the selected area. I could have chosen yellow or red, but I chose white, since the photo is bw, and I did not want to introduce a color not in the original. I applied the paint tool (white) to the selected area, and was surprised to see what looked like a wrecker instead of a pickup truck. It appeared to have booms on the back for lifting heavy objects. I found a similar looking photo of an army wrecker. Anyone with photoshop (or a clone which has the Magic Wand) can replicate this image in two minutes. The computer does all the work. Jack (Image to be added, having problem doing text AND image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Was not able to edit and add image, so am trying a separate posting. Jack PS...upload failed. Got this message. "Upload failed. You are not permitted to upload this type of file." It is a jpg file using 43mb, which I think is below the limit. I guess I will have wait till my email gets fixed and I will get Duane to post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Was not able to edit and add image, so am trying a separate posting.Jack PS...upload failed. Got this message. "Upload failed. You are not permitted to upload this type of file." It is a jpg file using 43mb, which I think is below the limit. I guess I will have wait till my email gets fixed and I will get Duane to post it. If the file is 43 MEGA BYTES it is not going to load on the forum...jpg or not. If you want to post that large of a file, you are going to be out of luck. You might try www.pbase.com. The file is also too large for photobucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion. But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies . Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings . Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow, or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton. I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the dentist now. Jack Here is my original study of the wrecker on the moonset. The image appeared very faint in the darkness of the "sky". It looked to me like a pickup truck. As you will note, this was several years ago, as seen in my original file. Having recently learned from a friend how to use the PhotoShop Magic Wand, I applied it to the light area, and was surprised at the area the computer highlighted...much bigger than the unaided eye could see. I did nothing...the computer program selected the area to highlight. Using the Magic Wand, the operator can choose any color to fill the selected area. I could have chosen yellow or red, but I chose white, since the photo is bw, and I did not want to introduce a color not in the original. I applied the paint tool (white) to the selected area, and was surprised to see what looked like a wrecker instead of a pickup truck. It appeared to have booms on the back for lifting heavy objects. I found a similar looking photo of an army wrecker. Anyone with photoshop (or a clone which has the Magic Wand) can replicate this image in two minutes. The computer does all the work. Jack (Image to be added, having problem doing text AND image) You will need to specify the tolerence setting you used with the magic wand. Without knowing your setting there is no way to repeat your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo . Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them. Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us? The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM). Where are the reticules in the second cropped photo ? ..... Since they're not there , how do I know you didn't alter the scale of the photo to match your own self serving agenda ? ... It looks like you did a closer zoom in the first photo to have the rock appear larger than it was in the original uncropped photo . And nobody answered the question about why the mountain grew larger with distance from the camera , instead of smaller , as it should have ... It looks like NASA got the perspective backwards. Jack's explaination makes sence , not yours ... Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be the SAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack Until I see a clearer explaination about the size of the rock in Jack's study ( I don't believe he changed the size of it ) I will believe that NASA made the original error with their perspective on the A17 moonset and that you purpposely altered the zoom on the photos to "win" the argument and cover for yet another bogus Apollo photograph . And please address the incorrect change of size of the "mountain" backdrop . Edited December 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion. But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies . Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings . Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow, or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton. I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the dentist now. Jack Here is my original study of the wrecker on the moonset. The image appeared very faint in the darkness of the "sky". It looked to me like a pickup truck. As you will note, this was several years ago, as seen in my original file. Having recently learned from a friend how to use the PhotoShop Magic Wand, I applied it to the light area, and was surprised at the area the computer highlighted...much bigger than the unaided eye could see. I did nothing...the computer program selected the area to highlight. Using the Magic Wand, the operator can choose any color to fill the selected area. I could have chosen yellow or red, but I chose white, since the photo is bw, and I did not want to introduce a color not in the original. I applied the paint tool (white) to the selected area, and was surprised to see what looked like a wrecker instead of a pickup truck. It appeared to have booms on the back for lifting heavy objects. I found a similar looking photo of an army wrecker. Anyone with photoshop (or a clone which has the Magic Wand) can replicate this image in two minutes. The computer does all the work. Jack (Image to be added, having problem doing text AND image) Jack ... Is this what you wanted posted ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo . Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them. Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us? The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM). Where are the reticules in the second cropped photo ? ..... Since they're not there , how do I know you didn't alter the scale of the photo to match your own self serving agenda ? ... It looks like you did a closer zoom in the first photo to have the rock appear larger than it was in the original uncropped photo . And nobody answered the question about why the mountain grew larger with distance from the camera , instead of smaller , as it should have ... It looks like NASA got the perspective backwards. Jack's explaination makes sence , not yours ... Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be the SAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack Until I see a clearer explaination about the size of the rock in Jack's study ( I don't believe he changed the size of it ) I will believe that NASA made the original error with their perspective on the A17 moonset and that you purpposely altered the zoom on the photos to "win" the argument and cover for yet another bogus Apollo photograph . And please address the incorrect change of size of the "mountain" backdrop . What are you missing Duane? You have the links to the high rez images, Dave POSTED the full files where YOU CAN SEE the reticules. Unis the full images you can see that the rock is different sizes. You can ALSO SEE the JACK screwed up the scaling in his study. (notice the two different sizes of the reticules in his bogus study). And you can also see that in the full images that Dave posted the mountains are roughly the same size, indicating the images are correct and it is Jack and perhaps you who have it backwards. You gotta learn to ignore the stuff Jack produces. He has zero clue about how photography works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion. But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies . Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings . Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow, or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton. I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the dentist now. Jack Here is my original study of the wrecker on the moonset. The image appeared very faint in the darkness of the "sky". It looked to me like a pickup truck. As you will note, this was several years ago, as seen in my original file. Having recently learned from a friend how to use the PhotoShop Magic Wand, I applied it to the light area, and was surprised at the area the computer highlighted...much bigger than the unaided eye could see. I did nothing...the computer program selected the area to highlight. Using the Magic Wand, the operator can choose any color to fill the selected area. I could have chosen yellow or red, but I chose white, since the photo is bw, and I did not want to introduce a color not in the original. I applied the paint tool (white) to the selected area, and was surprised to see what looked like a wrecker instead of a pickup truck. It appeared to have booms on the back for lifting heavy objects. I found a similar looking photo of an army wrecker. Anyone with photoshop (or a clone which has the Magic Wand) can replicate this image in two minutes. The computer does all the work. Jack (Image to be added, having problem doing text AND image) You will need to specify the tolerence setting you used with the magic wand. Without knowing your setting there is no way to repeat your work. You wouldn't "repeat " Jack's work , even if you discovered the exact same results ... In fact , I would bet you would never admit to Jack being correct about ANY OF HIS STUDIES even if you were offered a million dollars and your very own life depended on it , would you Lamson ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Not to interrupt too loudly, but notice how Jack has gone all quiet regarding my challenge... again? Still? I think the likely answer for why is because he knows that there is a very good chance of professionals telling him that he misused the imaging programme (be it Photoshop or Gimp or whatever). Even though this is just an insignificant "study" compared to the rest of Jack's work, IMO Jack will not admit even the slightest hint of fallibility. We all make mistakes from time to time - but I get the impression that Jack would rather do many other things than admit his mistakes, to we 'Apollogists', on this subject.Of course, it is very easy for Jack to prove me wrong, give me a slap-down... all he has to do is let professionals give an opinion. But you ALWAYS interrupt too loudly , and unfortunately for all of us , your interruptions are ALWAYS the same thing .... Attacking Jack and his Apollo studies . Apparently he has no interest in replying to your insulting posts here , so instead of continuing to attack him , why don't you go get the wrecker on the moonset study analysed by the "professionals" and then report back to us all with your predictable findings . Duane...my email is down at the moment and won't be fixed till tomorrow, or I would send you my original PHOTOSHOP file to post for the benefit of Burton. I challenge HIM to have ANY PROFESSIONAL replicate my work. Heck, no need to get a pro...any competent amateur can do it. Or maybe I can post it when I return from a dental appointment, if the file is not too large to post. I usually don't use photoshop, but in the case of the wrecker I did. Gotta go to the dentist now. Jack Here is my original study of the wrecker on the moonset. The image appeared very faint in the darkness of the "sky". It looked to me like a pickup truck. As you will note, this was several years ago, as seen in my original file. Having recently learned from a friend how to use the PhotoShop Magic Wand, I applied it to the light area, and was surprised at the area the computer highlighted...much bigger than the unaided eye could see. I did nothing...the computer program selected the area to highlight. Using the Magic Wand, the operator can choose any color to fill the selected area. I could have chosen yellow or red, but I chose white, since the photo is bw, and I did not want to introduce a color not in the original. I applied the paint tool (white) to the selected area, and was surprised to see what looked like a wrecker instead of a pickup truck. It appeared to have booms on the back for lifting heavy objects. I found a similar looking photo of an army wrecker. Anyone with photoshop (or a clone which has the Magic Wand) can replicate this image in two minutes. The computer does all the work. Jack (Image to be added, having problem doing text AND image) You will need to specify the tolerence setting you used with the magic wand. Without knowing your setting there is no way to repeat your work. You wouldn't "repeat " Jack's work , even if you discovered the exact same results ... In fact , I would bet you would never admit to Jack being correct about ANY OF HIS STUDIES even if you were offered a million dollars and your very own life depended on it , would you Lamson ? Well actually I agree with him that a few of the black backgrounds on a few of the Apollo images had been poorly retouched. I disagreed with him as to why. Of course that pretty much the end of it as far as Jack is concerned. I've no 'worldview' to protect here. The truth is the truth, be what it may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 This isn't Jack's wrecker on the moonset study but it's one that I have been wondering about for quite some time now ... In my own experience from what I understand about perspective of large distant objects , usually the closer one gets to them the larger they look and the further away from the large object , the smaller they look .... Yet in this Apollo 17 photo it shows the exact opposite.Can one of the "Apollo apologists " please explain this strange occurance to me ? ... and while you're at it , could you also please explain why the rock, which has been pointed out , remains the same size , even though the photographer has moved much further away from it , the LM and that now enormous mountain in the second photo . Good question Duane. One that is easily answered if you look at the original images at the same resolution. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg Here's a crop taken of both images - with NO change in scale between them. Quite clearly, the rock in question appears smaller in the photo taken further away from the LM - just as you'd expect. It appears that all Jack did was scale both images so that the rock was the same size in both, without saying he'd done that. The question is, why did he do that and not inform us? The mountain in the background appears to be approximately the same size - you can see this by looking at the triangle of three light coloured craters on the South Massif. How can this be if this is a backdrop on a soundstage? Wouldn't the backdrop appear to change size much more apparently between photos if it was, what, 50-100 yards away? The mountain in the background is the South Massif, which is approx 3-5 miles away from the LM, which explains why there isn't much change in apparent mountain size between the two photos (looks to me like the second photo is anywhere from 100 - 200 yards away from the LM). Where are the reticules in the second cropped photo ? ..... Since they're not there , how do I know you didn't alter the scale of the photo to match your own self serving agenda ? ... It looks like you did a closer zoom in the first photo to have the rock appear larger than it was in the original uncropped photo . And nobody answered the question about why the mountain grew larger with distance from the camera , instead of smaller , as it should have ... It looks like NASA got the perspective backwards. Jack's explaination makes sence , not yours ... Greer's study is entirely bogus. My study shows the rocks to be EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE. He is attempting to create confusion. He has purposely made the rocks different sizes. If the mountain is "3-5 miles away" it should appear to be the SAME SIZE in both photos, regardless of a few yards difference in the camera location. If you don't believe me, find a nearby mountain to photograph, then move forward or backward 50 yards and take another photo. The distant mountain will be the same size in both photos! Shameful! Jack Until I see a clearer explaination about the size of the rock in Jack's study ( I don't believe he changed the size of it ) I will believe that NASA made the original error with their perspective on the A17 moonset and that you purpposely altered the zoom on the photos to "win" the argument and cover for yet another bogus Apollo photograph . And please address the incorrect change of size of the "mountain" backdrop . What are you missing Duane? You have the links to the high rez images, Dave POSTED the full files where YOU CAN SEE the reticules. Unis the full images you can see that the rock is different sizes. You can ALSO SEE the JACK screwed up the scaling in his study. (notice the two different sizes of the reticules in his bogus study). And you can also see that in the full images that Dave posted the mountains are roughly the same size, indicating the images are correct and it is Jack and perhaps you who have it backwards. You gotta learn to ignore the stuff Jack produces. He has zero clue about how photography works. But that's just the problem ... The mountain should NOT be the same size by doing a zoomed in close up comparison crop because of the difference in the DISTANCE between the two photos . The "mountain" is not in the proper scale because it IS the same size in both photos ( as in using the same smale scale "mountain" MODEL to get a distance perspective, and then forgetting to change the "mountain" size , while changing the size of the LM , buggy and the astronot . 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