One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind

[Craig Lamson]

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 .

No, you don't understand. Given that the distance to the mountain is measured in MILES and the difference in camera positions is measured in YARDS, the change in camera position should not produce any cahnge in mountain size. It is exactly correct. the LM, rover and Astronaut change sizes because they are not MILES away. and a change in camera position to an object close to the camera will produce a LARGE change is subject size. Photography 101 Duane.

[Duane Daman]

Then if you're correct , how about showing us all a comparison photo of a mountain looking LARGER when moving away from it and SMALLER when moving closer to it .

The Mountain model IS the same size but doesn't LOOK the same size because NASA forgot to get the distance perspective correct and got the PERSPECTIVE BACKWARDS .

I will use an example .... Let's say I park my car several MILES away from a mountain .... I step back about 10 feet from it and take a picture of my car in the foreground and the mountain in the background .... Then I walk about 100 feet FURTHER AWAY from my car and the mountain and photgraph it again .... My CAR ( LM) will now look much SMALLER as I stand 100 feet away from it and so will the MOUNTAIN . ( if only slightly )

NASA's phony photo is the EXACT OPPOSITE .... The further the photographer stood away from the mountain , the LARGER it looked , not SMALLER as it should have been ... and the fact that the close up crop showed the mountain really being the SAME SIZE , only proves that it wasn't a real mountain at all , but rather a SMALL SCALE MODEL .

So please don't pull your "Photography 101 " stunt "MrPhotogod" , cuz that just isn't gonna cut it for this one .

Edited December 20, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Craig Lamson]

Then if you're correct , how about showing us all a comparison photo of a mountain looking LARGER when moving away from it and SMALLER when moving closer to it .

What the heck are you talking about? I never said any of that would happen. What I said, and what the images in question CORRECTLY show, is t he the mountain will stay roughly the same sive. You have this all azz backwards.

The Mountain model IS the same size but doesn't LOOK the same size because NASA forgot to get the distance perspective correct and got the PERSPECTIVE BACKWARDS .

The only this that is backwards here is your head.

I will use an example .... Let's say I park my car several MILES away from a mountain .... I step back about 10 feet from it and take a picture of my car in the foreground and the mountain in the back ground .... Then I walk about 100 feet FURTHER AWAY from my car and the mountain and photgraph it again .... My CAR ( LM) will now look much SMALLER as I stand 100 feet away from it and so will the MOUNTAIN .

Wrong. With the same photo size, you car WILL look smaller as you step backwards and the mountain will remain the same. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

NASA's phony photo is the EXACT OPPOSITE .... The further the photographer stood away from the mountain , the LARGER it looked , not SMALLER as it should have been ... and the fact that the close up crop showed the mountain really being the SAME SIZE , only proves that it wasn't a real mountain at all , but rather a SMALL SCALE MODEL .

Sheesh, open up your brain Duane, you are starting to look quite foolish. As the photograpaher moved backwards from the LM, the LM got smaller in compariosn to the mountain...EXACTLY AS IT should be. No models, nothing fishy...its perfect. What is not perfect is your understanding on how this stuff works.

So please don't pull your "Photography 101 " stunt "MrPhotogod" , cuz that just isn't gonna cut it for this one .

Well Duane anyone who has even a basic understanding on how this works can see you are wrong...again. I suggest you get some photography training before you attempt to pass judgement on photographic images. So yes, it is photography 101 and you have just gotten and "F". As for my youtube nick...its quite two-faced of your to use it when you lodged a complaint on this forum for my using your nick. woof woof...stray.

[Duane Daman]

With the same photo size, you car WILL look smaller as you step backwards and the mountain will remain the same.

Thank you ... You just debunked your own argument and also NASA's phony A17 "mountain " photo .

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT ! ... THE " MOUNTAIN " DOES NOT STAY THE SAME SIZE ... IT GROWS TO ENORMOUS PROPORTIONS WHEN THE CAMERA IS FURTHER AWAY FROM IT ! ... The mountain model is the same size because NASA used it for both the close up and the distance shots .... But by doing that , they messed up the PERSPECTIVE.... If the mountain was real , instead of a fake scale model backdrop , it would either look the SAME SIZE or SLIGHTLY SMALLER , the further away the camera is .

If you can't admit to that , then you are being completely dishonest about this and not fooling anyone .

[Matthew Lewis]

If you look at the uncropped originals whose links have been provided multiple times on this thread, the mountain is approximately the same size in both. The LM gets smaller as the photographer moves away as expected. Nothing is wrong. The only time it appears wrong was in Jack's study where he compared the two photos cropped to different sizes and compared the mountain size in those.

Edit: it may not be Jack's study as it was in Duane's post #377 and not attributed.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Dave Greer]

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 .

The reticules aren't in the crop, because I cropped the area around the rock, which was the focus of Jack's study. Look at the links to the originals to prove it for yourself.

I didn't zoom in - again you can prove it to yourself by checking out the originals. I suspect you don't want to because you'll have to wake up to the reality that the person who's trying to pull a fast isn't me, but the good Mr White. Here is the crop again - with NO change in scale between them.

Let's see what Jack's study did to the reticules shall we?

Oh dear.

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.

It doesn't!!! The only time the mountain looks bigger is when Jack decided to zoom in (or possibly use photos of different scale). Ask yourself the question - why did he do that? The only person he's fooled here is you.

Jack's explaination makes sence , not yours ...

Jack's explanation makes NO sense - especially when you realise that his study used two images of different scale. The originals (and my study using the originals with the scale intact) prove that.

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 .

It's there for you in glorious technicolour. Unfortunately, for you to change your mind, not only will you have to admit that Jack's study was entirely wrong, but you'll also have to admit that either they are real mountains, or they are on a sound stage so large that they may as well be real mountains - they must be HUGE.

[Dave Greer]

Thank you ... You just debunked your own argument and also NASA's phony A17 "mountain " photo .

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT ! ... THE " MOUNTAIN " DOES NOT STAY THE SAME SIZE ... IT GROWS TO ENORMOUS PROPORTIONS WHEN THE CAMERA IS FURTHER AWAY FROM IT !

Wrong! Not if you look at the original images. Only in Jack's study.

If the mountain was real , instead of a fake scale model backdrop , it would either look the SAME SIZE or SLIGHTLY SMALLER , the further away the camera is .

If you can't admit to that , then you are being completely dishonest about this and not fooling anyone .

It does look the same size (if measured accuratley, would no doubt be a smidgen smaller) in the photo taken from further away from the LM.

[Duane Daman]

If you look at the uncropped originals whose links have been provided multiple times on this thread, the mountain is approximately the same size in both. The LM gets smaller as the photographer moves away as expected. Nothing is wrong. The only time it appears wrong was in Jack's study where he compared the two photos cropped to different sizes and compared the mountain size in those.

Edit: it may not be Jack's study as it was in Duane's post #377 and not attributed.

Yes the "mountain" IS the SAME SIZE because it's a SMALL SCALE MODEL being used on a moonset .

If it were a real mountain it would APPEAR to be SMALLER the further away the photgrapher got from it , not LARGER to the point of ENORMOUS .

Picture yourself standing on the Moon ... You are standing a few feet away from the LM and the mountain in the distance looks rather small .... Then picture yourself walking further away from the LM by about 100 feet or so and when you turn around to look at the LM again , which is now 100 feet further away from you , the mountain behind it is now ENORMOUS , instead of looking the same size or possibly a bit smaller ..... Would you not freak out thinking that the mountain was growing ? ... I know I would !

Your argument is a typical strawman tactic that you have been carefully taught at the clavius moon base school of nasa disinformation .... and if you can comprehend what I have just written , instead of what you have been brainwashed to believe about the Apollo photographs , you will see the truth of this .

Windley has told you all that the mountain is the same size in both of these photos to try to convince you and that these photos are in scale and that nothing is wrong with the perspective .. but that is simply not true and I think you know that .

[Matthew Lewis]

Have you not even looked at the original uncropped images? The mountain is the same size in those as expected. You are arguing something that is not seen in the originals. The mountain does not grow.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Duane Daman]

Thank you ... You just debunked your own argument and also NASA's phony A17 "mountain " photo .

THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT ! ... THE " MOUNTAIN " DOES NOT STAY THE SAME SIZE ... IT GROWS TO ENORMOUS PROPORTIONS WHEN THE CAMERA IS FURTHER AWAY FROM IT !

Wrong! Not if you look at the original images. Only in Jack's study.

If the mountain was real , instead of a fake scale model backdrop , it would either look the SAME SIZE or SLIGHTLY SMALLER , the further away the camera is .

If you can't admit to that , then you are being completely dishonest about this and not fooling anyone .

It does look the same size (if measured accuratley, would no doubt be a smidgen smaller) in the photo taken from further away from the LM.

I am talking about the original photos , not's Jack's study .... and the mountain perspective is BACKWARDS .... I'm sorry but mountains don't GROW TO ENORMOUS PROPORTIONS THE FURTHER AWAY YOU GET FROM THEM !

Is there some reason that you can't comprehend this fact ? .... and the only way this anomaly could have occured is if small scale models were mis-used .

[Dave Greer]

Have you not even looked at the original uncropped images? The mountain is the same size in those as expected. You are arguing something that is not seen in the originals. The mountain does not grow.

It's been pointed out to him several times Matthew. He knows where the originals can be found, he's been given links to high-res versions, medium res versions have been posted in the thread. I've re-done my crop showing him that the reticules are the same size, and also showing that they are different sizes in Jack White's study.

He's clinging to the notion that the mountain gets bigger in the photo taken from further away. What he fails to realise is that (i) if the mountain was actually a scale model a few dozen yards behind the LM, it would get much SMALLER the further away you go, and (ii) the mountain only looks bigger in Jack's zoomed study.

[Matthew Lewis]

Other than seeing more of the mountain to the left in the first photo, the mountains are the same size in the pictures. These are the originals both redcued to 25% of their original size to fit better on the page. Both mountains are about the same height as a percent of the picture in each photo as they should be. Individual craters seen on the mountain in both photos are about the same distance apart. The mountain does not grow.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Matthew Lewis

[Duane Daman]

Have you not even looked at the original uncropped images? The mountain is the same size in those as expected. You are arguing something that is not seen in the originals. The mountain does not grow.

Not only have I looked at the originals , I sent these very photos to David Percy to do a study on for Aulis ... Maybe you will see the perspective probelm with these photos then , since you are too blind to understand the problem with the ones we are discussing .... Can you really not see that the mountain looks much larger in the photo taken at a greater distance away from it ? ... or are you just defending NASA's lies because it's a hobby for you ?

Those are allegedly the same mountains !

If you can't see the PERSPECTIVE PROBLEM with those photos , then I am wasting my time trying to explain this .

[Duane Daman]

Other than seeing more of the mountain to the left in the first photo, the mountains are the same size in the pictures. These are the originals both redcued to 25% of their original size to fit better on the page. Both mountains are about the same height as a percent of the picture in each photo as they should be. Individual craters seen on the mountain in both photos are about the same distance apart. The mountain does not grow.

No , the small scale mountain didn't really "grow" , it just looks like it did because the small scale model "LM" shrunk !

Can you really not see that the PERSPECTIVE IS BACKWARDS ?

Unbelievable !

[Matthew Lewis]

Other than seeing more of the mountain to the left in the first photo, the mountains are the same size in the pictures. These are the originals both redcued to 25% of their original size to fit better on the page. Both mountains are about the same height as a percent of the picture in each photo as they should be. Individual craters seen on the mountain in both photos are about the same distance apart. The mountain does not grow.

No , the small scale mountain didn't really "grow" , it just looks like it did because the small scale model "LM" shrunk !

Can you really not see that the PERSPECTIVE IS BACKWARDS ?

Unbelievable !

Everything looks as it should. The mountain is the same size and the LM looks smaller because the picture was taken from farther away. It is exactly how the perspective should look.

Unbelievable!