Dave Greer Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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 . As you stated in an earlier post Duane, (and I quote), 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 . Surprise surprise! That's exactly what we see in this photo! Congratulations, between you and Percy you finally managed to prove an Apollo photo was genuine! Not your intention, but hey-ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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 . Man, you are ignorance in action 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 . Duane...check the photos..the mountain stays the same size. It doe not grow at all. What changes sizes is the LM. Bigger in the frame when the camera is closer and smaller in the frame when the camera is farther away. Photography 101 dude..and you still fail. If you can't admit to that , then you are being completely dishonest about this and not fooling anyone . Sigh...you need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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 . You are failing photography 101 again Duane. You are never going to graduate at this rate. Why not try and explain the difference between a 60mm lens and a 500 mm lens. Double credit if you can do it without a google or email...well nevermind the email...your pals don't understand either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Duane...you can make a much easier case on this if you look up my study called 17tallshortmountain where they got the perspective backwards. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 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 . AH! That's one of Jack's studies, from some time ago. I explained that one about 18 months ago with this post; you'll also find out that the Clavius site has discussed it here. We've used different approaches, but they both show where Jack is incorrect in his analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Duane, We can easily show you are wrong by recreating the scene. We don't have a LM, but we can get large objects, flat terrain, and mountains in the distance. Now, before I do this, I just want to see if there are any conditions you want to set. I don't want you accusing me of any 'fakery', so how would you like to confirm what I will do is on the level? Verified by local Police to say that the images are the same ones they saw taken? I'll use a digital camera, so they confirm what the scene looked like. Hell, they can even come back and watch me upload them, so there is a complete 'chain of evidence' for the images. If you are happy, I'll post what distances were involved in the Apollo images, and what scenes I have available around here. Dave, Craig, Matthew - you may also like to set up similar scenes in your own locales, to show it is not some type of localised effect. Make sure we explain what we did, so anyone with a camera can repeat the scene for themselves and verify what we are saying is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Mountains are more or less the same size in those two pictures. The one closer to the LM in slightly bigger. The only changes made to this image that I have posted is a slight rotation. THESE IMAGES ARE AT THE SAME SCALE. Also, as you can see, the rocks to the right of the LM are quite clearly bigger in the photo closer to the LM. By the way Duane, this actually proves that the mountain is actually a mountain. I'd love to hear your explanation for them being the same size if it was a backdrop! Maybe they got hold of that shrinking ray from Honey I shrunk the kids. Jack the fact that you are a supposed expert in photography and you still can't understand how scaling the pictures would effect the results truly does boggle my mind. Even I can understand this, and I have no formal training in photography whatsoever. Proof: Edited December 20, 2007 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Nice GIF Gav ... Thanks for proving that NASA used the same "mountain" model for both the distance shots and the close up shots .... The "mountain " IS the same size , no matter how far away or close up it allegedly is from the camera . Here's my earlier post again ( which Lamson pretended to debunk but didn't ) explaining why the PERSPECTIVE IS BACKWARDS in the phony Apollo 17 photos of the "Taurus-Littrow" valley . "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 ." Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting .... I tried to read your old post about this but the links are no longer working . Here's Jack's other study which shows that NASA got the A17 "mountain" perspective BACKWARDS ! ( Jack , it appears that NASA has altered this phony photo since you did your study on it , to correct their "mountain" size and shape anomaly ... How long ago did you do this one ? ) Craig ... If you would like to explain why the mountains are not only enormous looking using the 500 mm lens, but also have a completely different configuration to them... opposed to using the 60 mm lens ... I would appreciate that as well . Edited December 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Nice GIF Gav ... Thanks for proving that NASA used the same "mountain" model for both the distance shots and the close up shots .... The "mountain " IS the same size , no matter how far away or close up it allegedly is from the camera .Here's my earlier post again ( which Lamson pretended to debunk but didn't ) explaining why the PERSPECTIVE IS BACKWARDS in the phony Apollo 17 photos of the "Taurus-Littrow" valley . Sorry this is all over the top of your head Duane, but your sillyness has been debunked. You just don't have the smarts to understand why. "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 ) Lets see if we can explain this at the second grade level. Your mountain is 3000 yards away or 9,000 feet. If you move backwards 100 feet the mountain is now 9,100 feet away. Exactly how much smaller should this mountain be? The correct answer, none. Now the same scene, you are 9000 feet from the mountain and 10 feet from the LM. You move backwards 100 feet. Exactly how much smaller should the mountain be? 9,000 feet v 9,100 feet. Correct answer, none. Now how much smaller should the LM be? 10 feet v 110 feet. Answer: MUCH SMALLER WHY? Compare the percentages of the distance change between both mountain shots and the percentage of distance change between the LM's and you will have your answer. 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 ." Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting. Man, do can't even get this right...sheesh. You need a different hobby. Here's Jack's other study which shows that NASA got the A17 "mountain" perspective BACKWARDS ! There is nothing "backwards" in the apollo images in Jacks study, other than his backwards understanding on how a simple photographic principal works. Craig ... If you would like to explain why the moutains are not only enormous looking using the 500 mm lens, but also have a completely different configuration to them... Duane, the mountains are not any different size wise in the 500mm shots that the 60mm shots nor are they "configured different. The only difference is the way the lens renders them. Again photography 101 stuff, and you fail again...third times a charm eh? LOL! compared to using the 60 mm lens ... I would appreciate that as well . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Your mountain is 3000 yards away or 9,000 feet. If you move backwards 100 feet the mountain is now 9,100 feet away. Exactly how much smaller should this mountain be? The correct answer, none. Now the same scene, you are 9000 feet from the mountain and 10 feet from the LM. You move backwards 100 feet. Exactly how much smaller should the mountain be? 9,000 feet v 9,100 feet. Correct answer, none. Now how much smaller should the LM be? 10 feet v 110 feet. Answer: MUCH SMALLER This is EXACTLY my point ! .... Why are you having such a difficult time understandng this ? ... And why are you misrepresenting my position on this? Look at the Apollo 17 photos .... The mountain looks LARGER the further away the camera is from it , NOT SMALLER or the SAME SIZE , as they should have looked !!! Once again you have debunked you own argument and debunked the perspective of the faked Apollo 17 "mountain " photos . THE MOUNTAIN SHOULD NOT LOOK LARGER WHEN PHOTOGRAPHING IT FROM A DISTANCE FURTHER AWAY ... IT SHOULD LOOK THE SAME SIZE OR SLIGHTLY SMALLER .... THEREFORE THE PERSPECTIVE IS WRONG , AS IN BACKWARDS IN THE FAKED APOLLO 17 PHOTOS . Can you really not see this very strange anomaly in these A17 photos , or are you being deliberately misleading about this ? I also would appreciate you not insulting me with comments like this .. You just don't have the smarts to understand why. and this Lets see if we can explain this at the second grade level. This is the reason why people like David Percy and Ralph Rene' refuse to discuss this subject with people like you ... You obviously don't know how to discuss anything in a polite manner ... Which unfortunately for you , speaks volumes as to your true character . Edited December 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Your mountain is 3000 yards away or 9,000 feet. If you move backwards 100 feet the mountain is now 9,100 feet away. Exactly how much smaller should this mountain be? The correct answer, none. Now the same scene, you are 9000 feet from the mountain and 10 feet from the LM. You move backwards 100 feet. Exactly how much smaller should the mountain be? 9,000 feet v 9,100 feet. Correct answer, none. Now how much smaller should the LM be? 10 feet v 110 feet. Answer: MUCH SMALLER This is EXACTLY my point ! .... Why are you having such a difficult time understandng this ? ... And why are you misrepresenting my position on this? The probem is you do't even understand YOU OWN position. Look at the Apollo 17 photos .... The mountain looks LARGER the further away the camera is from it , NOT SMALLER or the SAME SIZE , as they should have looked !!! Once again you have debunked you own argument and debunked the perspective of the faked Apollo 17 "mountain " photos . No the mountains are the same size. They only "look" larger because Jack has scaled them improperly and has fooled you. THE MOUNTAIN SHOULD NOT LOOK LARGER WHEN PHOTOGRAPHING IT FROM A DISTANCE FURTHER AWAY ... IT SHOULD LOOK THE SAME SIZE OR SLIGHTLY SMALLER .... THEREFORE THE PERSPECTIVE IS WRONG , AS IN BACKWARDS IN THE FAKED APOLLO 17 PHOTOS . See above...you are simpy the victim of poor research and your own ability to understand some very basic concepts. Can you really not see this very strange anomaly in these A17 photos , or are you being deliberately misleading about this ? There are no "anomolies" in these images. I have the experience and knowlege to understand why. You on the other hand, do not. I also would appreciate you not insulting me with comments like this .. You just don't have the smarts to understand why. Sorry Duane but that is the simple truth about you. You can change that if you want...all you have to do is actually learn about the subjects you choose to argue. In this case it's photography and much of this can be tested by simply....well...taking pictures. That you choose not to avail yourself of this simple learning process speaks volumes. and this Lets see if we can explain this at the second grade level. See above This is the reason why people like David Percy and Ralph Rene' refuse to discuss this subject with people like you ... You obviously don't know how to discuss anything in a polite manner ... Which unfortunately for you , speaks volumes as to your true character . No the reason why they refuse is because they get their buttts kicked every time they do, and getting their butts kicked does not do their book sales any good. So instead they hide away. That Duane is what speaks volumes. Edited December 20, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Duane, the Apollo study you are claiming as the evidence of mountains getting bigger, can you provide a reference for the bottom and top pictures, as the bottom one is not actually that reference. Nice GIF Gav ... Thanks for proving that NASA used the same "mountain" model for both the distance shots and the close up shots .... The "mountain " IS the same size , no matter how far away or close up it allegedly is from the camera . Exactly!!! That mountain is HUGE. That's what we'd expect to see. Edited December 20, 2007 by Gavin Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Craig - I understand you are frustrated, but if a Forum member does not understand a concept you are putting forward, please say something like "I cannot help you understand the the concept here" or similar. Please do NOT associate any lack of understanding (if that is the case) with being stupid or "lack of smarts". Well educated people often do not understand concepts in another field. First & final warning regarding this. My suggestion would be to take the concept from first principles, the lead them through it step-by-step. If a stage is not understood or disputed, you can spend more time on it or use further examples. Perhaps photographic sites elsewhere might have some good explanations of the concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos Duane, please! The mountains DO NOT look larger in photos taken further away with 1 exception: when a 500mm lens is used instead of a 60mm lens (500mm on an Apollo Hasselblad is telescopic). Mountains also look larger when the original image is manipulated in some way, e.g. Jack's study, the two panorma's you showed, or if the image is displayed on a different format or screen resolution. (Editted for clarity) If you would like to explain why the mountains are not only enormous looking using the 500 mm lens, but also have a completely different configuration to them... opposed to using the 60 mm lens ... I would appreciate that as well . They look enormous using a 500mm lens because that lens has a much smaller field of view than the 60mm lens. In layman's terms, it is telescopic - more than 8x telescopic compared to the 60mm lens (since 500/60 = 8.33). The mountains have a completley different configuration because they are taken from completely different locations, and point in different directions. The 500mm photos in the study you used were taken on EVA 3 from station 6, pointing approximately SSW. Station 6 was on the slope of the North Massif, so is at a higher elevation than the LM. The other photos were taken in the vicinity of the LM, approximately 2 miles from station 6, and pointing approximately SW. (The two other photos you posted are actually composites, so have an even wider field of view than the 60mm photos - making it even harder to compare them to a 500mm image!) Remember the LM is on the plateau, which isn't as high up as station 6 (which is on the lower reaches of the north massif). Here's a link to the Apollo 17 traverse map so you can get your bearings more easily. Edited December 20, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Evan ... I will take you up on your offer to photograph distant mountains in comparison to close up objects .... I would very much like to see you prove that mountains appear LARGER the FURTHER AWAY you get from them and SMALLER the CLOSER you get to them , like they look in the Apollo 17 photos .... This should be intreresting .... I tried to read your old post about this but the links are no longer working . The link is working for me; have another go when you get time. The demonstration photograph is one that you yourself should undertake. We can explain how to set up the shot (so you can see that it is similar to the lunar images), and you'll see the results for yourself. The one thing you have to understand is that the mountains do not 'appear larger'; the object in the foreground appears smaller or larger (depending on where the object was in relation to the photographer and the amount of zoom used). If you scale the images so the foreground objects are the same size, then the background objects are going to get bigger or smaller (depending on which image is scaled). The next study you show is also one of Jack's that I answered 18 months ago here. When you are close to an object (e.g. the LM), its apparent size in relation to a distant background object (e.g. mountains) is much greater than when you are further away from the object (LM) and compare its apparent size to a distant background object (mountains). See the Clavius website for a more detailed explanation. Here is a diagramme I drew up for that post. It explains why some things will appear bigger or smaller against a background, as you move toward or away from the object. Now, in the above explanation, if we were to scale the black X so they are both the same size then the red background in the 'B' example (i.e. the mountain) would appear to be much larger... but you know it is not. It is an effect of the scaling. Edited December 20, 2007 by Evan Burton 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