Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How would driving past the rock bring the one in the background forward. Good catch as I noticed that too but there's a weird glitch right as that happens as well, did you notice that? Then an impossible minute shift in perspective as the rock you're highlighting MOVES BACK AGAIN as the rover moves foward! Weird stuff. Almost seems like damage control editing.

Thanks for being polite and responding with screen stills. This is how we should discourse.

The large rock remains in a weird fixed position, and looks flat when everything in front and minutely behind change. Looks extemely produced. No matter what edits are done

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How would driving past the rock bring the one in the background forward....

What? That's exactly how perspective should work.

Here's an illustration of how the perspective works. (The distances are not to scale, but are exaggerated for illustrative purposes).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Glad you used that illustration. Because the large rock didn't change perspective at all but in your diagram, it would have. Your diagram is static but the motion video aligns nothing like what you've posted. A win for the hoax side!

As we can see as you are shown to be a bit lacking in your knowledge of photography you move the goal posts, I take around 20 business flights a year I mean what could go wrong....
travelling to the airport
waiting at an airport
plane taking off
being on a plane flying at 35,000 feet or above
plane landing etc etc

I suggest that YOU before making comments on sujects you don't sorry OBVIOUSLY don't understand I suggest some research.

On mobile just now when I get home I will some links to help you learn some BSSIC photographic knowledge and do you know what this added knowledge won't cost you a penny.

I will even post links to the Apollo images YOU don't have a clue were to find.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Really look at the 2 rocks next to it on the left!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Glad you used that illustration. Because the large rock didn't change perspective at all but in your diagram, it would have. Your diagram is static but the motion video aligns nothing like what you've posted. A win for the hoax side!

As I said, the scales in the illustration were exaggerated to show the concept of the perspectives at work; therefore, it would not be a true representation of some of the more minor and subtle perspective changes.

The point of the illustration is to show that the original assertion (i.e., that the large rock and everything behind it are painted on a flat screen) is a false assertion.

You can move the goal posts and ignore that assertion (which was shown to be false) to move on to the next assertion about the perspective of the large rock itself, but my post was not meant to specifically address that. I will say that depending on how far the large rock was from the rover, the rover may need to travel a longer distance than was shown in the video for there to be a noticeable change in the perspective of the large rock itself. I'd have to investigate further to see if there is any noticeable change, but it could be that the rover did not travel far enough in that video to begin seeing the right side of that rock better.

By the way, it does seem that I can see a very slight change in the perspective of that large rock -- i.e., it does look as if I can seen a little bit more of the right side of that large rock as the rover drove past, but it is very very subtle. The distance to the rock compared to how long the camera was on it as the rover drove by may not be enough to clearly point out the change in perspective.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Firstly, your first post made claims I did not. Quit with the goalpost BS. My argument hasn't changed and that rock remains flat with a quick screen glitch and some rocks in the background moving forward then back again. It's a forgery

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Firstly, your first post made claims I did not. Quit with the goalpost BS. My argument hasn't changed and that rock remains flat with a quick screen glitch and some rocks in the background moving forward then back again. It's a forgery

What claim didn't you make? Everything I said was in response to the video that you posted alleging that the perspectives of the background objects were incorrect, and looked as if they were painted on a flat screen along with the large rock. I showed that they could not have been, because (contrary to what the video alleges) the perspective of the smaller rocks relative to the large rock in fact DOES change.

As for the second claim made in the video about not being able to see the right side of the large rock as the rover drove past, my images and illustrations were not meant to cover that -- they were only meant to show how the rocks behind the large rock could not possibly have been painted on a flat screen along with the large rock.

As I mentioned in another post above, I i DO think I can see a bit more of the right side of that large rock as the rover drives by, but the data is too inconclusive for me to be able to prove it. As I said, it's very subtle.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

You won't admit to seeing it. It's kinda funny too. Anyone who is honest knows the photos looks staged. I mean, I was just in a wedding and the photographer took her time lining up photos so they would be just right and everything, including the background, was in the shot. But on Apollo, no viewfinder, a fishbowl helmet, pressurized gloves, and on the spot improvisation of camera settings produced this:

s.hswstatic.com...

Good lord. I feel really bad for those that think that's on the moon. Like really bad. Like, you still sleep in a race car bed bad.

They took that picture three times and the best one was the one published in all the textbooks. The other two were OK, either had a bit of sun flare, or were crooked, or did not center the subjects as nicely as the thrid.

history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Firstly, your first post made claims I did not. Quit with the goalpost BS. My argument hasn't changed and that rock remains flat with a quick screen glitch and some rocks in the background moving forward then back again. It's a forgery

Well guess what mate they paid a visit to the rock in question and removed a sample it's HOUSE ROCK have a guess why it's called that

From your favourite video

As it turns out this house sized rock is actually 24 meters by 20 meters (79 by 65 feet)! A smaller rock (9 meters or 30 feet) directly to the south was dubbed “Outhouse Rock”, and several samples were collected at this location

House Rock

ENJOY!!!!!!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
I get that it's your job to make this all believable
Etc

Just wanted to note the "shill" ad hom. Carry on, folks.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Firstly, your first post made claims I did not. Quit with the goalpost BS. My argument hasn't changed and that rock remains flat with a quick screen glitch and some rocks in the background moving forward then back again. It's a forgery

I'm not sure which glitch you mean, but I did see some sort of glitch at the 1:10 mark of your video (shown below):



However, I think the issue is only with the video you posted. Another version of the footage (shown below) does not have a similar glitch. The part of the video showing the large rock where the "glitch" was seen in your video stats at about the 1:19 mark of this video, but there is no glitch:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks for the vids. I'll watch later and respond

OK. let's put some of this nonsense to bed shall we.

The big rock that is observed in the video is House rock, and it is filmed from the vantage point of the rover at Station 11 as it moves off to station 13.

You can find House rock and Station 11 on this LRO image in the SE corner of North Ray crater:

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

House rock was also photographed in great detail, as can be seen in Magazine 106:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I took one such image and compared it with the LRO viewpoint:



As you can see, there are many features that clearly match up, and it is self-evident from the photograph that is the same rock shown in the 16mm DAC footage.

As for the nonsense that it is all on a painted backdrop that doesn't move, well, it's nonsense. Here are two frames from the 16mm footage centred on House Rock:



The video bobbypurify posted claims that the backdrop is lunar imagery. Well, where did they get lunar imagery from? It certainly isn't from the lunar orbiter photographs - as you can tell from the best one available of the area here:

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

The claim that it some sort of painted backdrop that doesn't move completely falls apart when examined in proper detail.

...and here's another couple of frames from bobbypurify's video post. I've centred it on a rock beyond the point supposedly marking the immovable painted backdrop:



OH, and have some more House Rock:

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Good stuff I briefly glanced over. I'll get back when I'm done traveling. Thanks

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Already told him it was House Rock a couple of posts above yours with a link to othet LRO info of that area.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I think you posted that while I was gathering my stuff together

I think the video in question is both an exercise in bad research and one that relies on people not actually checking what it claims. It is quite obviously not a painted backdrop, objects on the supposed backdrop clearly move in response to the movement of the observer in a way that could not happen if it was fixed. House rock was photographed, film, and broadcast on live TV from a distance and close up, like here

www.hq.nasa.gov...

It takes no time at all for the claims to be examined and dismissed, providing you are actually interested in double checking facts.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I think the video in question is both an exercise in bad research and one that relies on people not actually checking what it claims. It is quite obviously not a painted backdrop, objects on the supposed backdrop clearly move in response to the movement of the observer in a way that could not happen if it was fixed..

But...but...the video TELLS me the perspective doesn't change, so it must be a painted backdrop.
So, considering they "said so", how could it be untrue?

I know, I know -- if I do a bit of my own investigating and watch the video to actually follow the claims being made, I would see that the perspective DOES change in a manner consistent with the background being real. However, why should I believe my own investigation and critical thinking when I can just be a sheep and blindly believe what "some guy who made a YouTube video" tells me?