New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 37
73
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I'm happy that you've gone to all that trouble. Please don't get snippy. This is what I am refering to. This is not simply terrain dips lengthening shadows and changing their angle. Do you get what I mean?


Only around half of the rocks you've highlighted there actually have shadows even remotely near horizontal, three of them I replicated in the image.

You're still trying to grasp at your point I guess, how many more rocks must I reasonably recreate before you accept that your shadow analysis was flawed and you have no evidence of faked or composited photos?




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I'm sorry but the shadows are telling a very different story to me than they are to you.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I'm sorry but the shadows are telling a very different story to me than they are to you.


And thus you demonstrate your ignorance. Even after I spent an hour working on a reproduction for you you ignore the facts and continue with your claims.

The shadows do not tell you anything, you do not understand how to interpret shadows as I think I have quite exhaustively proven. What is left of your claim? Converging shadows are now disproven, terrain abnormalities are now disproven. I've proven that indeed Armstrong did traverse a short dip between the LEM and the photo site. I've proven that small variations in terrain can indeed cause shadows to change angles.

There is nothing left of your theory but your own determined efforts to believe it.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
No the shadows are literally pointing to a specific point in the image. And you think this is by random terrain variations?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
No the shadows are literally pointing to a specific point in the image. And you think this is by random terrain variations?


Shadows on a flat plane converge at a single point. This is called perspective. Terrain bends shadows, this is why you found 2 converging points in the image. This was caused by terrain.

How many more times must I state the same thing? What more can you possibly want me to show you?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I am aware of this. But you are not converging the shadows at the location they do in the image rather you're manipulating the ground to create an illusion. So what is this just an attempt to show me up?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
I am aware of this. But you are not converging the shadows at the location they do in the image rather you're manipulating the ground to create an illusion. So what is this just an attempt to show me up?


The two things you listed are the same thing. The whole point of what I am telling you is that the terrain affects the direction of shadow.

I don't know how I can put it any more simply. Your theory was that it was a composited image because not all shadows pointed in the same direction. My contention is that slight terrain variations will move shadows enough to cause this effect. I have now produced a 3d render of a scene with shadows which converge at more than one point using no trickery and just slight terrain variations.

Unless you are saying that the moon landing took place on a completely flat 2d plane then your theory is disproven.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
No it is not the same thing. Your shadows are not following the terrain. You are making dips to create the illusion of shadows following the terrain. This is a scam.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
No it is not the same thing. Your shadows are not following the terrain. You are making dips to create the illusion of shadows following the terrain. This is a scam.


Dips are the terrain. Would you like the .blend file I used so you can render it yourself? I used no trickery whatsoever. You were wrong, deal with it.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
If I wanted to I could make the shadows point at the stars. That doesn't tell us anything about this photo though. You've defeated the entire point of my asking you to do this.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
If I wanted to I could make the shadows point at the stars. That doesn't tell us anything about this photo though. You've defeated the entire point of my asking you to do this.


This is getting ridiculous. You cannot tell what the terrain is on the moon based on the original photo. The dips and rises I added were entirely plausible and supported by the analysis I did.

You're just sticking to your theory because you cannot admit you are wrong. Nothing I changed was unrealistic and I tried to stick only to changes that were visible. All you've done is deny and doubt and now you're flat out accusing me of scamming you.

Grow up.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Which way are the shadows going in this photo. That don't #ing make it so.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Which way are the shadows going in this photo. That don't #ing make it so.



Those shadows converge at 3 different points. Have you faked the photo? (Yes I know it's a drawing)

If you understand how terrain changes shadow angles, then what is your complaint about the apollo photo?

You've just drawn what is shown on the photo, at the same time as arguing that it's not what is shown on the photo.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
For what you are suggesting to be accurate all the shadows would have to coincidentally fall in dips pointing in a direction the terrain is not. It's ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
For what you are suggesting to be accurate all the shadows would have to coincidentally fall in dips pointing in a direction the terrain is not. It's ridiculous.


You're just suffering from confirmation bias there, the shadows in the image point in many directions, as you would expect with uneven terrain. You're just selecting the two angles you feel are most significant and ignoring the others.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Um no. The shadows are pointing in a specific direction. Which is my issue with the photo which is why I brought it up. But you are skirting the very problem I have. And then saying there is no problem. Nice.

Do you not see a difference between these two situations? Both senarios appear to be pointing in the same direction.




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
Um no. The shadows are pointing in a specific direction. Which is my issue with the photo which is why I brought it up. But you are skirting the very problem I have. And then saying there is no problem. Nice.

Because there is no problem. All shadows in this image are confined to within 90 degrees, just sampling at random you'll get quite a few that line up within 5 degrees.

That's all you've demonstrated. Most of your lines were not very carefully drawn and done by hand and so you've tended to group them to a position you've already determined. I've shown that terrain variation can account for this and so you can't continue just asserting that you're right without showing some evidence for it.


Do you not see a difference between these two situations? Both senarios appear to be pointing in the same direction.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to portray here. Yes, if you ignore the shadows that don't match, quite a lot of them match, that's all that you are doing here.

This is getting very tiresome and so this is probably going to be my last post on the topic. Either spend the time and effort to provide a compelling case by actually carefully (or better, automatically) drawing these lines and showing that they cannot be due to terrain. As it stands I haven't even bothered to include some of the major craters visible and with the most subtle variation I've matched the most distorted of the shadows.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
And do you not sense a theme in this photo? lol... You think these all coincidentally fall in dips creating the illusion they are pointed in that particular direction? Yes some do not. That is the random variation you are talking about. But generally they are pointing in a direction.

edit on 3-12-2012 by MortPenguin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MortPenguin
 


The terrain is a pock marked, undulating, desolate, pitted, micro meteorite blasted, vacuum......and the shadows "don't seem right" to you?

If somehow you could be transported to this site, at the right time of the Lunar day, when the sun is at the correct angle, and put you in Armstrong's location maybe then we'd get a "huh, now I get it", but I really think that's the only way you'd be convinced MP(and even then the time would have to be exact or the shadows wouldn't match and you wouldn't be happy, regardless of the fact there's the descent stage and other remnants of Apollo 11 strewn about the place).



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
i can clearly see what the OP is taking about





top topics
 
73
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join