Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
Photo Foto Fake
Read Think Repeat:
Radiation was showstopper, venality the motive for the Apollo fraud. Radiation is a complex subject, and there are many more unknown problems as there are known problems. On the other hand the photography and video record was executed poorly, and is easy pickings.
From the Apollo 16 fraud comes a gem of a bad photo: AS16-109-17800
1) The red lines denote where the standard stagelines between stage and background are apparent.
2) The red circles highlight that the astroNot's left leg is not casting a shadow like his right leg.
3) Laughingly, the rover is casting a shadow in a direction 90 degrees off from that of the direction of the astroNot's shadow, and the shadows of other objects in the photo. The yellow lines denote the direction of shadows, the blue circles the high-gain antenna and its shadow.
Apollo, a criminal joke.
"Ignorance is Strength" I'm weak.
JayUtah:
--- Quote from: Read Think Repeat on April 03, 2019, 11:37:44 PM ---Radiation was showstopper, venality the motive for the Apollo fraud. Radiation is a complex subject...
--- End quote ---
Oh, good, there are several people here, myself included, who can speak at length about radiation management in space. You've offered only vague, handwaving challenges. Would you care to go into more detail?
--- Quote ---...and there are many more unknown problems...
--- End quote ---
No, you don't get to challenge the authenticity of something over things you don't know are problems.
--- Quote ---...as there are known problems.
--- End quote ---
Such as?
--- Quote ---1) The red lines denote where the standard stagelines between stage and background are apparent.
--- End quote ---
Or it could be the standard crest of an intervening hill. Explain the process you used to determine which one was true. Quite a number of us here are well versed in stagecraft too. We use the technique you allude to because it's reasonably convincing. It's reasonably convincing because it closely approximates real life.
--- Quote ---2) The red circles highlight that the astroNot's left leg is not casting a shadow like his right leg.
--- End quote ---
Because one leg is exactly up-sun from the other. This is not hard to figure out.
--- Quote ---3) Laughingly, the rover is casting a shadow in a direction 90 degrees off from that of the direction of the astroNot's shadow, and the shadows of other objects in the photo. The yellow lines denote the direction of shadows, the blue circles the high-gain antenna and its shadow.
--- End quote ---
There are techniques common in photogrammetric rectification to determine the actual directions of shadows. Why have you not used them? Why are you simply casually reckoning the directions based on uncontrolled observation? The topmost yellow line is clearly wrong, if it means to indicate the direction of shadows in the two o'clock direction from the center fiducial.
Read Think Repeat:
The NASA fraudsters made the same mistake in AS16-117-18819 as they did in AS16-109-17800: The rover's shadow is 90 degrees off from that of the astroNot's. Doh!
Yellow arrows denote the shadows of various objects, while the orange arrow and circles indicate the shadows from the rover and its high-gain antenna.
Apollo, a criminal joke.
"Ignorance is Strength." I'm weak.
JayUtah:
You do realize that the arrows you're drawing on these photographs are not the real directions of shadows? I assume you're unfamiliar with the proper method for determining shadow light source direction.
Also, you've presented an interpretation that the shadows in these images are not consistent. You've told us this is the result of fraud. You're missing the middle part of your argument where you tell us how it was really done. And you've omitted an answer to the rather obvious question that asks why NASA would do this if the results would be so easily detected as fraud. You realize, of course, that you're not the first to argue that the directions of shadows are inconsistent. These claims go back to at least the mid-1990s if not earlier. And you may be aware that when these same issues were brought up more than twenty years go, the conclusion was that the "analysis" of the shadows was naive and ignored all the various effects that can alter the apparent directions of shadows. What have you done to avoid those previous errors?
Read Think Repeat:
The NASA fraudsters couldn't make up their minds as to which way they wanted shadows to fall in AS16-107-17529.
First, it's straight on, as shown by the photog's shadow. Then second, it's to the left, as displayed by the scoop handle's shadow. And then third, the pole out by the astroNot is casting its shadow to the right.
But wait, there's more (Sorry, no ShamWow). The astroNot is casting no shadow upon the stage set floor--not to the left, not to the right. And neither is the blue circled rock.
Apollo, a criminal joke.
"Ignorance is Strength." I'm weak.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version