why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[LunarOrbit]

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?

Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

Why don't you show us the original source of the images or video that that animated GIF was made from. It might explain some things.

[alexsanchez]

Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.

Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Reality.

How much you all have the exact same point of view?

That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?

Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture??
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

I recommend you read about "parallax", Mr. Engineer.

Don't confuse reality with opinion.  There's a BIG difference.  And I suggest you read about perspective.  Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.  In a real debate, you lost 1 point.  Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

[alexsanchez]

4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?

Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.  It's not perspective, it's parallax.  There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.

Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain

Why don't you show us the original source of the images or video that that animated GIF was made from. It might explain some things.

Excellent question!!! They are from the NASA website.  Sequential:  AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11601HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11602HR.jpg

Analysis done by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov State University, Ukraine

[JayUtah]

BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467065.html

[JayUtah]

Don't confuse reality with opinion.

Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

And I suggest you read about perspective.

Well, let me see.  Since it's my profession, I know a lot about it.  And my personal skill at and knowledge of photographic interpretation and analysis has been published in Science.  You may have heard about it; it's only the most prestigious professional scientific journal in the English language.

Where did you receive your training?  Do you just realize that you demonstrated total ignorance of one of the most basic principles in the projective transformation?

Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Begging the question.

Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

This is why you get banned.

[alexsanchez]

BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467065.html

Who said I'm using my real name?  Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre.  My real name comes up on patentgenius.  If I google Jay Utah will I find you?

[cjameshuff]

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.

[JayUtah]

From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.

And the assignee is a home health care equipment company.  That means they paid for him to do the work, which gives us better insight into his real occupation.

See, those of us who really do work in aerospace realize that the huge spectrum of his claimed work in that industry is the best evidence that it's bogus.  It's like he write the proposal, drew up the plans, wrote the software, tested everything, designed and sewed the uniforms, and printed the glossy brochures.

[JayUtah]

Analysis done by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov State University, Ukraine

There's no "analysis" to be had.  It's a simple layman's misunderstanding of parallax such as has been foisted off by conspiracy hacks for the past 10 years.  It's not only wrong, it's laughably wrong.  It's like telling us oil filters are made from cheese.  Pasting some unverifiable Russian guy's name on it does not correct the obvious error.

ETA:  By the way, we already discussed Oleynik's home-grown method on this site and pointed out its many fatal flaws.  Note that he is retired and has conducted this outside any sort of scientific process involving review and validation.  While he purports that this method can be used to determine real photos from fake, he does not demonstrate this ability in a fair test.  Finally, he applies his method only to Apollo photographs to make that determination; there is no scientific control.

[LunarOrbit]

Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.

Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?

[alexsanchez]

Don't confuse reality with opinion.

Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

And I suggest you read about perspective.

Well, let me see.  Since it's my profession, I know a lot about it.  And my personal skill at and knowledge of photographic interpretation and analysis has been published in Science.  You may have heard about it; it's only the most prestigious professional scientific journal in the English language.

Where did you receive your training?  Do you just realize that you demonstrated total ignorance of one of the most basic principles in the projective transformation?

Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Begging the question.

Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide.  What flavor is that, btw?  Lemmie guess.. TANG?

This is why you get banned.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

I simply asked who moved the LM.  You said to look up parallax.  You avoided the question.  BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
    1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
    2. Therefore X is true.

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.  - Mark Twain

[alexsanchez]

Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.

Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.

Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?

It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible.  It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published.  After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.  What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places. 

[Grashtel]

Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.  What do you talk about when I'm not here?  How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.  Hey... who moved the LM in this picture??
http://goo.gl/UPBJU

No one, its right where it should be, the astronaut has just moved a few hundred yards away from it.  The mountains are just much further away than they look due to there being no air to produce fuzzyness or vegetation to provide cues as to the scale making judging distances on the Moon very difficult compared to earth.  Try looking up maps of the landing sites to see just how far away features are before assuming that they are a faked backdrop.

[alexsanchez]

False.  Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight.  Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.

From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.

That's not my patent.  My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)

[LunarOrbit]

Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

I simply asked who moved the LM.  You said to look up parallax.  You avoided the question. 

I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.