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

[JayUtah]

I simply asked who moved the LM.

That begs the question that it was moved.

BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.

Hogwash.  How many more of these patently untrue claims to expertise are you going to attempt.  You can't even demonstrate basic spatial reasoning.  Now you're trying to tell us you're one of America's top photo interpreters?  Do you really think people aren't seeing your obvious errors and untruths?

[JayUtah]

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

That's the only patent under your name.  So give us the patent number of yours.

[LunarOrbit]

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.

If you're photographing fashion models you might move set pieces around and pick the best shots later. If you're trying to fool the world into believing that you're on the moon you want to keep the set the same between shots to avoid continuity errors that will attract close attention.

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. 

And that is parallax. The mountains are really big and far away, so they don't appear to move much. The LM is smaller and closer to the camera, so when the photographer moves the mountains look the same but the LM appears to be in a different location.

[alexsanchez]

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.

Sorry.  I saw the name as quoted.  Your name is quoted above it.  Anyway, how many engineers do you know?  Your expectations are a little high.  So, if I google Lunar Orbit, will I find you?  (or whoever questioned my patent.)

[LunarOrbit]

Sorry.  I saw the name as quoted.  Your name is quoted above it.  Anyway, how many engineers do you know?  Your expectations are a little high.

Jeeze, I hope not! If it's common for engineers to have such poor attention to detail then I don't really feel safe in the building I'm in right now.

So, if I google Lunar Orbit, will I find you?  (or whoever questioned my patent.)

I recommend going back a few posts and reading them again.

[alexsanchez]

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.

If you're photographing fashion models you might move set pieces around and pick the best shots later. If you're trying to fool the world into believing that you're on the moon you want to keep the set the same between shots to avoid continuity errors that will attract close attention.

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. 

And that is parallax. The mountains are really big and far away, so they don't appear to move much. The LM is smaller and closer to the camera, so when the photographer moves the mountains look the same but the LM appears to be in a different location.

I'm not on my regular computer right now, but if I was, I'd overlay one on the other.  However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

[Bob B.]

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.

You better look again, Alex, because there are clear signs of parallax in those photos.  Although subtle, these parallax changes indicate that the vantage point is most certainly not the same.

[JayUtah]

However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer.  You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[JayUtah]

I'm the one who questioned your patent, since you seem to have great difficulty keeping up.

Please post the patent number.

[alexsanchez]

However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames.  This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.

Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer.  You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.  I'm saying the LM has moved a large distance while the camera position is the same (or almost the same.)  The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

This picture shows a clear demarcation between foreground and background.
http://aulis.com/stereoparallax/appolo_15_S1.gif

[JayUtah]

I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.

Nope.  Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds.  Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.

The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.

Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation.  It is strictly a product of camera location.  If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis.  What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.

[JayUtah]

http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg

Are you honestly trying to tell us that those obviously dissimilar craterlets are the same one?

[alexsanchez]

I know exactly what I'm talking about.  I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.

Nope.  Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds.  Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.

The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.

Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation.  It is strictly a product of camera location.  If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis.  What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.

In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation.  I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.

[frenat]

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

A fake background that shows the amount of parallax one would expect from distant mountains?  Jack White knew nothing and neither do you.

[frenat]

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?

He didn't avoid the question.  The answer is parallax.  How sad for you that you have the spatial reasoning skills of Jack White.