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

[nomuse]

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.

Parallax is also the name of a breakout board for a popular series of microcomputer chips.  The possible definitions of a word are not at issue here: a concept often summed up by that word is.

[frenat]

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.

Except for the fact that the background mountains differ in the two photos in a way consistent with parallax.  You fail yet again.

[Bob B.]

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.

Parallax most definitely applies because it is evident in the photos, indicating a significant change in camera location.

[frenat]

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

Those craters are NOT the same.  There's your lack of attention to detail failing you again.

[gillianren]

Seriously--why does anyone take Jack White seriously?  Do they know nothing about him?  (By the way, the answer to "how many engineers do you know?" is best answered with another question--do you mean just the ones here, or in general?)  His mistakes are so many and so laughable that it only took one question to discover that his entire testimony could be disregarded!

[nomuse]

Yah.

When you don't even know the name of the field you are pretending to be an expert in...

[alexsanchez]

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

Please post the patent number.

I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.  They look reasonable at a glance.  If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.  I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos , but it hung up this macbook I'm using.  I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.  If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.  However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not. 

[smartcooky]

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

Interesting that you claim to have worked at Boeing on the U2 programme, (which, BTW, was built by Lockheed Martin, not Boeing), while you also claim to have been working at NASA and the Air Force and at McDonnell-Douglas under Henry J. Dhuyvetter.

As the lies get bigger, so the hole gets deeper!

Clue:
Boeing didn't process the film from the U2, nor did they have anything whatever to do with the camera, the magazines or the film. The camera was developed by Spica Incorporated in co-operation with Eastman Kodak who were the creators of the Aero-Ektar lens.

The film processing job fell to the CIA, a job which they did at their film-developing and photo interpreting units scattered all around the world at bases where the U2 operated from, e.g. Adana in Turkey, Wiesbaden, Gutesloh and Giebelstadt in West Germany, Lakenheath AFB in England, Atsugi NAS in Japan, Lahore in Pakistan,  and of course in the USA at Eilsten AFB (Alaska), Laughlin AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB.

Are you going to now tell us all that you worked for the CIA too?

[Not Myself]

Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.

Quite a lot of fake backgrounds around these days, you know.

[ChrLz]

Ahem, is 'Alex' going to be allowed a Gish Gallop....?  I'd like to make a suggestion to the entire group not to allow that, but I'll put it in the form of a CHALLENGE to Alex...  Not for a million Euro's or nuthin, just for .. credibility.

Alex, instead of shallowly jumping around from topic to topic, why don't you - just as a REAL engineer would - nominate the best, most absolutely convincing and compelling proof that you have.  That would be the..
..best evidenced one, in your opinion.
..best documented one, in your opinion (whether that be by NASA or by some denial website).
..the one that you feel most confident you can support with your particular skill set...

And then, be prepared to go through that single issue in a thorough, step by step, logical, cited and referenced fashion (just as an engineer .. or scientist - or indeed any competent investigator - would).  That process would of course include properly applicable formulas and mathematics as/when/if required.  Why even a bit of photogrammetry, if such was appropriate.. 

Are you up for it, Alex?  Wouldn't it be good for you to show this forum and the world how you *really* knew your stuff to the level required, how you got it right, and how your knowledge is what you claim?

Or would you *rather* paddle around in the wading pool?

Now.. if it was up to me, I'd be delighted if your favourite was the 'moved LM' - my skills are very much in the fields of photography and things like perspective, parallax, lens characteristics, general optics.  I'd even happily make up some little models to show you how it all works!  But take my advice - if THAT is your best, you are out of your depth even in the wading pool, and it will be over faster than you can say 'focal length'.

So I'm quite happy if that is your chosen best evidence, but I'm not wasting my time starting to go through it just to watch you dance off and launch a whole pile of other topics, when it starts to become clear that your 'knowledge' isn't what was claimed.

So, Alex. Be brave and tell us.  WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE EVIDENCE?  Nominate it NOW.  Don't dance around and say, f'rinstance, it's 'all the {alleged} photographic anomalies' - just pick the NUMBER ONE.

If you are not willing to do that, then I'm going to have to assume that the Moved LM is IT...

[onebigmonkey]

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.

Allow me:

Different crater



Different viewpoint (aligned on the hill under 'E', exactly the same size selection area).



Next.

[nomuse]

Wow.

Those craters are exactly alike in that they are both....craters.

In every other detail, they are obviously distinctly unquestionably different.

If this guy were an EE, he'd be one that thought that "transistor" and "resistor" were identical and could be transposed in a circuit.

[Zakalwe]

Alexsanchez,

Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?

Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that  a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.

Thanks in advance.

[smartcooky]

Goodness, those facts can be pesky little things can't they.

No matter how much gish-gallopiing and handwaving HB's do, those annoying little facts just keep getting in the way.

....snip...

Alex, instead of shallowly jumping around from topic to topic, why don't you - just as a REAL engineer would - nominate the best, most absolutely convincing and compelling proof that you have.  That would be the..
..best evidenced one, in your opinion.
..best documented one, in your opinion (whether that be by NASA or by some denial website).
..the one that you feel most confident you can support with your particular skill set...

And then, be prepared to go through that single issue in a thorough, step by step, logical, cited and referenced fashion (just as an engineer .. or scientist - or indeed any competent investigator - would).  That process would of course include properly applicable formulas and mathematics as/when/if required.... snip...

Don't be silly....that would be like asking a twoofer to put together a logical, reasoned argument when most of them can barely even put a sentence together.

Why even a bit of photogrammetry, if such was appropriate.. 

*** snicker ****

[Zakalwe]

Different viewpoint (aligned on the hill under 'E', exactly the same size selection area).



Next.

Yep. Such an embarrassingly poor hoax example.

Here's the same images, overlaid using the apex of the larger mountain.


And another using the same reference point as you did (the hill under "E")


Its clear that the photographer has moved position.
 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.

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

No you don't

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.  They look reasonable at a glance. 

(bold emphasis mine)
Haven't you been told about doing your own research first? Or at least quoting from reputable sources?? Why put something up that you haven't checked? Or even done a modicum of testing on?
And they don't look reasonably "at a glance". Unless the glance you took was from a moving train and the pictures were on the platform. In the dark.

If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.

OK, so now its been shown that the point that you were trying to draw is bogus. Please retract the claim.

If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.  However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

So, at what point do you say that the landings happened as described? When, in your opinion, does the agreed evidence overtake the hoax claims? Or are you like the vast majority of conspiracy "theorists" that thinks that one "anomaly" overrules and outweighs tonnes of verified evidence?
Your point about "one bogus photo" also works the other way. If the clown that created the claim above can't do a modicum of checking, then any similar claim from this source should be viewed as also bogus, shouldn't it???