FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[nomuse]

It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?

Mmm, I did want a nice salad for my lunch.

Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?

I guess this image http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/stray-dog-sits-in-front-of-the-greek-parliament-building-in-news-photo/462401258 is complete impossible, then? The dog clearly takes up less of the height or width of the photograph than the building behind him.

[bknight]

It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?

Mmm, I did want a nice salad for my lunch.

Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?

I guess this image http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/462401258-stray-dog-sits-in-front-of-the-greek-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QfWnY53zaVviZmcAQ4%2B7S5oVQsk%2B9Ymwkb0tXgPGSog2waapegCXXvbRj1H73Sk5Hg%3D%3D is complete impossible, then? The dog clearly takes up less of the height or width of the photograph than the building behind him.

I get a 403 - Forbidden: Access is denied error

[bknight]

This is the second time that you have posted this garbage claim. I comprehensively refuted it here:

No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.

Wrong.



They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas did the job

Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?

So, again, do you retract your assertion?

After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. 




Furthermore, not only must have exact match in the aforementioned sectors but also in craters that surround these areas ... not you think? and it is abundantly clear that there are no coincidences.
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 

How much did you have to rotate the red box about 145 deg. counterclockwise was my guess

[JayUtah]

Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?

He appears to be claiming such effects don't occur in astronomical photography because of "astronomical distance."  The distances are large, but also so are the sizes.  The governing mathematics, however, do not qualitatively change simply because you put larger numbers into the formulas.  But as we've seen in his other posts, tarkus has no demonstrable spatial reasoning ability, so I imagine we'll get simply more of his cargo-cult reasoning.

[nomuse]

So, wait...behind his claim that both images are false is an assumption that not only did NASA (or whomever) have to make up an image of what the far side of the Moon should look like, it didn't occur to anyone there to re-use the artwork once they'd done it?

Well, that's not dissimilar to the fancy that NASA studio techs would set up for AS14-64-9123 and take -9125 at the same time, break down the set, shoot something unrelated, then come back on thursday and set it all back up again because someone reminded them they needed a -9124 as well!

[Allan F]

Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?

He appears to be claiming such effects don't occur in astronomical photography because of "astronomical distance."  The distances are large, but also so are the sizes.  The governing mathematics, however, do not qualitatively change simply because you put larger numbers into the formulas.  But as we've seen in his other posts, tarkus has no demonstrable spatial reasoning ability, so I imagine we'll get simply more of his cargo-cult reasoning.

Just like hunchbacked. Coincidence?

[Jason Thompson]

Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 

Do you not have them? Over in your Apollo 13 thread you claimed that the service module should have been visible in the photos taken through the LM rendezvous window. Plenty of examples of why that was not so were presented, including one that used a model of the spacecraft. You did not even acknowledge them. Now, do you care to admit you were wrong about that?

[raven]

You know, tarkus, in several hoax scenario I've read, the shots from lunar orbit were done using a giant spherical model for the moon, which means your claims don't even make any sense in a hoax. And, really, if you were going to fake a moon orbit, having to make a 2D image of the moon for each photo, correcting for changes in perspective as the craft orbits, would be absolutely maddening, and that's just  still images! A large model (including one as large as the moon  ) would create its own changes in perspective out of its own reality.

[tarkus]

Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about.   Do you even know what focal length is?  And van?  Did you bother to look at the gif provided?  there is no van.

My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused. But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.

For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.

If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.

[frenat]

Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about.   Do you even know what focal length is?  And van?  Did you bother to look at the gif provided?  there is no van.

My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused.

I'm not confused.  But from your posts apparently YOU are.

But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.

For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.

Prove it.  Multiple people say otherwise. 

[onebigmonkey]

For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.

Possibly the most stupid thing ever written here.

[bknight]

...

For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.

If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.

That depends on the distance the observer is from the moon.

[Allan F]

Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about.   Do you even know what focal length is?  And van?  Did you bother to look at the gif provided?  there is no van.

My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused. But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.

For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.

If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.

Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle - one with two sides of the same lenght. The third side should be short, so you get a narrow triangle with a small angle at the top. Now, a short length from the top - about a quarter down, draw a line across parallel with the bottom one. So you have two triangles, same angles on the corners, but different in scale. Measure the centerline, and write the lenght of it next to it. Measure the bottom line, and the transverse line near the top. Now you have a two-dimensional representation of a two-body system with a full eclipse. Look at the numbers you wrote. Multiply them with a billion. Now you have astronomical distances. Exactly the same relations between Earth, Moon and a distant observer.

[ChrLz]

I was (almost) prepared to accept that Tarkus was .. er.. somewhat ignorant of the very basic skills required to compare two images..

Not any longer - after that last post where he didn't even mention simple rotation, let alone perspective and distortion issues from the spherical shape of the Moon (duh), and the fact that he doesn't understand magnification and focal length (or pretends not to)...


Nah, not any longer, given the explanations and handholding.  It's either a troll, or ... frankly, this person is beyond help and further explanation is a complete waste of time.

[onebigmonkey]

Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle -

I think you lost him about there.