FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[Dr_Orpheus]

Surely you jest.  He hasn't retracted any of his propositions.

Just bravely ran away like Brave Sir Robin.

[gillianren]

lol
even though much is already wrong.

Well, of course it is.  If he were right, he wouldn't be an HB.  But you have to admit, it's better than a blind, "Nuh uh!"

[raven]

At least there is something to bite at with this one. The other guy, it was just a shallow regurgitation of hackneyed claims.

[BazBear]

Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.

lol
even though much is already wrong.

Tarkus probably deserves an   A   E for effort and an F for everything else.

[onebigmonkey]

The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.

Here's what happens when you run all the images together:

Do you know the time interval between images?

I'm not sure what the interval is, but it could probably be worked out! From my overlays of MMC images in Google Moon (see my site if you want to download them), the CSM typically moved about 40 km between images, but settings may have been different for TEC.

The TEC images were taken in two sessions, once about two and a half hours (the session from just after the TEI burn) and the second some time later for about 15 minutes to run off the final frames before the EVA to collect the magazines. Looking at the AIA, my guess is that 99 exposures were made during the first session.

Here are the relevant parts of the transcript:

199 20 22 Peterson: And, 16, it'll take about 3 hours to get rid of that mapping camera film, if we run it all the way out.

200 31 02 Mattingly (onboard): Mapping Camera to Extend.
200 33 52 Duke (onboard): Mapping Camera's going On, right.
...
203 03 11 Peterson: Okay, 16. We need to get the Mapping Camera, Off


212 55 06 Mattingly: Hank, would you say again what you wanted done with this Mapping Camera, please?
212 55 09 Hartsfield: Roger, Ken. We just want to run the film out and leave the door shut. We want to get the Image Motion, On; Mapping Camera, On; and barber pole plus 2. That gives us a higher speed.
214 37 48 Hartsfield: And Ken, the Mapping Camera is out of film, but the Stellar Camera is still feeding a little.

[Zakalwe]

Surely you jest.  He hasn't retracted any of his propositions.

Just bravely ran away like Brave Sir Robin.

i wonder how Tindawhathisface is at minstrelling?   

[bknight]

The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.

Here's what happens when you run all the images together:

Do you know the time interval between images?

I'm not sure what the interval is, but it could probably be worked out! From my overlays of MMC images in Google Moon (see my site if you want to download them), the CSM typically moved about 40 km between images, but settings may have been different for TEC.

The TEC images were taken in two sessions, once about two and a half hours (the session from just after the TEI burn) and the second some time later for about 15 minutes to run off the final frames before the EVA to collect the magazines. Looking at the AIA, my guess is that 99 exposures were made during the first session.

Here are the relevant parts of the transcript:

199 20 22 Peterson: And, 16, it'll take about 3 hours to get rid of that mapping camera film, if we run it all the way out.

200 31 02 Mattingly (onboard): Mapping Camera to Extend.
200 33 52 Duke (onboard): Mapping Camera's going On, right.
...
203 03 11 Peterson: Okay, 16. We need to get the Mapping Camera, Off


212 55 06 Mattingly: Hank, would you say again what you wanted done with this Mapping Camera, please?
212 55 09 Hartsfield: Roger, Ken. We just want to run the film out and leave the door shut. We want to get the Image Motion, On; Mapping Camera, On; and barber pole plus 2. That gives us a higher speed.
214 37 48 Hartsfield: And Ken, the Mapping Camera is out of film, but the Stellar Camera is still feeding a little.

That gives a pretty good estimation 1.5-1.75/sec.  using A11 post flight information the TEI had about 3300 fps so the distance interval was maybe 1 mile.  Bob could do a better job than I in the estimation, but seems close.

[ChrLz]

As always, I am staggered by the amount of information that is out there, and may I thank those of you who have gone the extra miles to add a whole pile of new information (to me anyway), and hang it together in such detail.

Tarkus, you must be really pleased to have all this new information at your fingertips - it would be good to see you return and thank all those above who put it all together for you and others like me who hadn't seen it before...


And perhaps it might have been better to have applied at least a tiny bit of basic effort beforehand to find out more about the images you stumbled upon/over..  Because now, in hindsight of course, it would seem that you posted them in complete and utter ignorance...

[tarkus]

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? 

[JayUtah]

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

Do you?

Going back to read all your posts to this thread, it's clear you have very poor spatial reasoning skills.  You don't understand perspective.  You don't understand field of view.  You don't understand even a simple thing such as how features are differently distorted by being on a round object.  You really don't understand much of anything that pertains to the claims you've made.  The question is how many different people are going to have to explain these things to you before you realize that you simply don't have the skills needed to look at photos and understand what they depict?  How many people are going to have to explain that it's not "superstition" to simply have appropriate human perception?

[JayUtah]

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. 

Do you understand that those craters are identifiable enough to have names?  Do you understand that they've been researched, studied, mapped, and photographed many, times for decades?  It's one thing to be totally ignorant of photography, which you are, but it's yet another degree of failure not to understand even simple facts about the practice of astronomy.  You're really not very good at this.

[tarkus]

Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager.  This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience.  Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.

perfect example
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.

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?

[onebigmonkey]

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? 

You clearly have issues with spatial awareness. Here. let me help you work out which is your arse and which is your elbow:

[frenat]

Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager.  This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience.  Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.

perfect example
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.

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?

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.

[JayUtah]

...you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?

You can if the camera is on a space ship and therefore also able to travel vast distances.  That's just how lenses work, and something every photographer learns.  Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your utter ignorance of photography, spatial reasoning, and perspective.  I've tried several times to parse the rest of your rant, but it simply makes no sense.