FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[carpediem]

I do not speak or read English ... however I've managed to read and understand them all of you, I said this before, and as you assume they have more and better knowledge than me, from now on I'm going to write my language, Spanish, so from now will be equal, that way I will be able to respond to more users.

If anything you seem to be responding less often now that you have changed into your native tongue. Is this nothing more than a crude attempt to derail the thread?

[JayUtah]

Yah, but does not the dolly zoom trick require, well, the dolly?

Yes of course, and part of tarkus' problem seems to be that he is unable to determine how properly to compare images taken from different distances, say from spacecraft versus from Earth.  Vary the distance but leave the focal length alone and you see a proportional difference in the scene, but (for distant objects) little if any difference in apparent size in the frame.  Vary the focal length and leave the distance alone and you see a different apparent size of the entire scene with respect to the frame, but no difference between objects in the scene.  Combine the two effects, as any happenstance photography will naturally do, and it requires some thought to determine whether the objects are properly depicted.

[Zakalwe]

There's also the issue of the shifting of the goalposts.....first he claimed that not one single crater matched. Cue a quick shift of the goalposts when he was shown that not only one was matched, but a whole group. The he claims that they are "similiar" but of course that doesn't count.

What is it with hoaxies that they are such intellectual cowards that they are unable to either hold their position or admit when they are incorrect?

[bknight]

Ego is a large hurdle for many.  The importance of being right in a black and white world.

[ka9q]

Changing focus on a camera doesn't make objects larger or smaller, it just well.. brings the object into focus.

Actually, changing focus does make the scene appear larger or smaller, but only slightly. That's because it changes the distance between the lens and the imager/film, which changes the size of the image formed on the latter.

This is especially noticeable for macro lenses, which move out quite far from their "infinity" focus points, but still it's important in photometry. For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.

This isn't directly relevant to the present discussion of pictures of the earth and moon together from space well away from both, as the lens would simply be focused at infinity and left there. But it should be pointed out for completeness.

[ineluki]

If anything you seem to be responding less often now that you have changed into your native tongue.

It's amazing how these problems (just like the lack of time) always comes up when the Hoaxers are supposed to explain their beliefs with more than "I want to believe", but are never any hindrance in spouting new lies, accusations, silly remarks... One could almost think they are not totally honest...

[Paul]

Changing focus on a camera doesn't make objects larger or smaller, it just well.. brings the object into focus.

Actually, changing focus does make the scene appear larger or smaller, but only slightly. That's because it changes the distance between the lens and the imager/film, which changes the size of the image formed on the latter.

This is especially noticeable for macro lenses, which move out quite far from their "infinity" focus points, but still it's important in photometry. For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.

This isn't directly relevant to the present discussion of pictures of the earth and moon together from space well away from both, as the lens would simply be focused at infinity and left there. But it should be pointed out for completeness.

Hi ka9q, yes I see what you mean.  I was just making the point that you wouldn't be trying to change focal length by turning the focus ring!

[Count Zero]

For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.

Thank you for explaining this.  I tried to analyze one of these photos a few years back, and the Earth was stubbornly too large and I could not figure out why.

[ka9q]

I tried to analyze one of these photos a few years back, and the Earth was stubbornly too large and I could not figure out why.

You did also consider that the nominal focal length is also effective only for the center of the image? As you move towards the sides of the image formed by a rectilinear lens, the distance to the lens also increases.

[Dalhousie]

While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109

[bknight]

While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109

Large advances in imagery in 50 years

[Dalhousie]

While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109

Large advances in imagery in 50 years

What will we have in the next 50?

[bknight]

While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109

Large advances in imagery in 50 years

What will we have in the next 50?

What I would like to see is an observatory with sufficient angular resolution to view the Apollo landing sites and hardware directly, perhaps that would shut up the HB's.

[raven]

Doubtful. They'd just say they were planted sometime between then and then.

[bknight]

Doubtful. They'd just say they were planted sometime between then and then.

Oh the "secret" launches, you may be correct.