FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[JayUtah]

always it looks blurry !!!

I guess we can add acuity to the pile of things regarding photography of which you are totally ignorant.

[Zakalwe]

I admit that there is some similarity between the sectors that you point out, although the craters surrounding these selections do not match ...

Why do hoaxies seem incapable of learning how to use the quotation function of this board? or is it that they are so keen to "keyboard-bash" an answer without thinking first?

Tarkus- your original claim was this:

No matches not a single crater between the two pictures.

You are now in possession of a number of craters that match. Do you know retract your original claim? A simple "yes" will suffice.

but to say that both images (Apollo and LRO) are equivalent, should you point out at least one full sector, portion that goes from north to south, but you do not because you have not found anything more than 2-3 doubtful craters, and thus believes he has disproved something.

Now you are moving the goalposts. Your attempt to be slippery and weasel out is noted.
I can easily match the remaining craters in both images, but I am unsure why I should invest further time and effort in your education when you seem incapable of making the slightest effort to learn. Have you tried to match both images yourself? have you downloaded the Virtual Moon Atlas tool that I pointed out that I used? Show me a tiny piece of evidence that you have done ANY research or work yourself, over and above copy'n'pasting from Moon hoax websites.

If you genuinely want the craters matching and have tried to do so but cannot (you may have bad eyesight or some problem with spacial awareness. Or have some learning difficulties), then I can do so. If, however, you simply cannot be bothered to try for yourself than I have no intention wasting my time further on you. You made a claim. I showed to an acceptable standard that your claim was incorrect. The first time that I did this you ignores it. The second time you moved the goalposts. Evidence that you are genuinely interested in learning something or be aware that (in my eyes at least) you have proved yourself to be nothing more than an Internet troll.

[Jason Thompson]

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing?

Tarkus, since you return to this subject, how about answering my question? Earlier you said that the Earth appears 2 degrees wide from the moon, 400,000 km away. How big will it appear from twice that distance?

[Paul]

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.

So you still think that a Moon in front of a planet will always look bigger than the planet?
Explain this image then?



Two of Jupiter's moons in front of Jupiter (you can tell they are in front as their shadows are on Jupiter's surface).  Why do the moons look SMALLER than Jupiter even though they are closer to us on Earth than Jupiter is?  Do you accept that if were you hovering close to one of those moons surfaces that the moon would look big and Jupiter (relatively!) small.  It's all down to basic geometry again - please go and buy an introduction to geometry book. And while you are there you could buy a beginners guide to photography so you can learn about focus, focal length and exposure. Perhaps the college library has some books you could borrow?

[Peter B]

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.

NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!

Tarkus

How about you try the Stellarium program (http://www.stellarium.org/). Try a few experiments: see how large the Earth and Moon look when seen from various distances.

Once you've done that, come back and tell us we're wrong, with screenshots to show us our errors. Or see if you can be brave enough to admit you've been wrong.

[bknight]

NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!

Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle?  I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out.  look at the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.


EDIT: corrected spelling

[Paul]

NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!

Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle?  I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out.  look sat the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.

I think tarkus is still confused by focus and that infinity symbol on an SLR lens. He thinks it's not possible to focus on really distant things. So to him Pluto was "out of focus" as it's a long way away I guess.

Actually the long range Pluto images are "blurry" because they are up-sampled from a very small number of pixels - the Hubble image (the 4th one in the sequence) was actually only 3 pixels wide before it was up-scaled and detail interpolated!

I'm not sure how tarkus would account for Hubble's image of a section of the M31 Andromeda galaxy. Around TWO MILLION LIGHT YEARS away. Looks in focus to me...

[frenat]

Meh.

Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."

For that question, it is only about location, location, location. Camera matters not. It's all in the geometry.

Hi nomuse, yes you are right, if we are just considering relative sizes then cameras and focal lengths and focal points are not relevant.  You just need to compare Moon/Earth size ratios and relative distances to observer as I did in a couple of earlier posts and others have done in diagrams and photos.

To confirm 'in the field' the effect of focal length on relative size I went out this morning and shot the following:

70mm focal length, with the 'Moon' (small ruler) one metre from the 'Earth' (the big ruler).  The camera is positioned 6 metres further on from the 'Moon'. The relative distances match the Earth/Moon/DSCOVR positions



Using 10cm on the small ruler for the Moon diameter and 40cm on the big ruler for the Earth (sizes chosen to keep things simple) and after resizing and cropping to an image width of 1000 pixels we get:
Moon (168px) / Earth (498px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.337 = 33.7%.

Now at 100mm focal length (all objects and the camera unmoved):


Moon (152px) / Earth (454px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.

200mm:


Moon (162px) / Earth (484px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.

And finally 300mm:


Moon (236px) / Earth (710px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.332 = 33.2%.

Conclusion 1: So allowing for lens distortion through the zoom range, and margin of error from measuring the pixel lengths, the Moon and Earth ratio has remained constant regardless of focal length.

Now the effect of moving the camera forwards. We already have the 6m ratio at around 33% regardless of focal length.
So with camera at 3m from the Moon (at 70mm focal length):



Moon (171px) / Earth (423px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.404 = 40.4%.
So Moon has increased in size relative to Earth by moving nearer.

And with camera at 1m from the Moon (70mm):



Moon (353px) / Earth (473px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.746 = 74.6%.
The Moon has again increased substantially relative to the Earth.

Conclusion 2: Changing the relative distances between objects and observer changes the relative size of the objects.

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.

NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!

Focus is not the same thing as focal length.  You've been told this multiple times before.  I can only assume you are trolling at this point.

[Paul]

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work

No, once again you fail to understand the problem at all.  The ratio of the distances between the photographer and various objects in the field of view is what determines, along with focal length, the apparent sizes.  You defeated that by cropping and resizing the image to make some selected object the same size in the frame, and then defeated it by studying only one effect in isolation.  You simply don't know what you're doing, and you're fudging the evidence to make it come out the way you need it to.

What's really sad is that in order to have staged this experiment, you had to have seen the effects we referred to.  But you've deliberately arranged for data points that appear to prove your point in defiance of that.

Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago.  It shows that changing focal length DOES NOT change the relative sizes of the objects, but that changing relative distances between objects DOES change relative object sizes. 

[Zakalwe]

Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle?  I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out.  look at the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.

The movement of the craft really shouldn't come into it. After all, the Earth is rotating somewhere near 1000 miles per hour (at the Equator) and revolving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour, yet I am still,  with very amateur equipment, able to capture an image like this:


Where tarkus has gone wrong is that he does not understand the source of the Pluto images (Hey! Another thing that tarkus knows bugger all about. Who'd have thunk it?!?  ).
The GIF in question was created from images of Pluto captured over several decades. https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/views-of-pluto-through-the-years

The very first image in the sequence was captured by Clive Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto in 1930. the next four images were from the Hubble Space Telescope. The remainder were from New Horizons.

Tarkus' ignorance makes him confuse a low resolution image as being blurry. The image is low resolution due to the imaging systems on the NH probe being limited by Dawes Limit of the onboard kit.
 

[Abaddon]

You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.

NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!

I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.

[bknight]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f[/img]

I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.


[/quote]
And the sky is black, how unique that NASA continue to "lie" about that.

[Abaddon]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f[/img]

I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.

And the sky is black, how unique that NASA continue to "lie" about that.

It's pretty cool though. The camera is parked at L1 pointing back at Earth from circa a million miles out. Puts things in "perspective", LOL.

Oops, apologies, Tarkus doesn't understand that either.

[JayUtah]

Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago.

Hehe, that explains why I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make by it.  And I guess it's true what I said:  one cannot have performed the experiment without seeing the effects that defeat Tarkus' claim.   Sorry for appearing to drag you through the mud.

And yes, it's quite apparent at this point Tarkus doesn't know the differences among focus, focus distance, and focal length.

[Abaddon]

Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago.

Hehe, that explains why I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make by it.  And I guess it's true what I said:  one cannot have performed the experiment without seeing the effects that defeat Tarkus' claim.   Sorry for appearing to drag you through the mud.

And yes, it's quite apparent at this point Tarkus doesn't know the differences among focus, focus distance, and focal length.

Nor how to quote.