Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
You are repeating the same fundamental mistake you made in your very first post on this thread - the same one which people have repeatedly and explicitly explained to you. No, you
cannot simply point to a picture taken with one camera and insist that a different exposure taken with an entirely different camera and lens should behave identically. This is a very basic fact of photography, immediately obvious to anyone who has ever used different lenses, or even a single zoom lens. It's astonishing you are unable to understand this.
Worse, though, you aren't even answering the right question, which is a very simple
trigonometric problem, set up repeatedly and in the simplest possible terms by Jason and others. The question you are actually being asked is what the relative
angular sizes are at different distances, and has nothing whatever to do with cameras. Are you simply unable to comprehend the question? Or are you deliberately ignoring it?
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
Pot, kettle, black. Your very first post on this topic railed about "lies" and "half-wits", and you continually assert that people here simply accept the Apollo record on faith. This is especially amusing, as you have steadfastly refused to do any of the work needed to actually investigate your own claims; you simply throw up random pictures and claim things should be different, based on nothing more than your manifestly ignorant opinion.
As far as "better late than never" - see above; you're stubbornly repeating almost every mistake you've made - and you've made many; yet, you never consider that you might simply be wrong about Apollo. Why is that? If
I made so many glaring errors, I'd be embarrassed; I'd stop and think that maybe I needed to learn something before I ran my mouth again. But you don't. Why is that?
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth and often says things that make no sense,
You have yet to demonstrate this; in every instance to date when you have claimed this, the fault was simply your lack of understanding.
...but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
Hilarious, coming from someone who refuses to put his own claims to the test. The only one here displaying any kind of faith in any claims is you; everyone else is busy checking the record and doing the actual work of investigation.
And, by the way, I have actual first-hand experience working with NASA personnel on multiple programs at multiple centers. Exactly how many aerospace programs have you worked on, with NASA or any other agency? I want a number.
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
Repeating your "If I ran the zoo" assertions do not make them any more relevant. Bluntly speaking, with your track record of ignorance in this field, your opinion means nothing.
And, by the way, the instrument that took that picture is not NASA's; it was supplied by the Applied Physics Laboratory, which also manages the mission. Minor point, really, but another indicator of how little you understand the things you're railing about.
You can believe what you want, but this is an inexplicable [expletive deleted], it is preferable to see a planet three times smaller and well defined that this crap blurred and out of focus.
Your preference for seeing a dot in a sequence of comparison photos arranged for public consumption is just that -
your preference. You can throw a tantrum and use bad words, but no one else is obliged to agree with you.
You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.
First, you are the one who started out slinging pejoratives at NASA, and accusing everyone else of being dupes and stooges of the agency. So your characterization is as hypocritical as it is inaccurate; the emotions associated with reading your extraordinarily obtuse missives are more correctly characterized as "exasperation" and perhaps "pity".
Second, I don't accept your self-characterization as a "lover of astronomy". You clearly don't know anything about it, and seem unwilling to learn about even the most basic principles of photography behind the images you mention. Nor are you willing to do any work to actually understand how the images are gathered, and by what missions.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth,
As many people have explained to you, you don't simply point at the Earth and fire the rocket. The trans-Earth injection trajectory takes the vehicle
around the Moon. That's not "travelling in the opposite direction to Earth"; you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
Have you actually looked in an Apollo flight plan? I have. I don't believe you have. Apollo flight plans, and many other analysis and planning documents, detail what Apollo repeatedly did - including the TEI maneuvers - on the far side of the Moon.
As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you didn't even do the most elementary research that could have told you that.
Aren't you even a
little embarrassed by your ignorance on a topic you keep ranting about? If not, why not?
And I reiterate my previous questions:
Why don't you ever reconsider your beliefs, given your endless series of mistakes?
And if you won't, why should anyone waste time trying to educate you?
