# Moon Landing

• 79 Replies
• 19836 Views
?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2007, 12:51:07 PM »
Quote
These photos are of the South Massif.  The South Massif is over 8 kilometers away in this image, which is hard to determine due to a lack of atmosphere since there is no "haze".   When we back up 500 meters, we will see a significant difference in the size of the lander, while we see very little difference in the size of the mountain, or Massif.  It's much like a cottage infront of a mountain.

You can achieve this affect with any two objects that are much different in size.  Let's say a toy car and a car.  Put the toy car 10 feet infront of big car, and take an image like the first apollo image.  Now back up 30 feet, and see what you get.

If we have a small mountain and walk 500 meters away, guess what, it's still a small mountain.

If we have a toy car in front of another toy car twice its size and walk back 30 meters from the two; the bigger car is still only twice as big as the car in front of it. The bigger toy car does not balloon into something ten times as big the farther away we walk.

Did you even think about your argument before posting?

Instead of blindly pointing towards that lame NASA funded answer, perhaps you should think for your own self and provide your own argument. The images I provided are clearly contradictory.  There are a few arguments you can make.

You can try to say something about zooming; but that doesn't work, since the fidelities in each photo are about the same size: Image 1. Image 2.

You can try to say that the astronaut in the second image is on a hill. But that doesn't work either, because in the non cropped version we see that there is no hill.

You ca try to say that cropping created the effect. But that's a stupid argument because cropping a photo does not make two bodies disproportionately larger than each other.

What do you not understand?  It is a mix of zoom/cropping, and being further away.

You completely missed my analogy.  I said a REAL CAR, and a toy car, the Real car representing a mountain but perhaps you couldn't make that connection.  I dont know how to better explain it.

Unfortunately for you, that "lame NASA funded answer" is the correct one.  I don't know what you want.  If you can't see what I'm saying, then you are obviously (1) oblivious to the truth or (2) just plain stupid.  I hope for your sake it's the former.

EDIT: As for your assertion that the site is funded by NASA.
"Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.

This site is named after the Clavius Moon Base in Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001: A Space Odyssey, and visualized by Stanley Kubrick in the film of the same name"~CLAVIUS.ORG
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 12:53:29 PM by Spec138 »

?

#### SparteX

• 411
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #31 on: November 25, 2007, 01:04:08 PM »
Quote
These photos are of the South Massif.  The South Massif is over 8 kilometers away in this image, which is hard to determine due to a lack of atmosphere since there is no "haze".   When we back up 500 meters, we will see a significant difference in the size of the lander, while we see very little difference in the size of the mountain, or Massif.  It's much like a cottage infront of a mountain.

You can achieve this affect with any two objects that are much different in size.  Let's say a toy car and a car.  Put the toy car 10 feet infront of big car, and take an image like the first apollo image.  Now back up 30 feet, and see what you get.

If we have a small mountain and walk 500 meters away, guess what, it's still a small mountain.

If we have a toy car in front of another toy car twice its size and walk back 30 meters from the two; the bigger car is still only twice as big as the car in front of it. The bigger toy car does not balloon into something ten times as big the farther away we walk.

Did you even think about your argument before posting?

Instead of blindly pointing towards that lame NASA funded answer, perhaps you should think for your own self and provide your own argument. The images I provided are clearly contradictory.  There are a few arguments you can make.

You can try to say something about zooming; but that doesn't work, since the fidules in each photo are about the same size: Image 1, Image 2. Clearly, the black crosses are the same size. There is no zooming going on. Not that zooming would have even made a difference to the proportion of the lander and mountain. Zooming in on the images still preserves the proportion of two bodies.

You can try to say that the astronaut in the second image is on a hill. But that doesn't work either, because in the non cropped version we see that there is no hill.

You ca try to say that cropping created the effect. But that's a stupid argument because cropping a photo does not make two bodies disproportionately larger than each other.
Don't you ever listen?

It is almost impossible to judge distance on the moon due to lack of atmosphere. The mountain in the background is 8km away, as you get closer, the lander would get bigger since it is so close, but the mountain wouldn't since it's so far away.

as stated above, the same circumstances can be used to make a toy car look bigger than a man.

#### questions

• 206
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #32 on: November 25, 2007, 01:21:32 PM »
If you can't see what I'm saying, then you are obviously (1) oblivious to the truth or (2) just plain stupid.  I hope for your sake it's the former.

Actually, in Tom's case, it's a mixture of the two...

#### Gabe

• 485
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2007, 01:27:59 PM »
Tom Bishop believes his thumb is larger than the sun because it looks larger when he goes to shove it in his eye.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

#### SparteX

• 411
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2007, 01:29:51 PM »
Tom Bishop believes his thumb is larger than the sun because it looks larger when he goes to shove it in his eye.

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2007, 01:31:33 PM »
Quote
These photos are of the South Massif.  The South Massif is over 8 kilometers away in this image, which is hard to determine due to a lack of atmosphere since there is no "haze".   When we back up 500 meters, we will see a significant difference in the size of the lander, while we see very little difference in the size of the mountain, or Massif.  It's much like a cottage infront of a mountain.

You can achieve this affect with any two objects that are much different in size.  Let's say a toy car and a car.  Put the toy car 10 feet infront of big car, and take an image like the first apollo image.  Now back up 30 feet, and see what you get.

If we have a small mountain and walk 500 meters away, guess what, it's still a small mountain.

Tom, you do realize that this statement agrees with my arguement?  That a large object when viewed from a large distance, will still remain large when moved away from a fraction of the original distance?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2007, 04:25:56 PM »
Quote
What do you not understand?  It is a mix of zoom/cropping, and being further away.

Wrong. No amount of zooming or cropping will make two bodies become disproportionate.

Will cropping an image make a background body disproportionately larger than the foreground body? Nope.

Will zooming in on an image make a background body disproportionately larger than the foreground body? Nope. Enlarging the image just enlarges the image and preserves the proportions of all bodies or objects in a scene. Zoom just enlarges or shrinks the scene. Everything enlarges or shrinks in proportion.

Therefore, unless you can show that background bodies become disproportionately larger when zoom is applied, that argument is nonsense.

Quote
You completely missed my analogy.  I said a REAL CAR, and a toy car, the Real car representing a mountain but perhaps you couldn't make that connection.  I dont know how to better explain it.

A toy car next to a real car will still keep its proportion if we walk 30 meters away and zoom in on the scene. If the toy car is as high as the rim of the real car, it will still be that high whether we crop or zoom in on an image.

Bodies stay in proportion no matter the zoom, no matter the cropping. This is visible all around us. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. If you cannot show this, through images or reference, your argument is trash.

Quote
Unfortunately for you, that "lame NASA funded answer" is the correct one.  I don't know what you want.  If you can't see what I'm saying, then you are obviously (1) oblivious to the truth or (2) just plain stupid.  I hope for your sake it's the former.

Your argument is unbelievably stupid because you believe that a by enlarging an image, the foreground and background will somehow become disproportioned. Your argument is stupid because you believe that cropping an image will make the foreground and background disproportionate in sizes.

You'll have to show that this happens. And then you'll also have to tell us exactly why it happens. Furthermore, you'll have to explain why anyone who has ever stepped outside their house has never observed this effect. Until you do that your argument is ignorant to the extreme.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:40:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2007, 04:26:46 PM »
Quote
It is almost impossible to judge distance on the moon due to lack of atmosphere. The mountain in the background is 8km away, as you get closer, the lander would get bigger since it is so close, but the mountain wouldn't since it's so far away.

as stated above, the same circumstances can be used to make a toy car look bigger than a man.

I don't care how much atmosphere is in a scene. The atmosphere plays no part on the fact that distant mountains will look smaller the farther away you are.

If you can give one coherent reason why a mountain should grow as you move away from it, lets hear it.

Otherwise, if you cannot explain this obvious violation of reality, you are nothing more than a squirrel in a roundabout, trapped in a whirl of inconsistency and delusion by the mumbling pretensions of arrogant 'scientists' who bowed to the fashionable assumptions of their age. You are unable to even answer simple challenges about your beloved model and belief system. Unable to even come up with a hypothesis, you will either either refuse to answer outright or are forced to frenzy onto the internet in search of the conflicting conjecture of others.

If you refuse to even make a coherent response to an opposing argument, I will take it as an admission of defeat against your unsatisfactory model of the earth. Since you are unable to come up with a response to these criticisms against your model your entire opinion hence force is forfeited, considered pathetic to the extreme.

Quote
Tom Bishop believes his thumb is larger than the sun because it looks larger when he goes to shove it in his eye.

I've never said that.  Stop posting.

Your argument contains zero content. You lose.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:56:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### eric bloedow

##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2007, 04:40:16 PM »
Tom, if you had bothered to look at those links, you would see that in the second picture, there are TWO mountains in the background!

obviously, the SMALLER of the 2 is the only one visible in the first picture! no camera trick, just pointing in a different direction or angle!

now let's see if i can find some that show EARTH in the background:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/images/AS11-40-5924.l.jpg
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS15/images/AS15-91-12342l.jpg
http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS16/images/AS16-113-18289l.jpg

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2007, 04:45:08 PM »
Quote
Tom, if you had bothered to look at those links, you would see that in the second picture, there are TWO mountains in the background!

obviously, the SMALLER of the 2 is the only one visible in the first picture! no camera trick, just pointing in a different direction or angle!

I did look at the links. They are obviously the same mountain. Just look at the angle of the white plate on the lunar lander.

Image 1:

Image 2:

As we can clearly see from the angle of the lander, they are the same mountain. Care to show otherwise?

See this overlap from the Claivus website:

Don't you feel stupid now?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:52:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2007, 04:51:43 PM »
Quote
Wrong. No amount of zooming or cropping will make two bodies become disproportionate.

Will cropping an image make a background body disproportionately larger than the foreground body? Nope.

Will zooming in on an image make a background body disproportionately larger than the foreground body? Nope. Enlarging the image just enlarges the image and preserves the proportions of all bodies or objects in a scene. Zoom just enlarges or shrinks the scene. Everything enlarges or shrinks in proportion.

Therefore, unless you can show that background bodies become disproportionately larger when zoom is applied, that argument is nonsense.

http://www.clavius.org/img/as17-mt-dist.jpg
This is a link to the original photos.  Note the one used in your arguement is a ZOOMED/CROPPED version of it's original.  This DISTORTS the size of the mountain, but we can see very clearly that the mountain's size stays the same by use of the FIDUCIALS.

Quote
A toy car next to a real car will still keep its proportion if we walk 30 meters away and zoom in on the scene. If the toy car is as high as the rim of the real car, it will still be that high whether we crop or zoom in on an image.

Bodies stay in proportion no matter the zoom, no matter the cropping. This is visible all around us. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. If you cannot show this, through images or reference, your argument is trash.

You do realize the second image is taken from MUCH FURTHER AWAY correct?  Thus the lander looks SMALLER than in the previous photo.
Also, as you approach an object, it appears larger so your arguement about the rim is completely wrong.  I don't know if you realize that the first photo is only as large as the mountain due to the astronaught's PERSPECTIVE.  The second image is from  MUCH FURTHER AWAY,and only a portion of the actual picture, I don't know how many times I have to beat that into your head.  The mountain isn't shrinking or growing.
Look at my link in this post, you can see the mountian does not grow.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 04:53:36 PM by Spec138 »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 18007
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2007, 05:07:41 PM »
Quote
http://www.clavius.org/img/as17-mt-dist.jpg
This is a link to the original photos.  Note the one used in your arguement is a ZOOMED/CROPPED version of it's original.  This DISTORTS the size of the mountain, but we can see very clearly that the mountain's size stays the same by use of the FIDUCIALS.

Zooming or cropping an image doesn't change the proportions of bodies. Repeating yourself does not make you correct. Why don't you show us an example if you are so certain that you are correct?

Every single person knows that zooming in or out on an image preserves the proportions of bodies. If you believe otherwise perhaps you should prove it through image or reference.

If you cannot demonstrate your claim then you are, quite simply, wrong.

Quote
but we can see very clearly that the mountain's size stays the same by use of the FIDUCIALS.

The Fiducials are the same size in both images.

Image 1:

Image 2:

Care to show otherwise? The black crosses sure look about the same size to me. Therefore there is no zoom.

And even if there was zoom, enlarging or shrinking an image keeps the bodies of a scene IN PROPORTION. This is a very basic tenant of photography. Shrinking or enlarging a scene does not affect only certain bodies selectively. It affects the entire scene. The entire scene shrinks or enlarges in proportion.

Also, if the second image truly is zoomed in, why is the astronaut's shadow seen upon the lunar surface?

Quote
You do realize the second image is taken from MUCH FURTHER AWAY correct?  Thus the lander looks SMALLER than in the previous photo.

Sure, the second image is taken much farther away. That's a big duh. However, the bodies should still stay in proportion. The mountain should shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer recedes.

But it does not shrink with the lander, as we can clearly see. The mountain gets much bigger in proportion to the lander.

Why is this?

Quote
Look at my link in this post, you can see the mountian does not grow.

In one image the mountain is as tall as the lander. In another image the mountain is enormous and over towers it. Care to explain how walking 500 meters away creates this disproportionate scene? Why doesn't the mountain shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer gets farther away?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 05:23:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2007, 05:24:10 PM »
Quote
http://www.clavius.org/img/as17-mt-dist.jpg
This is a link to the original photos.  Note the one used in your arguement is a ZOOMED/CROPPED version of it's original.  This DISTORTS the size of the mountain, but we can see very clearly that the mountain's size stays the same by use of the FIDUCIALS.

Zooming or cropping an image doesn't change the proportions of bodies. Repeating yourself does not make you correct. Why don't you show us an example if you are so certain that you are correct?

Every single person knows that zooming in or out on an image preserves the proportions of bodies. If you believe otherwise perhaps you should prove it through image or reference.

If you cannot demonstrate your claim then you are, quite simply, wrong.

Quote
but we can see very clearly that the mountain's size stays the same by use of the FIDUCIALS.

The Fiducials are the same size in both images.

Image 1:

Image 2:

Care to show otherwise? The black crosses sure look about the same size to me. Therefore there is no zoom.

And even if there was zoom, enlarging or shrinking an image keeps the bodies of a scene IN PROPORTION. This is a very basic tenant of photography. Shrinking or enlarging a scene does not affect only certain bodies selectively. It affects the entire scene. The entire scene shrinks or enlarges in proportion.

Also, if the second image truly is zoomed in, why is the astronaut's shadow seen upon the lunar surface?

Quote
You do realize the second image is taken from MUCH FURTHER AWAY correct?  Thus the lander looks SMALLER than in the previous photo.

Sure, the second image is taken much farther away. That's a big duh. However, the bodies should still stay in proportion. The mountain should shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer recedes.

But it doesn't, as we can clearly see.

Quote
Look at my link in this post, you can see the mountian does not grow.

In one image the mountain is as tall as the lander. In another image the mountain is enormous and over towers it. Care to explain how walking 500 meters away creates this disproportionate scene? Why doesn't the mountain shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer gets farther away?

Alright.

An image i created to show you PERSPECTIVE.  You would think you'd caught the grasp of that by now.

And as for the fiducials, I realize they are the same size, that is why they are used in the photographs.  The mountain's height in BOTH images is the distance between TWO vertical fiducials.

?

• 128
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2007, 05:26:22 PM »
Quote
You do realize the second image is taken from MUCH FURTHER AWAY correct?  Thus the lander looks SMALLER than in the previous photo.

Sure, the second image is taken much farther away. That's a big duh. However, the bodies should still stay in proportion. The mountain should shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer recedes.

But it does not shrink with the lander, as we can clearly see. The mountain gets much bigger in proportion to the lander.

Why is this?

Quote
Look at my link in this post, you can see the mountian does not grow.

In one image the mountain is as tall as the lander. In another image the mountain is enormous and over towers it. Care to explain how walking 500 meters away creates this disproportionate scene? Why doesn't the mountain shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer gets farther away?

Have you ever taken a photograph on a moon with no atmosphere? You have no idea how far away that mountain is. The only way to tell is to move around, which is what these two photos are demonstrating. It is the same mountain, and it stays the same size in relation to the camera because it is far away. Much father away than you seem to think it is.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 05:27:57 PM by Ladon »

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2007, 07:02:11 PM »
Bump.
Still waiting for Tom to use some weird ass theory to prove that perspective isn't real.

?

• 128
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2007, 07:39:23 PM »
Tom doesn't reply to threads where he's been proven wrong.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2007, 08:55:26 PM »
That is getting very annoying.  How about you two just wait until he is logged in?  You do know you can see when someone is online, right?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

• 191
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #47 on: November 26, 2007, 02:38:36 AM »
Tom i hope to god you aren't stupid enough to believe that photo is real. Those are dummies. There's loads of those at nasa.

I agree that there are a load of dummies at NASA.

They cannot even follow basic perspective rules. For example, here are a couple Apollo 17 images which defy the laws of physics:

How does a mountain appear bigger when you move further away from it?

Did the the astronauts move the lander closer to the mountain sometime during the duration of the Apollo 17 mission?

The conspiracy is all powerful. Even if all the bullshit you have been telling these guys is true, the conspiracy wouldn't stuff up something so 'basic' as the perspective rules. Think about it. They have millions of dollars worth of photo imaging equipment, they'd at least have someone smart enough to use it.
Dumbshoe

#### Gabe

• 485
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #48 on: November 26, 2007, 04:52:10 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you cannot demonstrate your claim then you are, quite simply, wrong.

Well, that does away with FE, you dumbshoe.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

• 128
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #49 on: November 26, 2007, 05:03:37 AM »
Hehehe...

I'd very quickly like to point out once more how very far away that mountain is. It isn't just a hill a few meters away, it is kilometers away. The lack of atmosphere and surface objects messes with one's judgement of distance, but it isn't very close at all.

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #50 on: November 26, 2007, 08:13:14 AM »
Ok, so I think I've explained myself thoroughly on this topic.
I would like to know how someone will discredit this video.

#### ﮎingulaЯiτy

• Arbitrator
• Planar Moderator
• 9074
• Resident atheist.
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #51 on: November 26, 2007, 09:09:56 AM »
Ok, so I think I've explained myself thoroughly on this topic.
I would like to know how someone will discredit this video.

Discrediting it is easy. Although the discredit would be without basis.
I could say the Hollywood studio was an indoor vacuum and the while the objects were dropped the video was slowed down. No evidence points to this, but then again no evidence points to FE.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #52 on: November 26, 2007, 09:12:25 AM »
except, of course,  that the earth is in fact flat.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

#### lambie

• 86
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #53 on: November 26, 2007, 09:16:46 AM »
except, of course,  that the earth is in fact flat.
yeah that's right. Evidence that the earth is flat is that the earth is...flat

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #54 on: November 26, 2007, 09:27:37 AM »
except, of course,  that the earth is in fact flat.
yeah that's right. Evidence that the earth is flat is that the earth is...flat

No no the evidence is that there is a vacuum on Earth.
Even creating a vacuum of that size would be an incredibly hard task.  Not only actually removing all the air from the building but the resulting pressure difference would be another problem all itself.

?

#### Loard Z

• 4680
• Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #55 on: November 26, 2007, 09:29:04 AM »
except, of course,  that the earth is in fact flat.
yeah that's right. Evidence that the earth is flat is that the earth is...flat

Of course.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

#### lambie

• 86
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #56 on: November 26, 2007, 09:31:58 AM »
except, of course,  that the earth is in fact flat.
yeah that's right. Evidence that the earth is flat is that the earth is...flat

Of course.
I'm getting the hang of this site now..........post random stuff to diffuse the debate, send it off at a tangent...

ice crystals

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #57 on: November 26, 2007, 09:43:11 AM »
Another example Tom.

You also may want to check this topic out.
It explains how Jack White  decieves people.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #58 on: November 26, 2007, 09:47:07 AM »
Not only actually removing all the air from the building
Why would that be hard?

Quote
but the resulting pressure difference would be another problem all itself.
What kind of problem?  I don't think it would be much of one.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### Spec138

• 109
• To FE or not to FE...
##### Re: Moon Landing
« Reply #59 on: November 26, 2007, 09:49:53 AM »
Not only actually removing all the air from the building
Why would that be hard?
Fair enough, thought I think creating a vacuum in a large space may be harder than you suspect.

Quote
Quote
but the resulting pressure difference would be another problem all itself.
What kind of problem?  I don't think it would be much of one.

Pressure differentials.  The building could very well be crushed.