Can anyone spot the error?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 01:27:56 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 20, 2014, 01:15:48 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 20, 2014, 01:13:18 PM

sceptimatic gets these people so wound up.  It's almost as if... that is what he is trying to do.   

I love seeing people boast of how much more intelligent they are than him, yet the same people will argue with the guy for 86 pages about nonsense.
Laughable.

Scepti is my toy. He is like a 6 year old with a big ego. He is so easy to get fired up. I can tell when he starts to call people names. He is just too easy.

Though the reality is much different.
You waste your life replying to his nonsensical posts.
He says the same thing over and over again, and you people still manage to argue with him for 86 pages.
He's laughing at you.

It is the other way around. He makes a general statement like nuclear power plants are fuel with hydrogen. He does not understand that it take energy to create hydrogen. The he gets all frustrated that we all explain it so he denies everything including fission, fusion, nuclear submarine. If he is your friend you can have him. Hope he pays you well.

He's not my friend, he's a troll.
You do understand the concept of an internet troll, right?
He starts by making an initial ridiculous claim, that he knows is ridiculous.
He denies everything to keep the argument going for as long as you people are angry at him denying everything.
He acts frustrated, so you will continue the argument even past this point.
You fall for it.
In a way, he's outsmarting you.
This is especially true if you believe that he really believes all those things, and you really try to argue him without realizing what he's doing.
I'll say it again, he's laughing at you.

Nobody believes anything he says but because he is a troll why is he not banned? I thought this site does not allow it.

Nobody believes anything he says but because he is a troll why is he not banned? I thought this site does not allow it.

Same reason EJ was around for so long.
You can't really prove someone is a troll if they're good at trolling.
EJ wasn't even a good troll. He just never admitted to being a troll.

Quote from: Starman on April 20, 2014, 01:44:01 PM

Nobody believes anything he says but because he is a troll why is he not banned? I thought this site does not allow it.

Same reason EJ was around for so long.
You can't really prove someone is a troll if they're good at trolling.
EJ wasn't even a good troll. He just never admitted to being a troll.

Then we will still have fun with him. Ok lets move on with the subject on hand.

sceptimatic gets these people so wound up.  It's almost as if... that is what he is trying to do.   

If you think he is trolling then moderate him, moderator.

As it is all the new "angry noobs" turning up here think his bullshit is flat earth doctrine.  Whereas, of course, it is Rowbottom's bullshit that is FES doctrine.

You need to sort it out, otherwise, God forbid, people might not take the FES seriously.   

Quote from: jroa on April 20, 2014, 01:13:18 PM

sceptimatic gets these people so wound up.  It's almost as if... that is what he is trying to do.   

If you think he is trolling then moderate him, moderator.

As it is all the new "angry noobs" turning up here think his bullshit is flat earth doctrine.  Whereas, of course, it is Rowbottom's bullshit that is FES doctrine.

You need to sort it out, otherwise, God forbid, people might not take the FES seriously.   

He does more harm to the FES with his denpressure and cell earth. He even admit he does not support the FE model. Maybe there is some truth that he pays for this site. Talk about conspiracies. If did pay he surely would not be banned.

He says the same thing over and over again, and you people still manage to argue with him for 86 pages.
He's laughing at you.

I reply to him now and then just to see what he'll say.  I also get a laugh out of the time and effort he puts into arguing with others in order to get them to waste time and effort so he can laugh at them.  Assuming he really is a troll, I applaud him for his dedication (or addiction) to trolling.  The tantrum he had awhile back when he said he was quitting and began deleting all his posts one by one...... brilliant!  Splendid tactic in maintaining the facade.

Have a good look at this picture and have a good think about it, then see if you can spot the error in it. Give me your best thoughts on it and I'll come back to it to see if anyone gets it. If not I'll explain the problem.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/4812251745/in/photostream/

I'm not going to read 14 pages of sceptis nonsense to see if anyone poted an answer. The answer is the cameras were not permanently mounted on the astonauts chest and could be removed.  See one of the most famous Apollo pictures ever...

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 15, 2014, 12:06:45 PM

Have a good look at this picture and have a good think about it, then see if you can spot the error in it. Give me your best thoughts on it and I'll come back to it to see if anyone gets it. If not I'll explain the problem.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/4812251745/in/photostream/

I'm not going to read 14 pages of sceptis nonsense to see if anyone poted an answer. The answer is the cameras were not permanently mounted on the astonauts chest and could be removed.  See one of the most famous Apollo pictures ever...

Interesting photo. Did he walk backwards to get in position? Do you have a link to a high resolution version?

Come on, you can clearly see his prints under his shadow. He walked there and he turned around.

The shadow is also suspicious.  On the ground, the shadow is around 45 degrees to the camera, but on the visor, the shadow almost goes straight towards the cameraman.  I do understand that the visor is round, but it just does not seem to match. 

The highlighted footprint strikes me as very odd. It's perpendicular to the position of his feet, as photographed. If he turned there, I wouldn't expect an undisturbed footprint. Still, it's probably nothing worth worrying about.

The highlighted footprint strikes me as very odd. It's perpendicular to the position of his feet, as photographed. If he turned there, I wouldn't expect an undisturbed footprint. Still, it's probably nothing worth worrying about.

If you zoom the picture in 400% you can see where they've raked the ground.
Look at the ground around the footprints and ask yourself how that can happen?
You see, we could be told that they kicked it all up but then again, that wouldn't leave perfect footprints would it?

I've looked at loads of videos of these actors walking about on the fake moon and not once have I ever seen them take a proper step, as in a normal walk. It's either a shuffle or a jump.
Either way, would not make perfect footprints like these.

Being lowered on wires and lifted back up would.

It looks like the stage hand has raked the area wearing a set of moon boots over his corduroy trousers. It's laughable.

I find it strange how much NASA like to fiddle with their photos. Below is from the 30th anniversary site:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_11_30th.html

This one does look like sand (same site as previous post):

Sorry to bombard the thread, but this one is great. Looks like a small scale model to me:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/as11-37-5545.jpg

I haven't embedded as it is quite a big image.

Come on, you can clearly see his prints under his shadow. He walked there and he turned around.

No comments bravimone or whiskey? It shouldn't be this easy on my first day...

It is so funny to me when they take moon landing picture and analyze it to death. They(conspiracy theorist) don't realize you can take ANY picture from anywhere and say something is wrong. they no knowledge of the picture or photography. If they want to say the moon landing did not happen then say so and move on. We get it. If they want to show their stupidity this is the place.

It is so funny to me when they take moon landing picture and analyze it to death. They(conspiracy theorist) don't realize you can take ANY picture from anywhere and say something is wrong. they no knowledge of the picture or photography. If they want to say the moon landing did not happen then say so and move on. We get it. If they want to show their stupidity this is the place.

Nice to meet you, starman. I haven't analysed any photos to death. The anomalies spring out if you look objectively at what you are seeing. Or, are you suggesting that:

A) The highlighted footprint is not anomalous?
B) It isn't peculiar that NASA often fiddle with their photos?
C) The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot?
D) That this photo: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/hires/as11-37-5545.jpg
does not look like a needle (or similar) with a nail (or similar) in the background?

Edit: point 'D' added.

Quote from: Starman on May 01, 2014, 02:20:51 PM

It is so funny to me when they take moon landing picture and analyze it to death. They(conspiracy theorist) don't realize you can take ANY picture from anywhere and say something is wrong. they no knowledge of the picture or photography. If they want to say the moon landing did not happen then say so and move on. We get it. If they want to show their stupidity this is the place.

Nice to meet you, starman. I haven't analysed any photos to death. The anomalies spring out if you look objectively at what you are seeing. Or, are you suggesting that:

A) The highlighted footprint is not anomalous?
B) It is peculiar that NASA often fiddle with their photos?
C) The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot?

Nice to meet you also. The thing is you make assumptions on what you see. Remember you were not there. You have to realize the moon's soil is nothing like beach soils like you mentioned. The moon has no weather (rain, snow, wind) to wear the soil. It is very dusty and the particles have very sharp edges so when you walk on it it will leave a perfect footprint. On earth sand will fall in to partly cover the print. That is why you said: "The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot" is because it is not sand. When the astronauts walks on the moon it leaves a lot of dust around because big space suit. Look at some videos and you will see how messy walking is. NASA does not fiddle their photos. That is your perception and assumption.

Quote from: legion on May 01, 2014, 02:29:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 01, 2014, 02:20:51 PM

It is so funny to me when they take moon landing picture and analyze it to death. They(conspiracy theorist) don't realize you can take ANY picture from anywhere and say something is wrong. they no knowledge of the picture or photography. If they want to say the moon landing did not happen then say so and move on. We get it. If they want to show their stupidity this is the place.

Nice to meet you, starman. I haven't analysed any photos to death. The anomalies spring out if you look objectively at what you are seeing. Or, are you suggesting that:

A) The highlighted footprint is not anomalous?
B) It is peculiar that NASA often fiddle with their photos?
C) The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot?

Nice to meet you also. The thing is you make assumptions on what you see. Remember you were not there. You have to realize the moon's soil is nothing like beach soils like you mentioned. The moon has no weather (rain, snow, wind) to wear the soil. It is very dusty and the particles have very sharp edges so when you walk on it it will leave a perfect footprint. On earth sand will fall in to partly cover the print. That is why you said: "The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot" is because it is not sand. When the astronauts walks on the moon it leaves a lot of dust around because big space suit. Look at some videos and you will see how messy walking is. NASA does not fiddle their photos. That is your perception and assumption.

As far as I'm aware, neither of us were there. But the photos are. Right here, thanks to NASA. So it seems your answers are:

A) No comment
B) "They don't fiddle with their photos". So both photos of Armstrong are identical, above?
C) Not answered satisfactorily. You just state "it is not sand". OK.
D) No comment

Edit: Interestingly, you seem to agree with sceptimatic by writing "Look at some videos and you will see how messy walking is." How can the footprints be so undisturbed and neat when walking is so "messy"?

Quote from: Starman on May 01, 2014, 02:43:20 PM

Quote from: legion on May 01, 2014, 02:29:31 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 01, 2014, 02:20:51 PM

It is so funny to me when they take moon landing picture and analyze it to death. They(conspiracy theorist) don't realize you can take ANY picture from anywhere and say something is wrong. they no knowledge of the picture or photography. If they want to say the moon landing did not happen then say so and move on. We get it. If they want to show their stupidity this is the place.

Nice to meet you, starman. I haven't analysed any photos to death. The anomalies spring out if you look objectively at what you are seeing. Or, are you suggesting that:

A) The highlighted footprint is not anomalous?
B) It is peculiar that NASA often fiddle with their photos?
C) The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot?

Nice to meet you also. The thing is you make assumptions on what you see. Remember you were not there. You have to realize the moon's soil is nothing like beach soils like you mentioned. The moon has no weather (rain, snow, wind) to wear the soil. It is very dusty and the particles have very sharp edges so when you walk on it it will leave a perfect footprint. On earth sand will fall in to partly cover the print. That is why you said: "The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot" is because it is not sand. When the astronauts walks on the moon it leaves a lot of dust around because big space suit. Look at some videos and you will see how messy walking is. NASA does not fiddle their photos. That is your perception and assumption.

As far as I'm aware, neither of us were there. But the photos are. Right here, thanks to NASA. So it seems your answers are:

A) No comment
B) "They don't fiddle with their photos". So both photos of Armstrong are identical, above?
C) Not answered satisfactorily. You just state "it is not sand". OK.
D) No comment

Edit: Interestingly, you seem to agree with sceptimatic by writing "Look at some videos and you will see how messy walking is." How can the footprints be so undisturbed and neat when walking is so "messy"?

You will only understand if we break it down to specific detail. What exactly is your issue with the photo? I will be back in two hours.

I won't be back for a few hours either. Sleep and then work for me.

I must correct one of your points: "The thing is you make assumptions on what you see."

 I make no assumptions. Check the thread if you doubt me. You however have made at least one assumption:

"
"The apparent beach shot looks unlike a beach shot" is because it is not sand." Now really, how do you know it is not sand? I don't know what it is. The photo doesn't make it clear. That is why I wrote 'apparent beach shot'.

The shadow is also suspicious.  On the ground, the shadow is around 45 degrees to the camera, but on the visor, the shadow almost goes straight towards the cameraman.  I do understand that the visor is round, but it just does not seem to match.

The shadow is off to the side in the reflection too.  Same as the landing pad.  Looks fine to me.

I find it strange how much NASA like to fiddle with their photos. Below is from the 30th anniversary site:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/images/as11_40_5903.jpg

They made the lighting look more dramatic, so what.  It comical how many here thought that actually was the original unedited image when it was discussed awhile back.

You have to realize the moon's soil is nothing like beach soils like you mentioned. The moon has no weather (rain, snow, wind) to wear the soil. It is very dusty and the particles have very sharp edges so when you walk on it it will leave a perfect footprint. On earth sand will fall in to partly cover the print.

That's right you cannot get images like this on earth the particles are round and the print will collapse on itself.
Luckily I have been to the moon.
Its the truth my name is in the picture to prove it.

No comments bravimone or whiskey? It shouldn't be this easy on my first day...

Some people sleep sometimes, you know. As for the prints, you notice the shadow is pitch black, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the light. You cannot see the prints under it, so you can't tell they're all perfect.
That said, I don't understand how that'd prove the photo is fake. Do you think they lowered the "actornaut" with a crane in that place? Why didn't he just walk there? Where do those prints come from if he didn't walk there?

Quote from: legion on May 01, 2014, 02:12:27 PM

No comments bravimone or whiskey? It shouldn't be this easy on my first day...

Some people sleep sometimes, you know. As for the prints, you notice the shadow is pitch black, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the light. You cannot see the prints under it, so you can't tell they're all perfect.
That said, I don't understand how that'd prove the photo is fake. Do you think they lowered the "actornaut" with a crane in that place? Why didn't he just walk there? Where do those prints come from if he didn't walk there?

The stage hand with the rake, wearing moon boots.

The stage hand with the rake, wearing moon boots.

Now, i'm not a native english speaker, but it seems to me that phrase is missing the main verb. I have no clue what it means.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 02, 2014, 12:52:54 AM

The stage hand with the rake, wearing moon boots.

Now, i'm not a native english speaker, but it seems to me that phrase is missing the main verb. I have no clue what it means.

Oh, ok, I'll try and make it clearer for you.

The footprints are made by a stagehand who has previously raked the surface, then walked around wearing the same boots as the moon men actors. That's why the footprints do not match where the suited moon man actor is standing.

Is this any better or would you require it to be worded in A* university English?

My question is: why? why not make the actors make the prints themselves while they walk on stage? making the prints before and then moving the actors with a crane makes no sense at all.