81
That CAN'T be true! / Re: Were the Lunar Rovers faked?
« on: 15/06/2014 19:57:21 »Quote from: RD
I said "Similar to pincushion distortion". I wasn't suggesting it was a lensing effect. I said "reflection" from the curved rear lens element : a lens surface can act like a curved mirror.
Have it your way then.... similar to pincushion distortion. Whatever you were suggesting, it doesn't change the fact that your credulity straining “possible explanation” involving some heretofore unknown optical effect is not an explanation at all, it's just an unsupported theory because you've provided no links, articles or precedent setting examples that could elevate it above that lowly designation.
Quote from: RD
I did point out in "Reply #169" that the additional crosses only occur on the bright flare spot, so not a lensing effect which would occur elsewhere on the image.
Whatever you pointed out, it doesn't change the fact that in two consecutive photographs of the LEM (AS14-66-9305 and AS14-66-9306), which were both taken under the same conditions, this novel lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect would have occurred in the same way and in the same region around the lense flare in both photographs, not just one.
Quote from: RD
To repeatedly interpret physical phenomena you don't comprehend as evidence of fraud is evidence of paranoia. Attempting to reason with a paranoid person is an exercise in futility.
The fact of the matter is that whether you like it or not, the photograph showing the misaligned and distorted hovering reticles and the shadows they cast (AS14-66-9306) is absolutely consistent with the corner of a carelessly placed transparency having lifted up and away from the image surface....
....and I can prove it. It took about three minutes to accurately replicate the conditions that can result in the appearance of this form of defect in a graphic image....
In order to show my assertion to be an eroneous interpretation of the photographic evidence you'll have to come up with a more plausible alternative interpretation of it than an unsupported theory about some mysterious unknown lense flare induced ghost reticle pincushion-like effect. You simply haven't done that at all, not even close, and my refusal to immediately buy in to your narrative has you again resorting to malicious insinuations.
It's all fine though RD.... I've clearly refuted every eroneous “explanation” you've come up with along with all the assertions you made to support them and not once did you try to defend any of them.