0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jack White, a seemingly credible professional/expert photographer ...Is there some currently accepted logical explanation that debunks his observation and analysis?
Thanks RD.... And the computer analysis?What's your opinion about that RD?
If the green bit is supposed to be the bulb (screw?) fitting, that would be behind the bulb, rather than to one side, so not visible when looking at a spot-lamp reflector head-on.
BTW it's worth mentioning old-Jack White claimed the Zapruder film was also faked....
….paranoid conspiracy theorists rarely confine themselves to one conspiacy.
No amount of evidence or refutation , (six pages of it in this thread) , will alter the views of conspiracy theorists : they are delusional and not susceptible to reason.The ones that believe in multiple large-scale conspiracies are clearly suffering from a degree of paranoid psychosis : everywhere they look they believe hundreds of people are conspiring against them.
….increasing contrast causes sun to become to become the diameter of flare spot.
….flare spots look like neck of light bulb when contrast increased.
... I'll just sit here in my corner and have a martini while I wait for the next round!
Now, it's back to using more contrast again to alter the enhanced portion of the photograph I posted, highlighting one of the dimmer off center flare spots (blue) and declaring it to be the size of the Sun, even though by far the brightest area and obvious source of light in the image remains at the center of the outer ring despite your manipulation.
Looks like lens flare to me... the problem with 'computer analysis' is the results will vary depending on the algorithms used, and unless you know what you're doing (and are familiar with photographic artefacts), you'll just end up enhancing the artefacts. GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as we used to say.
How could the reticles (which are literally part of the image surface) in this authentic un-altered NASA photograph of the Apollo 14 LEM taken on the Moon have managed to somehow levitate themselves above the surface of the image in such a way that they were able to cast shadows back down onto the very image surface they are part of?
The additional distorted (curved) crosses only occur on the brightly-lit flare-spot : the crosses elsewhere in the frame are not duplicated in this way.
A reflection of the brightly-lit "fiducials" by the curved rear element of the lens is a possible explanation for the additional distorted (curved) crosses ...
... The pin cushion effect is caused by lenses and invariably affects the image not selectively but as a whole
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: KubricksOdyssey on 12/11/2013 19:54:00... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE? It was quite easy : it only took a few minutes to find three , ( presumably faked by some other method by some other Hollywood type , Walt Disney maybe ?)Like I said if you ask me politely , ( that means saying "please" ), and promise never to post in this forum again,I will post the pictures here and give links to the NASA webpages where I found them.PS the " Scotchlite" screen technique you've mentioned here can only be placed a couple of meters behind the actor , (see inverse square law for the reason why) ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_projection_effectSo if you're trying to use Scotchlite-screen to explain things [images] which are tens of meters in front of the camera it's simply not physically possible.[ To fake distant backgrounds Hollywood used to use something called "matte painting" ]
... Surely it must be a simple task to find just ONE photo without the terrain line? Just ONE? How hard can it be to find just ONE?
.. the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like this
Quote from: Weber on 21/06/2014 09:49:03As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like thishttp://i58.tinypic.com/27xp6dt.jpgshadows appearing to converge are normal, not evidence of fakery, see ...http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax#Shadows
As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen, with the astronauts on a stage set in front of it, and then they used a fisheye camera lens to get the projected fake distant backgrounds right, that's why the shadows in the foreground (on the stage set) are so distorted, like thishttp://i58.tinypic.com/27xp6dt.jpg
As I understand, the distant backgrounds where projected onto a huge dome shaped screen ... ... make two films, APOLLO 11 and A SPACE ODYSSEY, at the time called "Moonshot" and "Journey Beyond the Stars".