 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html
Hm, why does this make me go "where's the HDR version"? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> I just had a look at:
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-119/ndxpage49.html
>
> Some of those high resolution shots are just astounding!
>
Whenever I see detailed images of the ISS--and those shots really are
astounding--the first thing I think of is: "Gee, all those little custom-made
widgets sure did cost a lot of money! Why can't NASA just buy 'em at the local
hardware store, and save a few bucks?!" :-P If they're worried about a part
breaking--just take up a bunch of spares...in a BIG box...a REALLY BIG box...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > That's the least of it! A secretary sent this out to the department with the
> > text, "This is cute in an odd way." I loved the condescension, but the
> > actually document made me very sad.
> >
> > http://www.erichufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf
>
> Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do? Who of those "Moon
> Hoaxers" would read even a single line? After all, to them it would probably be
> just propaganda. They don't even seem to bother reading the information
> available out there for anyone to read (except the pamphlets of other "Moon
> Hoaxers").
>
You know why *I* believe that we actually did land on the Moon? Because Walter
Cronkite said so. He would NEVER lie. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Show today's automobiles, train systems, and other products to a
> 1960s/1970s
> American to find out what's wrong about this question.
I think a person from the 60's would collapse as soon as you turn on the
ignition and a map pops up on an LCD monitor showing exactly where you are
:-) Or when you only stop after 1000 km to fill up with 50 litres of fuel.
Or when you steer sharply or brake hard and the car actually responds (OK so
we had this in Europe already in the 60's, but... :-D ).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49d02f243c1bb33e88b6cd970@news.povray.org...
> Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts
about
> every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do? Who of those "Moon
> Hoaxers" would read even a single line? After all, to them it would
probably be
> just propaganda. They don't even seem to bother reading the information
> available out there for anyone to read (except the pamphlets of other
"Moon
> Hoaxers").
haha ... talked with a fellow who cited "Capricorn 1" as enough proof that
it didn't (moon landing) didn't happen. He's one of those diehard conspiracy
theorists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49C### [at] hotmailcom...
> Then you are lucky. even with clear sky here I see only the brightest
> stars. I have e.g. never seen the milky way in my life. Apart from the
> times I visited the planetarium in Amsterdam. :(
I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from cities/towns.
during the summer I can clearly see the milky way
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Do these shadows seem parallel to you? NASA supporters claim the cameras had
> "wide angle lenses" that distorted the shadows. Why didn't NASA give them
> cameras that provide accurate images?"
I find this one the most hilarious of all (not that they aren't all
hilarious).
First he asks why the shadows are not parallel, and then he indirectly
admits that wide angle lenses make parallel things look non-parallel. So
he himself refuted one of his own claims, probably without even noticing.
Moreover, how could you get parallel shadows in a photograph no matter
what you do? The concept of *perspective* should be rather clear to
everybody. If you photograph a pair of train tracks, aiming at the horizon,
the tracks will seem to converge at the horizon, ie. they will not be
parallel in the image even though they are in reality. Every single person
with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
this.
The only way you can keep parallel lines parallel in a photo is to
either align the camera to be completely perpendicular to the lines
(in this case aim it directly towards the ground), or use a really large
zoom, to minimize perspective. Neither option is, rather obviously, not
very practical in this situation. Nor would there be any reason for it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Yeah, and look at this detail: You can tell from the look of the tripod thing
> that the shot is *definitely* raytraced. Someone forgot to put a more realistic
> texture here.
Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > Yeah, and look at this detail: You can tell from the look of the tripod thing
> > that the shot is *definitely* raytraced. Someone forgot to put a more realistic
> > texture here.
> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Every single person
> with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
> this.
I read of an aborigine tribe that was found where everyone had lived in the
middle of the dense rain forest for generations. They couldn't see far
enough that perspective ever became noticeable. When the researchers took
them out onto the plains, they wondered how you can make a cow only as big
as a fly.
I remember it being presented as a true story in a magazine that was
supposed to be about science, but I don't remember anything more than that.
It could be BS of course. It was a looong time ago I read it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
