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!

Weather has been decent and I've 3 more sightings under my belt. The station
followed 20 minutes laster by the shuttle, the second while they were
linked, and finally last night the station again. She's pretty big and VERY
bright now!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-119/ndxpage49.html

  There are no stars! The photos are obviously fake! ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Weather has been decent and I've 3 more sightings under my belt. The station
> followed 20 minutes laster by the shuttle, the second while they were
> linked, and finally last night the station again. She's pretty big and VERY
> bright now!

I had occasion a few days ago to witness the two up in the sky for about 2
minutes, flying in tandem formation (I'd say they were flying "a centimeter"
apart, though of course that doesn't mean a thing in that context). I'm not
normally following current space news, but they just happened to broadcast a
short info on the radio station I was listening to a few minutes before, and as
it happened I was just arriving at home right in time, and the sky was perfectly
clear. A nice ending for an otherwise wrecked day.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-119/ndxpage49.html
>
>   There are no stars! The photos are obviously fake! ;)

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.

You'd expect those morons to at least be able to map some decent starfield
background to their sky_sphere if they're raytracing the whole smash anyways...
some nice Hubble shots, pimped up for HDR, or the like.

---
You know you've done too much raytracing when...
.... you find evidence that the Apollo lunar landings were faked using CGI ;)

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 's119e007129.jpg' (49 KB)

Preview of image 's119e007129.jpg'

On 29-3-2009 22:59, clipka wrote:
> "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Weather has been decent and I've 3 more sightings under my belt. The station
>> followed 20 minutes laster by the shuttle, the second while they were
>> linked, and finally last night the station again. She's pretty big and VERY
>> bright now!
> 
> I had occasion a few days ago to witness the two up in the sky for about 2
> minutes, flying in tandem formation (I'd say they were flying "a centimeter"
> apart, though of course that doesn't mean a thing in that context). I'm not
> normally following current space news, but they just happened to broadcast a
> short info on the radio station I was listening to a few minutes before, and as
> it happened I was just arriving at home right in time, and the sky was perfectly
> clear. A nice ending for an otherwise wrecked day.

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. :(

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-119/ndxpage49.html
>
>   There are no stars! The photos are obviously fake! ;)

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

*sigh*

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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. :(

Never?  Wow.  I can just barely make it out when I run out of town on a dark
night.  Wish I were here:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070508.html

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Then you are lucky. even with clear sky here I see only the brightest
> stars.

That should be enough to make out the ISS.

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.

I expect to see Barney Calhoun looking out a window near that thing.

-- 
   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

"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").

Well, I'll just jump on the occasion to do my ranting here then (please,
everyone who does believe that Americans landed on the mon, this is not
addressed to you)...


"Computer technology was very primitive in the 1960's"

True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers. They were
still trained in figuring out computations with nothing but a slide rule. And
they knew when that slide rule result would be good enough, and when they would
better do more precise math on a sheet of paper, and have their colleague
double-check. (Apollo 13 astronauts actually asked the ground crew to
cross-check some rather trivial maths they had to do on one occasion during the
initial emergency situation.)

"Manufacturing technology was also very primitive"

The fact that high-precision tools of that time were invariably hand-operated,
and that certain tasks were difficult, does not mean that the high-precision
work required for the Moonshot was impossible. It just means that it required
skilled operators.

The advancement of today's manufacturing technology lies mainly in replacement
of the highly-skilled operators of old by computers, and automation for a gain
in throughput (i.e. quantity), and not so much in precision. The Moonshot did
not need quantity.

"How did Americans in 1969 do what nobody can do today?"

America was driven by pride to achieve something nobody had ever achieved
before. This is a motivation no nation can tap today: You can't motivate your
people to be the first to reach the moon, because they know it's not possible.
America has been there, done that already. (Unless it was all a fake, of
course. Strangely enough, almost nobody *outside* the US seems to believe
that.)

"Furthermore, if Americans had such incredible engineering talent, why can't we
make incredible automobiles, train systems, and other products?"

Show today's automobiles, train systems, and other products to a 1960s/1970s
American to find out what's wrong about this question.

(Okay, America seems to have been lazy recently, but show them around the
world... show them Japan's Shinkansen, or Eurpoe's TGV or ICE... show them the
tunnel between England and France... show them the famous Star Trek
communicators having become reality (mobile phones) including Lt. Uhura's ear
thingumajig (aka in-ear wireless headset)... show them flat TV screens...
microwave ovens in every kitchen... computers not only in every household, but
in every pocket (each with more processing power than a whole armada of Apollo
spacecraft)... and if you want to show them how advanced America still is re
the rest of the world, show them America's weapons arsenal; show them jet
fighters that cannot be detected by radar; show them laser-guided smart bombs;
show them modern tanks, heat rays, tasers... well, maybe you'll get the point.
Show them the whole smash. Maybe you're not impressed by this - but any
1960/1970 person will.)

"The Lunar Lander had Never Been Tested."

Systems that have never been tested as a whole *can* be made to work at first
attempt. It just requires a hell of attention during development, assessing the
design over and over again in every miniscule detail, and of course testing the
subsystems to exhaustion - which is why the try-and-error approach is much more
common.

Even so, the lunar lander *was* tested. Every little detail of it. Every
component was tested separately on earth. The system as a whole was first
tested in space during the Apollo 5 shot, which was - ta-daaah! - unmanned; and
twice more in the manned Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 missions, the latter in lunar
orbit including a descent to a few km above the lunar surface. Virtually the
only thing they didn't test was to actually put the thing down on real lunar
soil. But they sure as hell knew (probably from subsystem tests) that the
landing gear would be able to carry the weight. Plus if it wasn't, they knew
from the prior tests that the astronauts could just press that Big Red Button
(well, maybe it wasn't red, but anyway) anytime to instantly shoot them up
again to safety.

The Saturn V rocket that was to carry Apollo astronauts to the moon had already
been tested unmanned likewise, first in the Apollo 4 shot, and again in the
Apollo 6 mission, before it was entrusted with human life in the Apollo 8 shot.

"Where are the technical specs for the lunar lander? For example, the top
section blasted off the moon with how much fuel?"

Oh come on, just take the time and gather some information, folks! I've even
read some of you go about this very information claiming that they wouldn't add
up, so obviously NASA is not keeping this stuff secret.

"How did two men live in this tiny module? Why doesn't NASA provide details on
how they accomplished the miracle of keeping men alive in an incredibly harsh
environment?"

They do. They tell you everything, from Oxygen supply over CO2 scrubbers, water
supply, cooling garment, waste disposal facilities, up to how you can "pop your
ears" when you can't hold your nose nose shut with your hands.

"Did anybody vomit from the zero gravity of space?"

Yes, actually most did. Read the records.

"Did the astronauts wear diapers?"

Yes, they did. Although they had a much more technical term for it. Again, read
the NASA documents available.

"The Stupidest Astronauts?"

This is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that NASA *did* test the rockets first
*despite* the scientists' confidence... have *you* ever operated *anything*
while stuck in a bulky suit with rather stiff joints that encumbered your every
move, carrying a heavy backpack, and wearing thick, stiff rubber gloves reducing
your tactile sensitivity to virtually zero?

Try it, then laugh again about astronauts learning how to walk down a ladder, or
put a flag into dirt.

"Fake lunar dirt on the floor. What was the purpose for this?"

PR photographs. Training under the expected visual conditions (you don't
normally have such extreme contrasts between light and shadow here on earth).

"Why in 1963 did Kennedy and the scientists want to cancel the moon race?"

Debate about whether to carry on with something difficult ist just perfectly
normal.

"Without moisture or organic material, what is holding the particles of dust
together?"

Maybe because they're from a totally different material? Maybe because the
gravity acting on the soil to have crisp impressions collapse is far less on
the moon? Maybe because the dirt is much finer-grained? Maybe because the
bombardment with cosmic particles charges up the soil and has it stick
together?

And if this cannot be done with dry soil on earth, why would Lunar Landing
fakers fake it this odd way? Would not a layman obviously tend to use dry soil
for such a fake (after all, you do)? So if it was all a fake, someone must have
had a good reason to moisten the soil. Well, maybe their scientific advisors
knew that lunar soil would behave this way, because of some effects unknown to
a layman... oh, hey, but if that's how lunar soil really behaves, doesn't that
have your argument crumble to dust?

"Also, why does the Apollo moon dirt look different from the moon dirt in the
photos that were taken by the Surveyor craft?"

Maybe because those photos were taken at much different resolution, at much
different camera angles, under much different lighting conditions... and, most
of all, taken miles and miles apart?

Ever considered that lunar soil is noth the same at every place? Like, for
instance, that the soil inside a fairly new crater may show much different
characteristics than that on an old lunar plain - or even the soil just outside
the crater rim?

As you name it: "These two photos are from *a* Surveyor craft camera" (emphasis
added).

[The Flag]

"However, it appears that the corner of the flag has moved compared to
AS17-134-20378"

Yes, but compare to AS17-134-20377: The position of the flag is identical; the
corner kept bending the same way. The reason is simple: The flag was made of a
thin foil, designed to have a somewhat crumpled, flag-like appearance; to this
end, it had to be made of a material that would "spring" back into a
pre-defined shape. Obviously the astronaut was not happy with that pre-defined
shape, but to fix that he had to tug at the corner.

"Why such a tight grip? And how did he bend his fingers so easily in pressurized
gloves?"

Maybe you're mistaking his pinkie for his index finger??

"The astronauts also had a perfect opportunity to demonstrate lunar gravity
and physics to the TV audience. For example, an astronaut could have dropped a
handful of dirt at the same time he dropped a rock."

They did. IIRC there is footage of an astronaut dropping both a feather and a
stone. And you name the golf ball trick yourself.

"Wouldn't the stars and planets be brighter and more numerous to astronauts than
to U2 pilots?"

No Sir. NASA explained, but you won't listen, so I'll do it again: Astronauts on
the moon did not (normally) see starts because (a) they would be quite busy
(time in portable life support systems is precious), (b) they would be wearing
their famous golden sun visor (covering their entire field of view, and
reducing visible light intensity by 80%) to not be blinded by the light of
their environment (how much do your typical sunglasses filter out? Can you see
the stars at night wearing them?), (c) they would have bright light reflect off
objects in their field of view, like the visor rims, ever so tiny fissures on
their protective visor's or bubble helmet's surface (ever seen glass or plastic
that did *not* have any such?) or just dust on them, or (d) it would take them
some time to adapt to darkness, with them working in blazin sunlight all the
time.

Plus, NASA astronauts were typically fighter pilots. From high-altitude flights
they would be quite used to the sight of stars in a pitch-black sky, and would
not find it worth mentioning. Much different seeing the earth in the sky.

"Would you get onto a spacecraft that is heading to the moon after watching a
monkey die after only nine days in Earth orbit? Well, a week after that monkey
died, Apollo 11 took off for the moon."

- 1966 Russia had already demonstrated a 22-day stay of a dog in space
- The manned Apollo 8 and 10 missions had already demonstrated before
Biosatellite 3 that travelling to the moon in an Apollo capsule posed no health
hazard to humans.
- The Apollo 1 disaster had made clear enough already that being an astronaut
was not without risk. Still the Apollo 11 astronauts were eager to go. So were
the Apollo 14 astronauts when it was their turn, despite the epic, almost-fatal
failure of Apollo 13. I bet there would have been men back then who would have
volunteered to go on a guaranteed one-way trip to moon. I bet there are even
today.

Would I get onto a spacecraft heading to moon after watching a monkey die in
space? Yes, I for one would. Any time. I would want to see moon soil. I would
want to see an earthrise.

"It seems that there were two separate programs going on at NASA. One was of the
wonderfully sucessful landing of men on the moon, and the other was the real
space program, which often ended in disappointment and failure."

Maybe that's because the one was about humans, while the other was "only" about
animals?

"were the astronauts lousy photographers?"

I bet they were the best. *You* try to photograph with the camera strapped to
your breast (well, not even your breast, but a bulky, pumped-up rubber suit
your're wearing), with no access to a viewfinder whatsoever, no rangefinder
(autofocus? hey, we're at the beginning of the 1970s!), and no light meter.

Given these conditions, I guess the astronauts did quite a good job.

"Clouds? Or a sign of photo editing?"

I'd say dust on the camera lens. Another thing the astronauts lacked: A way to
wipe the lenses while out at work. Or even noticing that there was dust on the
lens in the first place.

"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?"

Why should they have? Just to get the shadows line up? This is ridiculous. As if
all concern NASA had back then was to convince *you* that they really did it.

So what do you do if you want astronauts to take photographs of various things
but can't provide them with any way to see what they're photographing? Easy:
Equip the cameras with wide-angle lenses, so they don't need to aim the camera
perfectly, 'cause they can't.

"Is this the same powerful sun that blinds us on the Earth?"

Yes. But it doesn't blind a good camera nearly as much as it would you or me.
Because if our eyes would not "shut down" from the sun's light, it would
forever ruin the part of the retina that captures the sunshine. It does the
same to photographic film - but photographic film is only used for a single
exposure anyway. Our retina must last for a lifetime's worth of exposures.

Notice that despite the camera being wide-angle, the sun seems of immense size.
This is due to the sun ruining more than just the part of the film directly
exposed to it.

"Are these sunrays due to the camera lens? Or due to an atmosphere?"

Looks like perfectly normal "lens flare" to me. Which is so called because it is
due to the camera lens indeed. Thanks for asking this time instead of just
claiming some nonsense or using ridicule.

"Why is this area of the moon so dark? Just how powerful is this "sun"?"

I guess if you'd "subtract" the whole lense flare effect from the shot, it would
look perfectly normal.

"Darker here, also, but this should be a bright area because lots of sunlight
should be reflecting towards the camera."

No, Sir, because the moon surface does not reflect in a dull specular fashion,
but primarily in a diffuse way, i.e. the exiting radiation is dependent almost
exclusively on the surface orientation, and not the incident light angle
(otherwise we'd see highlights on the moon in the night sky). Except for a
phenomenon that causes more light to be reflected straight back to the sun than
in the other directions.

"NASA did not bother to test the Lunar Module, but they built these angled-walls
so the astronauts could practice walking in low gravity so that they wouldn't
fall down on the moon. Why make astronauts practice moon-walks when we cannot
be sure the Lunar Module will work? What kind of scientists have such
priorities?"

As you repeat that claim again which you obviously never checked yourself, I
will repeat my answer, too: The Lunar Module *was* tested.

(Even if it had not been because that might have been impossible for some
reason, and they had just prayed for it would work, wouldn't it prudent to test
& train everything else they could?)

"An angled wall can be used to fake brief moon walks ... just make a large wall
and turn the camera sideways."

As you can plainly see, this process involves some wires, and straps that would
for sure leave hints.

"Shall we convince ourselves that this moon was only for a museum?"

Maybe it was a tool to train the astronauts for orientating themselves in lunar
orbit, in case their guidance system would malfunction? Add a beam with a
camera, and a close-circuit projector, and you have a mechanical "graphics
engine" for a simulator.

"Is it possible to land on the moon without getting dust on the gold foil, and
without the foil being damaged by the engine exhaust?"

- The lighter dust particles were all "kicked away" already by the engine
exhaust

- Somewhat heavier particles "kicked up" by the landing gear would fly away from
the landing pads; an atmosphere would be required to have any dust land on the
pad itself (or a very "bumpy" landing in which the pad "digs" into the dirt, as
may have happened with the Surveyor probes)

- As for the foil possibly being damaged by the exhaust, guess why one side of
the foil (the inner!) is wrapped in some black stuff...

"How many more decades will Americans make themselves look like fools for
boasting that they landed on the moon?"

How many more decares will (a few) Americans make themselves look like fools by
boasting to have come up with the ultimate proof for yet another conspiracy?

So far, all "evidence" you Moon Hoaxers have put on the table was either (a)
flawed by wrong assumptions or misinformations (like the claim that the whole
smash had never been tested), (b) based on a lack of scientific knowledge, (c)
plausibly explainable assuming the landings were real (which doesn't prove that
the moon landings were real, but neither does it prove that they were faked), or
- worst of all for you - (d) brought attention to details which, examined
closely, turned out to be sound evidence that Americans *did* land on the moon.

So far, what I have given are only answers to your questions. Now I have one
single question for you in return:


If - as you claim - it was possible to fake the lunar landings with 1960s/1970s
technology to such a level of detail that even today people like you keep
discovering phenomena that under close investigation turn to speak in *favor*
of the landings...

.... then why has *nobody* to this day pulled off the stunt to repeat this feat -
neither Hollywood (the "Apollo 13" movie was a start, but no more than that),
nor you "Moon Hoaxers"?

End of message. You show me some, say, 60 seconds of self-made fake lunar
landing footage, and we can talk again. Until then, please do me and a lot of
others a favor and STFU; because while it seems that NASA has at least *some*
evidence in their favor that a real lunar landing was technically feasible in
1960/1970, you guys can't provide the slightest evidence that a fake of this
quality and scale would have been any easier than the real thing.

Post a reply to this message

"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] hotmailcom> 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

Warp wrote:

>> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
> 
>   Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
> 

Why emulate a substandard lens? :)
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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 think I read the same thing... I definitely appears plausible. They 
have no reference than distances more than a couple dozen feet at most.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback wrote:


> I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from cities/towns.
> during the summer I can clearly see the milky way

I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple 
stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution

We should have a national night of darkness, where all outdoor lighting 
is extinguished and people are encouraged to stargaze.

(While hooligans go around stealing hood ornaments...) 0.001pts for 
reference.



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   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.

Or you can get fancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_photography

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:05:58 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple 
>stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution

Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost did
that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy into
the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do?

Oops.  Maybe you should heed that notion.  It was only intended as
entertainment, not trolling...


> True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers.

Yeah I have one of those Dover textbooks on orbital dynamics.  A large portion
of it is obsolete high-order approximations because these days you can either
integrate it numerically or use a program someone else has developed.  A bit of
a lost art, really.


> "How did Americans in 1969 do what nobody can do today?"

We saw an astronaut from this era talk for quite a while on this point.  Safety
is a big issue.  When it's a god-given mission to put a man on the moon, risk
is irrelevant.  It doesn't mean they weren't careful, but they were willing to
risk their lives in a way you just can't get away with these days.


The sign of an idiot conspiracy-theorist is that they find fault with
*everything*.  Not just on one topic either.  Conspiracy is a lens through
which they view the whole world.  If you find one really intriguing point of
contention, fine.  I'll listen and consider it critically.  But if it's clear
you're only out to ruffle some feathers, I have more important things to do.  I
enjoyed Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about UFO's.  If all people can do is poke
around and find a million tiny little arguments or blurry photos, he doesn't
bother listening.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49d10aa5$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple
> stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution

they think I'm nuts around here (in other places for that matter) ....
winter is especially kind for star gazing ... no heat waves rising up from
the ground to interfere with things .... I've gathered crowds (indeed
three's a crowd in this case) wondering why in the world I was out middle of
the night. Carved a snow couch into the snow bank lined it with a sleeping
bag ... instant observation post!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:if62t4phrdvqihvo9amjnlg421kjfe82g1@4ax.com...
> Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost
did
> that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy
into
> the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.

my brother in-law moved here from toronto ....  one summer night he asked
about those far away clouds. He just couldn't wrap his head around the idea
of it being the Milky Way.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:36:33 -0400, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:if62t4phrdvqihvo9amjnlg421kjfe82g1@4ax.com...
>> Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost
>did
>> that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy
>into
>> the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.
>
>my brother in-law moved here from toronto ....  one summer night he asked
>about those far away clouds. He just couldn't wrap his head around the idea
>of it being the Milky Way.
>

Where is "here", Jim?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 30-3-2009 20:05, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Holsenback wrote:
> 
> 
>> I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from 
>> cities/towns.
>> during the summer I can clearly see the milky way
> 
> I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple 
> stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution

seconded

> We should have a national night of darkness, where all outdoor lighting 
> is extinguished and people are encouraged to stargaze.

Wouldn't work because of the pollution here. From where I live I can see 
Amsterdam. At night it is a orange sort of dome.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   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.

..... unless they refuse to open their eyes and see.

To say it with Bill Kaysing's own words: "I decided I did not believe that
Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin or anyone else was going to the moon"

Seems like he has stuck with that decision ever since... or *is stuck* with it
may be a better term...

It is interesting and might be an explanation, to think that "Moon Hoaxers" were
actually kids back then, and the idea that people might actually be walking on
the moon shattered their - literally - childish beliefs about the universe to
such an extent that they simply refused to believe, and continue to do so to
this day.

Which would explain why they are so eager to prove their theories, and so
stubborn to accept any evidence to the contrary.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
>
>   Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?

Naah. Just good high-res HDR output and some simple postprocessing :P

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
> >
> >   Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
> >
>
> Why emulate a substandard lens? :)

Why, to make the hoax more credible of course :P

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> > every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do?
>
> Oops.  Maybe you should heed that notion.  It was only intended as
> entertainment, not trolling...

No problem, I sure was aware of the fact.

Just jumped on the occasion to let some steam off for which I never found the
right place before (and for which this forum, of course, is not the the right
place either, as I bet we don't have many people here doubting the lunar
landings -but what the heck... sometimes a man's gotta say what a man's gotta
say, no matter where he is ;))

> > True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers.
>
> Yeah I have one of those Dover textbooks on orbital dynamics.  A large portion
> of it is obsolete high-order approximations because these days you can either
> integrate it numerically or use a program someone else has developed.  A bit of
> a lost art, really.

.... which, I guess, may be the reason why NASA can't just simply build a few
Saturn V again and burn off the fireworks.

Nobody on the world would know how to operate that outdated once-high-tech these
days.

> The sign of an idiot conspiracy-theorist is that they find fault with
> *everything*.  Not just on one topic either.  Conspiracy is a lens through
> which they view the whole world.

There's one word for it: Paranoia.

The official definition of which is not that a person fears everyone and
everythig, but more generally that he tries to relate everything he percieves
to one central idea.

Which *can* be the idea that "they" are out to get him, of course.

I once read an article by someone who did some maths on the lunar lander fuel
capacity and such; he went into great detail about how he asked some
information from a university professor while avoiding any hint that he might
be after the Apollo project - because of course all university professors would
be briefed to not tell the truth about anything related to the Apollo program...

.... heck, he didn't even give that professor a *chance* to try convince him
where his math was systematically wrong - all out of sheer... well, Paranoia.


If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
allow you not to.


---
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out to get you...

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
> allow you not to.

And vice versa.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
> > allow you not to.
>
> And vice versa.

I don't believe *that* :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Which *can* be the idea that "they" are out to get him, of course.

"Don't you think that's a little paranoid?"
"Is that what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?"

-- 
   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

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:8f92t452hao9qstqqg5i53dpv5bmt9qq6i@4ax.com...
> Where is "here", Jim?

prince edward island

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:15:25 -0400, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:8f92t452hao9qstqqg5i53dpv5bmt9qq6i@4ax.com...
>> Where is "here", Jim?
>
>prince edward island
>

It is not that much more southerly than the south of the UK but I suppose the
air is clearer than the cities that I've lived in. You need to go south to
really see the Milky Way.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 
> Why, to make the hoax more credible of course :P
> 

That's an awful lot of work to get the aberrations of an optical system 
just right, imo... But, hey... when your primary job is to perpetuate a 
government conspiracy, anything's possible, right? lol.

They need to take the conspiracy nuts to one of the telescopes that has 
a laser attached, then aim it at that corner reflector on the moon.

Gee, how did that get there?
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> It is interesting and might be an explanation, to think that "Moon Hoaxers" were
> actually kids back then, and the idea that people might actually be walking on
> the moon shattered their - literally - childish beliefs about the universe to
> such an extent that they simply refused to believe, and continue to do so to
> this day.

That's freaking batshit insane! They can't deal with a new idea so they 
come up with all sorts of crap to discredit it. Don't understand why 
they can't simply deal with an achievement.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's freaking batshit insane! They can't deal with a new idea so they 
> come up with all sorts of crap to discredit it. Don't understand why 
> they can't simply deal with an achievement.

  It's a psychological thing: Believing what the government tells you,
especially about awesome achievements, is being submissive, gullible and
controllable. If you believe what they say, you are just part of the gray
mass of people, cattle.

  The conspiracy theorists want to be different. They don't want to be
submissive nor gullible, they don't want to be mind-controlled by anyone's
lies. They want to be part of the minority who knows better. They want to
think with their own brains, rather than being force-fed "truths" by others.
They want to be important.

  Ironically, by believing and defending the ridiculous conspiracy theories
they are doing exactly what they wanted to avoid: In other words, they are
being gullible and easily manipulatable by others.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:vot3t41sou7emuiojljgv6vi6uvrvlsqam@4ax.com...
> It is not that much more southerly than the south of the UK but I suppose
the
> air is clearer than the cities that I've lived in. You need to go south to
> really see the Milky Way.

like way freakin' in the middle of nowhere .... deep in the outback perhaps.
that WOULD be cool!

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
> allow you not to.

  Conspiracy theories are a religion.

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/ConspiracyTheoryReligions.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:vot3t41sou7emuiojljgv6vi6uvrvlsqam@4ax.com...
> > It is not that much more southerly than the south of the UK but I suppose
> the
> > air is clearer than the cities that I've lived in. You need to go south to
> > really see the Milky Way.

> like way freakin' in the middle of nowhere .... deep in the outback perhaps.
> that WOULD be cool!

  What would be really cool is to go with a boat to the middle of southern
Pacific Ocean, as far from civilization as possible, on a clear night, and
turn all lights off.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   What would be really cool is to go with a boat to the middle of southern
> Pacific Ocean, as far from civilization as possible, on a clear night, and
> turn all lights off.

Or to have lived just a couple of generations ago.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Conspiracy theories are a religion.
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/ConspiracyTheoryReligions.html
> 

Interestingly, one thing I have noticed is that many people who are very 
religious also seem to believe some sort of conspiracy theory. It's a 
strange connection I've observed over the years. You will have someone 
who very much believes in the bible, and at the same time will tell you 
with a straight face that we've already been in contact with aliens, and 
the government is covering it all up.

It's interesting, I wonder if there's any relation at all...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:49d23033@news.povray.org...
>   What would be really cool is to go with a boat to the middle of southern
> Pacific Ocean, as far from civilization as possible, on a clear night, and
> turn all lights off.

Yes indeed that would be nice ..... closest I've come was Indian Ocean in
1973 on board the Kitty Hawk

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:48:37 -0400, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:vot3t41sou7emuiojljgv6vi6uvrvlsqam@4ax.com...
>> It is not that much more southerly than the south of the UK but I suppose
>the
>> air is clearer than the cities that I've lived in. You need to go south to
>> really see the Milky Way.
>
>like way freakin' in the middle of nowhere .... deep in the outback perhaps.
>that WOULD be cool!
>
Somewhere between Dubbo NSW and Sydney. 
Actually the sky was a bit overdone IMO ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>   The conspiracy theorists want to be different. They don't want to be
> submissive nor gullible, they don't want to be mind-controlled by anyone's
> lies. They want to be part of the minority who knows better. They want to
> think with their own brains, rather than being force-fed "truths" by others.
> They want to be important.
>

Damn right! That's how I feel about my own knowledge of POV-Ray, vs. the
documentation and the newsgroup LIES masquerading as 'suggestions and tips.' I
*know* I know better.

;-P

KW

Post a reply to this message