And here I was thinking that creationists were as stupid as stupid can get. You sir have proved me wrong. I bow in respect for your utter stupidity. Unless, of course, this is just a joke, which seems rather likely.
Did you know that the actor that Rodrigo Santoro(the actor who played Xerxes from 300) and Gerard Butler(King Leonidas) are about the same height? Yet, in 300, they are seen as very different heights. How did they acheive that, you ask? Simple, trick the camera. It's quite easy to do. Think of the camera as a single eye. You can't perceive depth with one eye, that's why you get two.
Wow, this is the most pathetic reproduction of a 3d scene I have ever seen in my life. Even if there was an atmosphere, WHY does the flag keep waving for about a minute after he walks past it? Oh yeah, because they were on the moon, and there is no atmosphere on the moon. period.
@AstroClownBuster "It is the only explanation.... was filmed on the moon" The only explanation YOU can think of. Look up "triboelectric effect", "lunar dust fountains".
@AstroClownBuster This is a joke, right? shanedk (and even jw for that matter) employ geometry and the known characteristics of the camera lens used to deduce how close the man was to the flag. It is rather remarkable that the two implacable antagonists got basically the same result, with(according to YOU) two different "faulty" methods. All you did here was place the man where you needed him to be in order to get the result you wanted. Are you hunchbacked in disguise?
Their errors are actually quite similar but not identical, they both result in misplaced figures and flawed rendition of the scene, JW did a bigger mistake than shanedk on that figure placement. I didn't just placed the man where I needed to be, I placed him according to the frames on the video and the side photo as helper (that you need to watch to get a clue of what is going on on this 3d rendition ...).
@AstroClownBuster Funny, I see a claim of errors, but no analysis to back it up. And in your sorry video, the figure simply appears - in contrast to shanedk (and jw), who first gives a rigorous theoretical basis for what he does, THEN does it.
How odd, the two implacable foes come to agreement, despite the t fact hat one is debunking himself. Stop kidding yourself. You're not even in his league.
Keep believing this till a satellite comes close enough to the moon and takes detailed photos showing there is no equipment left by the astronauts on the moon.
@hunchbacked You mean like the Chandrayaan-1 and Selene missions, which independently confirmed the veracity of the landing sites, in addition to the images taken of them by the LRO?
True landscapes of the moon have been used as a background, so it's not surprising that these backgrounds can be found on satellite photos.
And in what concerns the LRO photo, what we see on them is a joke: the shadows of the landers don't correspond with the landers themselves, there are duplicate "landers", and the landers are always very close to a hole, not counting the other incoherencies.
How can you prove from the first picture that the flag and astronaut were next to each other? Also the flags did not line up and you used the same perspective for the original flag to the one in the 3D model. This proves nothing.
The first picture at 0:12 already prove that he is too far away to touch it, it only require one valid eye to see that. You can see the guy is closer of the flag at 0:31 on the video screenshot used in the picture on the left, while being closer of the camera at 2:37 on the second video screenshot used in this picture, on the right.
They line up within 2 pixel (maybe 3 at worst) don't get confused by the placement of the two side by side screenshots, it's to compensate tilting.
@AstroClownBuster wrote "The first picture at 0:12 already prove that he is too far away to touch it, it only require one valid eye to see that." You don't don't have a lot of experience with cameras, do you? "Valid"(sic) eyes are fooled by the foreground-deepening effect of wide-angle lenses. OBJECTS IN A WIDE ANGLE SHOT APPEAR FURTHER APART AND FURTHER AWAY THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE, so you cannot use your "valid" eyes to determine the relative locations of things. (more)
@AstroClownBuster shanedk did an analysis, using the known characteristics of the camera lens, and the dimensions of the flag and other objects in the field of view, and showed how close they MUST be. Jarrah White did something similar, and arrived at the same conclusion.
what you have here is just a little "hand waving"; you have no justification for the assumptions you make, and this video proves nothing, except that you don't know what you are doing.
shanedk misplaced his figures I've already commented on his video and explained how anyone can verify that it is the case, go take a look at the older comments, some were posted on my older account name which is xyzLLLzyx just in case. JW did enormous mistake in his video (that he failed to aknowledge by the way and strangely, NO apollo 'defenders' pointed them out...) on of his major error was to move the sphere toward the camera AND UPWARD !! instead of just forward.
You can be a "Texas boy badass" and an astroclown at the same time (since you only have to be part of the moon landing farce as an "astronaut" for this. For your second question the answer is no.
Your initial error, upon which every other error is built in this video is in the right-hand image. You've used only one frame. Because of the motion, it's a terribly unclear image. One can clearly see "frame bleed" in the still image. The red, green and blue portions of the transmission are obviously off alignment. What you say is the top of his helmet is actually much lower. At the very least, it's just so unclear that nothing can be concluded. But, shanedk's analysis has no errors.
there is so many flaws in shanedk scene, that I don't even know where to start (I listed the major flaws several times though, in his video thread and all of them are verifiable easily by anyone) as for my supposed 'initial error' on which 'every other errors are built in' on MY video, don't make me laugh please. Unlike shanedk I know this scene, and unlike him, i know perspective. But please make my day and LIST my supposed 'errors' and try to make sense.
Notice that this video is not meant to be all in one stand alone explanation, I consider that people must watch the original video and compare. For example, you probably didn't noticed that there is 3 astroclown on the scene at 0:43 ? or if you did you maybe don't know why I put these 3 clown on the same scene (which don't happen obviously in the original scene) right? Well this middle astroclown is the 'famous' position at 0:31 on the original video, this position is the KEY>
>> this position is the key because it is an important double check. shanedk CAN'T place this 0:31 astroclown to double check on his scene, you know why? Because if he tried, he will expose the hilariously flawed position of his scene, because this 0:31 position (which in the original video is showing an astroclown very close of the flag as you can check by yourself) would be in the MIDDLE OF THE FLAG (in the flag) in shanedk ridiculously flawed scene! and HE KNOW IT don't worry about this.
Shanedk doesn't even have a problem, that using his dirt fall measured distance of 12,98cm on the astronaut, the astronaut would be only a one meter tall dwarf!!!!
And when he made a response video to you debunking him, he didn't even show your comment! He just went to prove that the astronaut isn't one meter tall - but did not use his dirt fall scale to prove this! Which was the very thing that dwarfed the astronaut!
Shanedk is a hoaxer. One cannot argue against that.
You're model isn't valid. Stop the video @ 0:32 then stop it again @ 0:36. Notice how the true tip of the top red strip is really down lower. You can still see the true position flag over the super imposed flag. The disclaimer is bogus also @0:36, perspective matters. @0:38 this is not accurate, the top right tip should be lower ~2 strips lower. Since the flag and the LM camera are fixed, now the only way to make the picture fit is to move the astronaut closer to the flag.
The position at 0:32 onward, is only to give the viewer a reference on the objects heights (which as you can see are basically spot on) on the exact position and bending of the flag, it is quite hard and I agree that I'm a bit off, in fact I'm quite clear by saying there is still room for improvement. Of course perspective matters! That's why I give a warning that on this view (which was not a perspective view and was only used to scale the figures relative to each others) cont>
> On this view, the object CAN'T MATCH perfectly (I only matched the heights) in fact IF i had matched the objects perfectly on this view, which was not a perspective view, that would mean my scene would be absolutely completly invalid, unless it was a photo taken from one hundred metter away which would reduce perspective distortion a lot. If you take perspective into account the flag tip (which is further away from the camera) will converge toward his vanishing point.
@jim6584 wrote: "Stop the video @ 0:32 then stop it again @ 0:36. Notice how the true tip of the top red strip is really down lower"
True. By couple of centimeter, mayhaps. But both the real flags upper and lower corners are lower than the 3D flags (from the side which is not fixed to the pole). The flag is still very well corresponding with the flag size of the photo. There's no error there that would make this 3D model invalid.
You can't match all the corners in the view I used, for the simple reason that the background picture has perspective, while the side view I used, have no perspective. But it's none the less right that the flag position is not perfect (And I don't claim it was , especially because I learned the software as I was making the scene at the time) It's just good enough to put WJ and Shanedk totally flawed work back on the 'drawing board' though.
You do realise why this video isn't valid, don't you? Because you just pulled it out of your ass. You can't just make up demensions and throw them out there and expect the results to be realistic.
It is perfectly valid you poor imbecile! Didn't you even looked at the side reference picture ? Beyond this, I used same flag size than the one used by shanedk, at the difference that my scene make sense, while his scene is just a pile of crap without a ground plane.
@AstroClownBuster, Is the flag the same demensions? Is the person the same demensions (aproximatley)? And if so then why is shanedks video not valid and yours is?
Because shanedk figure is placed too high relative to the flag, you can plain ly see this when he rotate his view at the end. compare with the relative size of the clown with the flag here in the side phot, and you'll immediatly notice that shanedk figure is too high. His whole perspective is flawed, he didn't have any double check (unlike me)
@Houshalter it is "dimensions" ffs. either learn to spell or figure out how to turn on spell check, or shut up. If you can't manage simple words I don't think anyone will take your opinion too seriously.
@NOmeansnoFAN, I don't even remember. You are trolling on a 3 month old thread, I could care less how I thought something was spelled then. Obviously I know how it is spelled now.
Oh, and you're still a grammar Nazi, twice so far.
@NOmeansnoFAN three month old thread??? well sorry i missed your email to tell me you were conversing on a open forum. i was in the south of france for a month. give me a call next time you leave a message anywhere.
@Houshalter well...idiots who can't use their own language don't like grammar nazis, and just admit you are stupid and unintelligent because not only can't you spell but the tools on a computer elude you also.
@Glinkaism1, and yet you can get a laser to reflect off the mirrors they left.
And I hate Nasa to, and government beauracracies in general, but I have actual reasons why I hate them, not conspiracy theories that don't stand up to a shred of rational thinking. India had a probe orbitting the moon 2 years ago and China is planning on sending things to the moon as well. There is also a few private attempts underway in the distant future. So your theory will be tested.
@Houshalter :) India and China have the big buck$. The panic that drove our misguided government to get in the space race was Sputnik, of course. That did increase a push to study science. Kids were science dumb. Yada yada yada. Then Jack Kennedy wanted to fly to the moon "because we choose to." JFK=Just For Kicks. Gotta beat the R00skies. Let the space gear suppliers fly their own spaceships. Let India and China spend the dough. As for me, I'm heading to Arby's for coffee & a cherry turnover!
@Glinkaism1, I honestly wish the moon landing was faked. It would be a major blow to the state's credibility, and it would mean that a whole lot less of our resources were spent on pointless schemes to give the state prestige. But there is no evidence of it, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened. Shanedk's debunking of moon hoaxers is pretty thorough if you'd take the time to watch it objectively.
@Houshalter There is no flag and no other artifacts left by on the mythical moon landing that can be seen. Powerful telescopes claim to see all kinds of other objects.
There is only one conclusion: NASA is a gigantic myth-making government organization. No-one in government has the intelligence and/or the guts to close them down. It is like old military equipment. Having spent a lot of time in the military and touring bases, I was astounded by the huge dumps for military equipment.
Well, another thing this video (and all videos which try to explain this scenario!) could use, is finding the camera position - to eliminate/reduce the perspective error.
Comparing different frames with (the flag and) the astronaut in different locations between the 3D model and the video footage, is one aproach.
But all in all, it's a good 3D model, and this video deserves an addendum.
Well, I have no plan for an addendum currently, unless someone find something that make me think I need to give it another look, but I can give the 3d file of the scene I used in the video, for anything that want to look and experiment by themselves (The scene is a bit messy though, I might have to put all the files in some folder before uploading it)
I'll do that today or tomorrow, and i'll post the link in the video description. Eventually I'll also put an obj version of the scene for those that can't read maya files, but it'll be less interesting to look at.
He calculated a distance the DIRT fell, but when that distance was applied on his astronaut, the astronaut would be only a one meter tall dwarf!
It took 2 years for shanedk to reveal his calculations! After which AstroClownBuster exposed his error.
And to debunk AstroClownBuster, shanedk made a new video, using the ASTRONAUT fall to "prove" his astronaut is right size. When the problem was with the DIRT fall!
And shanedk didn't even SHOW people in his video WHY AstroClownBuster said his calculations made the astronaut so short - which by his own work proves the dirt and the astronaut do not appear to fall with the same acceleration!
Shanedk is truly a hoaxer. We have told this to him repeatedly and detailedly. He knows his dirt fall distance could not be applied on the astronaut.
He withhealds information and knowingly gives people false impressions.
I wrote: "It took 2 years for shanedk to reveal his calculations! After which AstroClownBuster exposed his error."
Let me clarify that. There was no error with shanedk's calculations. (Althogh according to AstroClownBuster, shanedk chose false apexes to lengthen the measured fall)
The error was in claiming that the dirt and the astronaut would appear to fall with the same acceleration! If they would, the dirt fall distance could be applied on the astronaut height, giving his correct heigth!
The refenreces are both the original video frames and the side picture (can't you even see the picture used as reference from 0:32 ? You are dead blind my little insecure apollo fanboy.
The flag measure 48x30 (for the fabric part at least) and its size slightly diminishes with the wrinkles but not much as for the astroclown they are drawn relative to the reference picture (the helmet being the main control point)
It's not an analysis it's a 3d rendition of a scene.
@AstroClownBuster Great - I look forward to your next in depth analysis of triboelectric charge, and the nature of the static environment on the moon.
Poor idiot, i'm the one bringing triboelectric series comparison in the first place (it has then been used by lunartuner, in a desperate attempt to explain this flag movement)
Basically nylon flag against teflon outer layer suit, it will bring opposite charges, and then attraction between the two, but that is of no importance for this scene because :
there is no attraction noticed ANYWHERE at any time of this flag against the suit, in more favorable position.
I'm glad you at least finally understanded that this guy couldn't touch the flag though.
As for static charges, it is a known desperate moves by insecure apollo fanboys, that is laughable, i rank it roughly at the 'level' of the almost as idiotic claim that the vibrations of the clown on the ground would've shaken the flagpole...
@AstroClownBuster Not really. Both videos make an interesting case, but neither of your expertise is proven.
And your dismissal of static charge is well below the kind of science I know and appreciate. To dismiss something you have very little understanding of is clumsy and biased.
Don't bother commenting krisdevalle, it's quite obvious you have nothing of interest to say. The point of this video is to show that the guy won't touch the flag, and the job is done, if you had anything serious to offer that contradict this, you'll already have brough it up, but you have nothing. And again, there is no movement of the flag because of static charges, in more favorable conditions, so the static charge explanation is dismissed with a valid reason.
Besides, I still have my pictures comparison, which for me is way enough to show that he will not touch the flag (yes that mean I consider this video useless, but i decided to make it none the less, just so idiots like you couldn't say that there is no video contradiction the idiotic shanedk and WJ ones, since it was basically your position)
@AstroClownBuster You haven't made the point at all. The video is quite poor compared to the original example. There's no real frame of reference, you haven't distinguished the actual size of the flag, or the height of the astronaut. And in the case of many hoaxers, you've probably manipulated the example in your favor.
Of course, the non-movement of the flag in other situations also dismisses the idea of air moving it, just as you suggest the static does not move it in other situations.
The original example ? Which is ? The only example needed is the video you try to make a 3d scene of, if you consider shanedk flawed video or WJ one (as flawed) to be an example then you are more deluded than i thought. Both of them have made stupid mistakes, and none of them can compare; their position isn't coherent (it make no sense related to each objects and other position within the same video) mine does, even if it's not perfect it's far superior to their 'work'.
I posted a good couples of messages in both videos, explaining point by point was was there flaw (anyone can verify by themselves that I'm right) So before sayong that there is no justification as to why, you should go read them (I made a little summary for you a couples of days ago if i remember, but you didn't seems to bother, not my problem though)
You are free to point any flaws that you see in my video by the way.
So far you are the one not givin any justification; once again I posted many messages in both shanedk and Wj videos about their 3d scene, explaining what was wrong point by point, it's not like i woke up a morning saying "hey, their work sucks" for no reasons! WJ scene being the most flawed of the two (even if both are flawed to the core, in similar fashion)
Nice graphics, but save your time. I think if you were to fly the fanboys to the moon to witness WITH THEIR OWN EYES that no craft ever landed there, they'd still find a way to argue that NASA sent men to the moon in 1969. As for the rest of us dummies who "KNOW," the Apollo missions were real, nothing will change our minds either. Worse we don't care. But ask us who had the highest RBI in 1969 and instantly our interest peaks.
And here I was thinking that creationists were as stupid as stupid can get. You sir have proved me wrong. I bow in respect for your utter stupidity. Unless, of course, this is just a joke, which seems rather likely.
uvauva2 4 months ago
Did you know that the actor that Rodrigo Santoro(the actor who played Xerxes from 300) and Gerard Butler(King Leonidas) are about the same height? Yet, in 300, they are seen as very different heights. How did they acheive that, you ask? Simple, trick the camera. It's quite easy to do. Think of the camera as a single eye. You can't perceive depth with one eye, that's why you get two.
Fail HB.
Crapcarp555 5 months ago
Wow, this is the most pathetic reproduction of a 3d scene I have ever seen in my life. Even if there was an atmosphere, WHY does the flag keep waving for about a minute after he walks past it? Oh yeah, because they were on the moon, and there is no atmosphere on the moon. period.
david52875 7 months ago 3
@AstroClownBuster "It is the only explanation.... was filmed on the moon" The only explanation YOU can think of. Look up "triboelectric effect", "lunar dust fountains".
occhamite 7 months ago
@AstroClownBuster This is a joke, right? shanedk (and even jw for that matter) employ geometry and the known characteristics of the camera lens used to deduce how close the man was to the flag. It is rather remarkable that the two implacable antagonists got basically the same result, with(according to YOU) two different "faulty" methods. All you did here was place the man where you needed him to be in order to get the result you wanted. Are you hunchbacked in disguise?
occhamite 7 months ago
@occhamite
Their errors are actually quite similar but not identical, they both result in misplaced figures and flawed rendition of the scene, JW did a bigger mistake than shanedk on that figure placement. I didn't just placed the man where I needed to be, I placed him according to the frames on the video and the side photo as helper (that you need to watch to get a clue of what is going on on this 3d rendition ...).
AstroClownBuster 6 months ago
@AstroClownBuster Funny, I see a claim of errors, but no analysis to back it up. And in your sorry video, the figure simply appears - in contrast to shanedk (and jw), who first gives a rigorous theoretical basis for what he does, THEN does it.
How odd, the two implacable foes come to agreement, despite the t fact hat one is debunking himself. Stop kidding yourself. You're not even in his league.
occhamite 6 months ago
Astroclown, you will never convince the Apollo fans.
Even if you were showing them an astronaut with the legs instead of the arms and vice versa, they would still argue that it is normal.
You would have less difficulty to make a camel go through a needle's hole than to make an Apollo fan change his mind.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
I dislike this.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
You dislike anything which threatens to break your Apollo dream.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked No dream necessary; the Apollo missions happened and Man walked on the Moon.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
Keep believing this till a satellite comes close enough to the moon and takes detailed photos showing there is no equipment left by the astronauts on the moon.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked You mean like the Chandrayaan-1 and Selene missions, which independently confirmed the veracity of the landing sites, in addition to the images taken of them by the LRO?
Oh.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
True landscapes of the moon have been used as a background, so it's not surprising that these backgrounds can be found on satellite photos.
And in what concerns the LRO photo, what we see on them is a joke: the shadows of the landers don't correspond with the landers themselves, there are duplicate "landers", and the landers are always very close to a hole, not counting the other incoherencies.
I have already debunked them.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
@hunchbacked Offering up an incorrect opinion, based on misperceptions, does not a debunk make.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
My perceptions are good, although the Apollo believers don't want to acknowledge it.
hunchbacked 10 months ago
Ok link to the 3d scene should be working and it's in the video description.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
How can you prove from the first picture that the flag and astronaut were next to each other? Also the flags did not line up and you used the same perspective for the original flag to the one in the 3D model. This proves nothing.
matth84 1 year ago 4
@matth84
The first picture at 0:12 already prove that he is too far away to touch it, it only require one valid eye to see that. You can see the guy is closer of the flag at 0:31 on the video screenshot used in the picture on the left, while being closer of the camera at 2:37 on the second video screenshot used in this picture, on the right.
They line up within 2 pixel (maybe 3 at worst) don't get confused by the placement of the two side by side screenshots, it's to compensate tilting.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster wrote "The first picture at 0:12 already prove that he is too far away to touch it, it only require one valid eye to see that." You don't don't have a lot of experience with cameras, do you? "Valid"(sic) eyes are fooled by the foreground-deepening effect of wide-angle lenses. OBJECTS IN A WIDE ANGLE SHOT APPEAR FURTHER APART AND FURTHER AWAY THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE, so you cannot use your "valid" eyes to determine the relative locations of things. (more)
occhamite 7 months ago
@AstroClownBuster shanedk did an analysis, using the known characteristics of the camera lens, and the dimensions of the flag and other objects in the field of view, and showed how close they MUST be. Jarrah White did something similar, and arrived at the same conclusion.
what you have here is just a little "hand waving"; you have no justification for the assumptions you make, and this video proves nothing, except that you don't know what you are doing.
occhamite 7 months ago
@occhamite
shanedk misplaced his figures I've already commented on his video and explained how anyone can verify that it is the case, go take a look at the older comments, some were posted on my older account name which is xyzLLLzyx just in case. JW did enormous mistake in his video (that he failed to aknowledge by the way and strangely, NO apollo 'defenders' pointed them out...) on of his major error was to move the sphere toward the camera AND UPWARD !! instead of just forward.
AstroClownBuster 6 months ago
You're calling a badass Texas boy Dave Scott an "Astroclown" ?
I bet you were born with a vagina at the end of your arm instead of a hand....eh' Chump?
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead
You can be a "Texas boy badass" and an astroclown at the same time (since you only have to be part of the moon landing farce as an "astronaut" for this. For your second question the answer is no.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
Your initial error, upon which every other error is built in this video is in the right-hand image. You've used only one frame. Because of the motion, it's a terribly unclear image. One can clearly see "frame bleed" in the still image. The red, green and blue portions of the transmission are obviously off alignment. What you say is the top of his helmet is actually much lower. At the very least, it's just so unclear that nothing can be concluded. But, shanedk's analysis has no errors.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner
Jimbo,
there is so many flaws in shanedk scene, that I don't even know where to start (I listed the major flaws several times though, in his video thread and all of them are verifiable easily by anyone) as for my supposed 'initial error' on which 'every other errors are built in' on MY video, don't make me laugh please. Unlike shanedk I know this scene, and unlike him, i know perspective. But please make my day and LIST my supposed 'errors' and try to make sense.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
Notice that this video is not meant to be all in one stand alone explanation, I consider that people must watch the original video and compare. For example, you probably didn't noticed that there is 3 astroclown on the scene at 0:43 ? or if you did you maybe don't know why I put these 3 clown on the same scene (which don't happen obviously in the original scene) right? Well this middle astroclown is the 'famous' position at 0:31 on the original video, this position is the KEY>
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
>> this position is the key because it is an important double check. shanedk CAN'T place this 0:31 astroclown to double check on his scene, you know why? Because if he tried, he will expose the hilariously flawed position of his scene, because this 0:31 position (which in the original video is showing an astroclown very close of the flag as you can check by yourself) would be in the MIDDLE OF THE FLAG (in the flag) in shanedk ridiculously flawed scene! and HE KNOW IT don't worry about this.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster
Shanedk doesn't even have a problem, that using his dirt fall measured distance of 12,98cm on the astronaut, the astronaut would be only a one meter tall dwarf!!!!
And when he made a response video to you debunking him, he didn't even show your comment! He just went to prove that the astronaut isn't one meter tall - but did not use his dirt fall scale to prove this! Which was the very thing that dwarfed the astronaut!
Shanedk is a hoaxer. One cannot argue against that.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
You're model isn't valid. Stop the video @ 0:32 then stop it again @ 0:36. Notice how the true tip of the top red strip is really down lower. You can still see the true position flag over the super imposed flag. The disclaimer is bogus also @0:36, perspective matters. @0:38 this is not accurate, the top right tip should be lower ~2 strips lower. Since the flag and the LM camera are fixed, now the only way to make the picture fit is to move the astronaut closer to the flag.
jim6584 1 year ago
@jim6584
The position at 0:32 onward, is only to give the viewer a reference on the objects heights (which as you can see are basically spot on) on the exact position and bending of the flag, it is quite hard and I agree that I'm a bit off, in fact I'm quite clear by saying there is still room for improvement. Of course perspective matters! That's why I give a warning that on this view (which was not a perspective view and was only used to scale the figures relative to each others) cont>
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
> On this view, the object CAN'T MATCH perfectly (I only matched the heights) in fact IF i had matched the objects perfectly on this view, which was not a perspective view, that would mean my scene would be absolutely completly invalid, unless it was a photo taken from one hundred metter away which would reduce perspective distortion a lot. If you take perspective into account the flag tip (which is further away from the camera) will converge toward his vanishing point.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@jim6584 wrote: "Stop the video @ 0:32 then stop it again @ 0:36. Notice how the true tip of the top red strip is really down lower"
True. By couple of centimeter, mayhaps. But both the real flags upper and lower corners are lower than the 3D flags (from the side which is not fixed to the pole). The flag is still very well corresponding with the flag size of the photo. There's no error there that would make this 3D model invalid.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
You can't match all the corners in the view I used, for the simple reason that the background picture has perspective, while the side view I used, have no perspective. But it's none the less right that the flag position is not perfect (And I don't claim it was , especially because I learned the software as I was making the scene at the time) It's just good enough to put WJ and Shanedk totally flawed work back on the 'drawing board' though.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
You do realise why this video isn't valid, don't you? Because you just pulled it out of your ass. You can't just make up demensions and throw them out there and expect the results to be realistic.
Houshalter 1 year ago 3
@Houshalter
It is perfectly valid you poor imbecile! Didn't you even looked at the side reference picture ? Beyond this, I used same flag size than the one used by shanedk, at the difference that my scene make sense, while his scene is just a pile of crap without a ground plane.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster, Is the flag the same demensions? Is the person the same demensions (aproximatley)? And if so then why is shanedks video not valid and yours is?
Houshalter 1 year ago 7
@Houshalter
Because shanedk figure is placed too high relative to the flag, you can plain ly see this when he rotate his view at the end. compare with the relative size of the clown with the flag here in the side phot, and you'll immediatly notice that shanedk figure is too high. His whole perspective is flawed, he didn't have any double check (unlike me)
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster don;t forget the goofy arms on that digidoll he plays with.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@Houshalter it is "dimensions" ffs. either learn to spell or figure out how to turn on spell check, or shut up. If you can't manage simple words I don't think anyone will take your opinion too seriously.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN, I know how to spell it dumbass, it's a fucking typo. No one likes grammar Nazis. Go die.
Houshalter 1 year ago 4
@Houshalter typo three fucking times??? NOT!
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN, I don't even remember. You are trolling on a 3 month old thread, I could care less how I thought something was spelled then. Obviously I know how it is spelled now.
Oh, and you're still a grammar Nazi, twice so far.
Houshalter 1 year ago 2
@Houshalter well get in the oven then
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN three month old thread??? well sorry i missed your email to tell me you were conversing on a open forum. i was in the south of france for a month. give me a call next time you leave a message anywhere.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@Houshalter well...idiots who can't use their own language don't like grammar nazis, and just admit you are stupid and unintelligent because not only can't you spell but the tools on a computer elude you also.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@Houshalter NO FLAG ON THE MOON IS VISIBLE FROM EVEN THE HIGHEST POWERED TELESCOPES. Why? Duhhh. Because there was NO moon landing. Over and out.
Glinkaism1 1 year ago
@Glinkaism1, and yet you can get a laser to reflect off the mirrors they left.
And I hate Nasa to, and government beauracracies in general, but I have actual reasons why I hate them, not conspiracy theories that don't stand up to a shred of rational thinking. India had a probe orbitting the moon 2 years ago and China is planning on sending things to the moon as well. There is also a few private attempts underway in the distant future. So your theory will be tested.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter :) India and China have the big buck$. The panic that drove our misguided government to get in the space race was Sputnik, of course. That did increase a push to study science. Kids were science dumb. Yada yada yada. Then Jack Kennedy wanted to fly to the moon "because we choose to." JFK=Just For Kicks. Gotta beat the R00skies. Let the space gear suppliers fly their own spaceships. Let India and China spend the dough. As for me, I'm heading to Arby's for coffee & a cherry turnover!
Glinkaism1 1 year ago
@Glinkaism1, I honestly wish the moon landing was faked. It would be a major blow to the state's credibility, and it would mean that a whole lot less of our resources were spent on pointless schemes to give the state prestige. But there is no evidence of it, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened. Shanedk's debunking of moon hoaxers is pretty thorough if you'd take the time to watch it objectively.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster Excellent video! It totally debunks Shane's video.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@Houshalter There is no flag and no other artifacts left by on the mythical moon landing that can be seen. Powerful telescopes claim to see all kinds of other objects.
There is only one conclusion: NASA is a gigantic myth-making government organization. No-one in government has the intelligence and/or the guts to close them down. It is like old military equipment. Having spent a lot of time in the military and touring bases, I was astounded by the huge dumps for military equipment.
Glinkaism1 1 year ago
@Houshalter
What? It's perfectly ALRIGHT to model the astronaut and the flag from a photograph!
Comparing the astronaut and flag size of the 3D model against the video image frames, is a VALID method to find their correct relative locations.
In my opinion the only thing this video needs, is in the end a side by side comparison of the 3D astronaut and flag with the video footage frame.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Well, another thing this video (and all videos which try to explain this scenario!) could use, is finding the camera position - to eliminate/reduce the perspective error.
Comparing different frames with (the flag and) the astronaut in different locations between the 3D model and the video footage, is one aproach.
But all in all, it's a good 3D model, and this video deserves an addendum.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
Well, I have no plan for an addendum currently, unless someone find something that make me think I need to give it another look, but I can give the 3d file of the scene I used in the video, for anything that want to look and experiment by themselves (The scene is a bit messy though, I might have to put all the files in some folder before uploading it)
It's a maya file.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster
Yeah, uploading them spmewhere for anyone to download is a good idea, so anyone could try the model themselves!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi
I'll do that today or tomorrow, and i'll post the link in the video description. Eventually I'll also put an obj version of the scene for those that can't read maya files, but it'll be less interesting to look at.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@Aurinkohirvi shanedk did the same thing.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
shanedk figure is higher than the flag, which immediatly invalidate his scene.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Shanedk is a hoaxer and a liar..
He calculated a distance the DIRT fell, but when that distance was applied on his astronaut, the astronaut would be only a one meter tall dwarf!
It took 2 years for shanedk to reveal his calculations! After which AstroClownBuster exposed his error.
And to debunk AstroClownBuster, shanedk made a new video, using the ASTRONAUT fall to "prove" his astronaut is right size. When the problem was with the DIRT fall!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
continued
And shanedk didn't even SHOW people in his video WHY AstroClownBuster said his calculations made the astronaut so short - which by his own work proves the dirt and the astronaut do not appear to fall with the same acceleration!
Shanedk is truly a hoaxer. We have told this to him repeatedly and detailedly. He knows his dirt fall distance could not be applied on the astronaut.
He withhealds information and knowingly gives people false impressions.
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
I wrote: "It took 2 years for shanedk to reveal his calculations! After which AstroClownBuster exposed his error."
Let me clarify that. There was no error with shanedk's calculations. (Althogh according to AstroClownBuster, shanedk chose false apexes to lengthen the measured fall)
The error was in claiming that the dirt and the astronaut would appear to fall with the same acceleration! If they would, the dirt fall distance could be applied on the astronaut height, giving his correct heigth!
Aurinkohirvi 1 year ago
Where are your references and measurements? How big is the flag? This is a poor analysis.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@delusionalle
The refenreces are both the original video frames and the side picture (can't you even see the picture used as reference from 0:32 ? You are dead blind my little insecure apollo fanboy.
The flag measure 48x30 (for the fabric part at least) and its size slightly diminishes with the wrinkles but not much as for the astroclown they are drawn relative to the reference picture (the helmet being the main control point)
It's not an analysis it's a 3d rendition of a scene.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster Great - I look forward to your next in depth analysis of triboelectric charge, and the nature of the static environment on the moon.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
Poor idiot, i'm the one bringing triboelectric series comparison in the first place (it has then been used by lunartuner, in a desperate attempt to explain this flag movement)
Basically nylon flag against teflon outer layer suit, it will bring opposite charges, and then attraction between the two, but that is of no importance for this scene because :
there is no attraction noticed ANYWHERE at any time of this flag against the suit, in more favorable position.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
I'm glad you at least finally understanded that this guy couldn't touch the flag though.
As for static charges, it is a known desperate moves by insecure apollo fanboys, that is laughable, i rank it roughly at the 'level' of the almost as idiotic claim that the vibrations of the clown on the ground would've shaken the flagpole...
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster Not really. Both videos make an interesting case, but neither of your expertise is proven.
And your dismissal of static charge is well below the kind of science I know and appreciate. To dismiss something you have very little understanding of is clumsy and biased.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
Don't bother commenting krisdevalle, it's quite obvious you have nothing of interest to say. The point of this video is to show that the guy won't touch the flag, and the job is done, if you had anything serious to offer that contradict this, you'll already have brough it up, but you have nothing. And again, there is no movement of the flag because of static charges, in more favorable conditions, so the static charge explanation is dismissed with a valid reason.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
Besides, I still have my pictures comparison, which for me is way enough to show that he will not touch the flag (yes that mean I consider this video useless, but i decided to make it none the less, just so idiots like you couldn't say that there is no video contradiction the idiotic shanedk and WJ ones, since it was basically your position)
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster You haven't made the point at all. The video is quite poor compared to the original example. There's no real frame of reference, you haven't distinguished the actual size of the flag, or the height of the astronaut. And in the case of many hoaxers, you've probably manipulated the example in your favor.
Of course, the non-movement of the flag in other situations also dismisses the idea of air moving it, just as you suggest the static does not move it in other situations.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
The original example ? Which is ? The only example needed is the video you try to make a 3d scene of, if you consider shanedk flawed video or WJ one (as flawed) to be an example then you are more deluded than i thought. Both of them have made stupid mistakes, and none of them can compare; their position isn't coherent (it make no sense related to each objects and other position within the same video) mine does, even if it's not perfect it's far superior to their 'work'.
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
@AstroClownBuster Yeah I see where you are ranting about how yours is better with absolutely no real justification as to why.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
I posted a good couples of messages in both videos, explaining point by point was was there flaw (anyone can verify by themselves that I'm right) So before sayong that there is no justification as to why, you should go read them (I made a little summary for you a couples of days ago if i remember, but you didn't seems to bother, not my problem though)
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
You are free to point any flaws that you see in my video by the way.
So far you are the one not givin any justification; once again I posted many messages in both shanedk and Wj videos about their 3d scene, explaining what was wrong point by point, it's not like i woke up a morning saying "hey, their work sucks" for no reasons! WJ scene being the most flawed of the two (even if both are flawed to the core, in similar fashion)
AstroClownBuster 1 year ago
Nice graphics, but save your time. I think if you were to fly the fanboys to the moon to witness WITH THEIR OWN EYES that no craft ever landed there, they'd still find a way to argue that NASA sent men to the moon in 1969. As for the rest of us dummies who "KNOW," the Apollo missions were real, nothing will change our minds either. Worse we don't care. But ask us who had the highest RBI in 1969 and instantly our interest peaks.
SounzNice 1 year ago