The fact that zoom and dollying give two completely different effects is precisely why Alfred Hitchcock's famous "push-pull" effect works. It combines a perspective change and a variable focal length. It's best used to add weirdness to a POV when the character is overwhelmed by a key moment in the story.
By the way, it's also been called a "Hitchcock Zoom," "Dolly Zoom" and "Vertigo Effect."
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. The only way you pro-Apollo people can actually make people think they went to the moon is to keep them from seeing the evidence. I posted a partial summary of hoax evidence on a science forum. To see it, google, "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
When the astronaut is next to the flag, the helmet is about one fifth the size of when he walks by the flag and makes it move.
I cut two pieces of newpaper to be about the same size of the helmets. I put one of them about as far away as the flag is from the camera. In order for the other one to look five times as big, it had to be about six feet closer to me. He didn't touch the flag.
I finally decided to get around to hunting up some educational information on photogrammetry. If you go to ww w. ispr s.o rg (the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) there is an Education section, with links to lots of information on how to do both (they go together, as one of the most basic forms of remote sensing is taking a picture, and photogrammetry is a technique for reliably extracting information from pictures).
He has really let both is ass and his complete ignorance hang out for all to see. He just doesn't "get it" about how camera perspective works. Maybe he would understand better if he used a large computer monitor so that he could place his eyes at the appropriate distance when examining the Apollo EVA photos in order to view the photo with the exact same perspective and field of view created by the 60mm Biogon lens uses on the Hasselblads.
Fucking brilliant! And Clayton, you should really shut the hell up. Shane is right - you are wrong. That might be hard for you to accept but... That's how it is!
SEVERAL people have explained how you're wrong. You're just so obstinately delusional you refuse to consider it, and so you end up making EXACTLY the same STUPID claim over and over again with NO regard for the answers people have given you.
how can the width be irrelevant you liar, if he was 1mm or 1 metre wide would make all the difference, so does the angle of the flag to the camera, and FFS YOU DO NOT KNOW THE HEIGHT of the original astroclown.
Give it up it is a lame duck.
are you trying to repeat the lie so many times people believe it.
Make a new more accurate model, what are you scared of finding out the truth!
Sure, width is relevant in the sense that if Scott were a 6' tall pencil, he might not have brushed against the flag. But by all indications Scott is a normally proportioned adult human male, and Shane modeled him accurately. His relative height was therefore sufficient, all by itself, to place him close enough to the flag to touch it. Shane's model omitted his bulky suit, which makes the conclusion that he touched it even stronger.
Shane does not know the height of original astro clown in his costume, the width of wire clown, what was the exact angle of flag to the camera and how much was the pole tilting?
You see you have nothing other than a smug attitude and a fanciful cartoon.
Maybe you haven't seen the still photos taken of that scene from the left, but I have and I'm pretty sure Shane has. They show all those things, including how the flag was rotated well toward the TV camera, which is why Scott brushed it as he passed.
I don't even need those pictures to see that; simple photogrammetry DEMANDS that the flag MUST be in that same position and orientation relative to the camera.
If that's wrong, then basic trigonometry is wrong.
You're right, you don't actually NEED those pictures but they do help make the flag's position crystal clear to the hoaxtards at an intuitive level.
They've fallen prey to a classical optical illusion: wide angle lenses exaggerate depth. Photogrammetry is sufficient to overcome optical illusions, but the extra pictures do it more intuitively. And unfortunately intuition is all they go on.
Sadly, you are right. But it's still important to refute their arguments so ordinary people who happen across them won't be fooled unless they really want to be.
Clayton, ask Jarrah to consider a co-production about this moonhoax conspiracy crap.
A video about a baldheaded scubadiver in a dryingroom with a waving sleeve, or something with a C130, a little stampeding in a bedroom, about a crater making concrete busting rocket, or the copy&paste of some lunar foottracks, the 'oddities' of retro-reflectors and LRO may be? Or acknowledging the landings to prove the fakery of LRO pictures? And you will both agree on the calculation of150% of 0.5 I guess...
he says that we dont know how far apart the astronaut and the flag really are. why? because maybe the camera is in reallity far away from the subjects and it is using a very high number of wide-angle lens.
in his second shot of the tomatos if he removes the ruler and provides better lighting, I think no one can know for sure how far apart they really are. even if he tellls us the dimensions of the tomatos.
If we have the height of the tomatoes, and we know the distance between them, we ABSOLUTELY CAN tell how far away the camera is. He ADMITTED to moving the camera between the two shots, confirming MY demonstration earlier in my video.
I think you just let on to understanding your flaw. The way you lastly framed the argument is deceptive and contrary to the way in which you calculated distance in your first video. This is the same deception you used against my character when misrepresenting my position. I don't care if others agree with me. I know you know and that's enough for me. :>) You may now commence with you loud response. Have a nice life. No hard feelings from me.
I think the point really being missed here is that hoaxers are shooting themselves in the foot by saying we can't accurately derive the distance between the subject and the flag from the video; if this is the case, he could have bumped into the flag and we have no way of knowing otherwise!
Wow there's a lot of people misunderstanding tenets of photography here. (in the comments that is)
For example, a pinhole camera means that there is no lens and no limitation on depth of field, and I don't see how that has anything to do with anything here.
The latter I still do not get. Their video does make no sense to me in the discussion (I did some homework just to prove that I am not wrong using low-tech: a simple sheet of paper, a ruler and a pen). One could derive the positions of the camera in their shots if the wide of the their ruler is know as you did with the flag
Kudos to you, that you keep on answering to comments. This must be really exhausting...
Yes. My argument is that as the focal length of a zoom lens is increased the perspective and scale relationships (operative word) between the foreground and the background become disproportionate. Not that the perspective itself changes. but that objects along the rear of the focal plane will appear to advance closer. I just haven't been able to properly explain this.
No, it changes NONE of those things. ALL it changes is the field of view. It does not in ANY way change ANY of the relationships of the subjects and how they appear on the screen.
If you want to change perspective, or relative scale, or whatever, YOU MUST MOVE THE CAMERA!
(You know, as you ADMITTED doing AFTER saying you "only" changed the focal length?)
The difference between us and hoaxtards is this. When we accidentally inhaled fumes from anti insect sprays that drive around places, and started to see things, we stood firm and said "No! I don't want to be a schizophrenic!". The hoaxtards on the other hand, said "THE SKY IS RAINING EXPLOSIVE ORANGES DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT I'LL POST LIKE EIGHTY VIDEOS BITCHING ABOUT THIS TOTALLY FICTIONAL OCCURRENCE." Thusly, we are better than them entirely.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you can see where the camera is from the photo that Scott is allegedly taking of Irwin, so go get it from ALSJ and do this properly and stop with this patronising bullshit.
Can you get someone else to do the voice overs as well, your high-pitched whining is incredibly annoying.
dear boy, wipe the drool from your chin before looking in the mirror and seeing a complete fucking moron. You're not only not winning, you've lost a very long time ago. The only thing more stupid than a moon hoaxer is a young earth creationist... and that takes considerable effort to accomplish
nope. i said drool, not droll. guess all the drool got in the way.
distance from camera doesn't matter as shane QUITE CLEARLY demonstrated! all you would need is measurements... which he had too.
if i WAS shane's groupie, i'd be proud of it, but alas, i'm not... i just call bullshit when i see bullshit and stunning displays of jaw-dropping ignorance.
i'm now chuckling over how upset you've gotten over nothing.
ALL the data that is needed has been provided: the EXACT dimensions of the flag, and the height of said astronaut. both were overlaid exactly on top of the still frame. This is ALL the information necessary to recreate the scene from ANY angle as Shane quite clearly demonstrated to everyone with the smallest bit of grey matter between the ears. Instead of a wrinkled brain yours must be as smooth and aerodynamic as flipper's back!
you know what idiot I am not upset at all you feeble minded nerd, think it is quite funny when a pathetic little gimp like you fancies his chances, give me a chance to metaphorically slap you to the floor. LOL
The model is BS you are a brainless groupie chuckling away to yourself because you are too thick to know you have already lost.
Yeah.... Sure... what ever you say pal. coming from a nitwit who thinks waving a child's DVD at a flag and talking in a nonsensical voice proves the moon landings were a hoax, i'll take it as a complement.
maybe that's not drool on your chin after all, but it still needs wiping.
I successfully demonstrated that air displacement could move a flag, the silly voice was just for fun and it does not matter what did the waving does it dribble cheeks?
And it is a note pad not a DVD clean you glasses they probably caked in shanes semen that is why you could not tell a book from a DVD you idiot cock sucking lackey boy.
Unlike this pathetic tirade of a video, only proves shane is a lair and you are a brainless groupie, is this all you got cum breath?
I did not start the insulting shit for brains, it was your bum boy hero Shane so get fisted and stick to smashing you face into the keyboard idiot you make more sense you brainless groupie fuck head.
how so? shane showed that you people are wrong by using evidence. unlike you he does not deny evidence. all you did when presented with evidence was to insult those who present proper evidence.
what proper evidence you idiot, shane's video is a pitiful tirade not evidence just listen to the opening lines it is just one insult from beginning to end.
And the model is not a real representation of the event in question it is a fanciful cartoon for idiots like you to get all excited about nothing.
Go back to smashing your face into your keyboard kid, your comments make more sense like that.
- I have completed high school (a feat not many conspiracists have pulled off).
-I have studied first-year university, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and english. (A feat I do not believe ANY conspiracist has pulled off. Did I ace all of these subjects? Not quite. I got an A-minus in psychology. (I slacked off a little too much.)
Is this resume okay? I took an academic break for a whopping four years traveling between Washington and British Columbia...
well done you completed high school yippee you must be the first in you family of monkeys to do so!
And flunked out of collage after a year, but your still numero uno in the monkey world give yourself a pat on the back and a banana you bullshitting idiot.
Your point is sound, (for a nice change) but on the contrary, I have yet to select my courses. Not until Friday. I must wait for my designated registration date. (Something you've obviously never heard of because, like just about all CTs, you never went to college.)
another unfounded clueless generalisation made by a moontard.
What if you fail your courses, or get kick out for holding seances to get the answers to your exams LOL
dont count your chickens.... unless you have it all planned out and one of your alien buddies is going to stick the answer sheet up your bottom the night before your finals. LOL
I have no idea what point you are trying to make in this message.
It almost seems to me like you're trying to explain away why YOU chose not to go to college with some kind of fear/paranoia of failure, when the reason is either because you flunked out of high school or simply thought you were too smart for university. (That is why I figure Ralph Rene never finished.)
yes I do know what a dissertation and 99.99% are not worth a crap and neither are most students.
And if your dissertation does not fit in with the current dogma it will be rejected, that's how they keep you all dumbed down.
Any information you find at brokeback you can find in a good library or on the web so what is the point other than to make yourself feel ever-so proud for being a good little parrot.
shut up with this nit-picky crap about college and grades you idiot and answer the damn questions you have been asked that shows your video to be the fanciful cartoon it is.
lets start with the angle of the flag to camera?
tilt of the flag?
height of the flag pole?
height of the clown?
distance from the camera?
focal length of lens?
Is the gourd level from pole to clown or at a slight incline?
just saying it is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant it just means you can not answer so you guessed it, automatically accounted for mean you dont know because you guessed the data and let your 286 do the rest.
LOL
You cartoon has been exposed for the rubbish it is, look at your fan base idiots like rob the retard and assorted nerds and male groupies with not a clue between them.
The height of the flag pole isn't needed if you already know the height and width of the flag itself. If the flag pole were higher the flag won't suddenly change.
The ONLY relevance here is the relative positions of the flag, the astronaut, and the camera. To determine this, you need to examine the flag, the astronaut, and the camera. You DO NOT need to examine ANYTHING else! Because you're not looking at the relative position of anything else!
answer what was the angle of the flag to the camera?
How wide was tour pathetic stick figure?
How tall was the the real clown?
LOL you are just pathetic shane all you do is shout at puff up your man breasts.
YOu model is a pitiful joke it is so inaccurate is it not even funny, take it down and make a new one with all the data allowed for and stop whining papa nerd.
Alas, shanedk, your sterling efforts at debunking this technical illiteracy will be wasted on the intended targets, given that hoaxtards knowledge of photography is on a par with their knowledge of, well, just about anything else.
Dynamic range, like perspective, is another basic concept that eludes their grasp: "But there are no STARS in these moon pictures! The sky should be lit up with stars! This was all filmed in a studio!"
A studio which obviously wont be hiring them for their expertise.
Thank you for making these hoaxers look like the idiots they are... I'm tired of people denying one of the most impressive achievements humanity has accomplished. Keep up the good work =D
They can appear distorted depending on the lens (pillowing and pincushion effects), but they'll always be in the same place relative to everything else.
You should probably add the assumption of flat space, since some of your videos also address cosmological scale phenomena, and there might be a spill-over.
Shane, don't let the hoaxtards get to you. It doesn't take a mathematician or scientist to understand such basic concepts. Anyone who's taken a middleschool art class understands how perspective works. Your 3-D model is spot on. keep up the good work.
He picked one comment out of a hundred (I was drinking last night - I turned 40!) and calls me a liar when I told him immediately after why I said what I did (that I was leading him) And used all-caps to straighten out my apparent lie. I know photography quite well and he hasn't the slightest idea how lenses work. This video on perspective is correct but that's not my argument. It's beyond me how he construe my point so badly.
"Excellent job you probably thought of it but there's one flaw (I hope I don't give them ammo): Lens effect. I think those cameras were 70mm and will cause a compressed perspective in that shot. Probably slight but should be noted when scaling objects in videos or photos. I think the difference can be calculated and compensated for"
I think you misinterpreted winstonsmith00's reply and put words in his mouth;
It seems he only wanted to demonstrate that the camera's distance affects scale; 1/2 scale in apparent size always implies 2x distance for identical objects, but give 2x camera distance from the closer object and the more distant object will be 2/3 the angle of the closer object instead of 1/2.
Regardless, you did use the flag's perspective to estimate (implicitly) the camera's distance, so no matter.
The camera's distance affecting scale was MY point! It was the very point HE was complaining about! My using the flag to estimate the camera's position was EXACTLY what he said I couldn't do!
Yeah, I just looked in the comments on his video, and it turns out he DID lie to commenter
TheHogTieChamp (who made some VERY good points) about the observer position having not changed, but later admitted to having moved the camera and zoomed in between the two shots after you called him out on it.
I don't think he's lying, I think there's some confusion over language here. He has been drinking when we wrote those comments yesterday. He seems to be saying that he moved the camera but the observer position did not change, which to me makes no sense, but perhaps he can explain.
First of all, whether or not the camera moves is such a simple concept that you CANNOT attribute it to language confusion.
Second, I do NOT accept drinking as an excuse. People are responsible for what they do when drunk. Believe me, I've been burned on that a couple of times. Each time, the person who SWORE it was because they were drunk ended up being the same way sober.
I should have said "apparent perspective". The second tomato shot shows as being in nearly the same spot as the first shot. Without much information it appears as if the observer is in the same position. This is what I was trying to show lenses can fool you into thinking the perspective is the same while changing the scale of objects further away.
Except I WASN'T USING APPARENT PERSPECTIVE!!! I have the EXACT DIMENSIONS OF THE FLAG!!!
Why do you keep ignoring that? If I didn't have the real-world dimensions of the flag, you'd be 100% correct--but I DO!!! And I SAID IN THE VIDEO how important it is!
Try to keep in mind that there are people in the US who actually believe, sincerely believe, that there are aliens living among us disguised as humans.
If someone can believe that, they are NEVER going to be convinced that the moon landing was real.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I still don't understand why he didn't debunk my video. And where he comes up with calling me a hoaxer. He's dishonest at best. I just can't believe everyone is buying into it without question (accept for a few clever people). It's unfortunate. If you looked at our very first exchange you'd see what kind of guy Shane really is, and understand that I was trying to be helpful. You should give me that much.
Maybe because, you're a FUCKING LIAR? That you SWORE up and down that you ONLY (YOUR word) changed the focal length of the lens and only LATER--after I schooled you on basic trig--admitted that you moved the camera?
My demonstration showed how zooming effects scale while keeping the apparent perspective the same. I said nothing about angle. That was Shane and I don't disagree with that. Zooming will not effect the shape of the flag it makes it larger and appear closer than it really is.
Zooming won't affect the shape of the flag, but it WILL affect the angles between the parallel edges, which is what Shane used to estimate the camera distance. Your having confused "perspective" (which includes distance) with "angle" and not capitulating to that is what started this whole retarded comment war.
You're correct about the parallel edges. The scale in my video shows that. But I couldn't use that as a starting point to gauge distance. He matched a distorted flag to another distorted flag. Fuck I can barely keep track of this shit anymore. Did that make sense?
But the perspective is NOT the same! The tomato at the back looks WAY smaller when the camera is up close, and near the same size when it's far away!
And perspective is all about angles! I honestly don't know what kind of photographer you are not to know this. I'm again reminded of moon hoaxers and creationists who CLAIM to be professionals yet don't even understand the basics.
It would be great if we could use italics or bold text in YT comments. That aside, I fail to understand how Winston doesn't realize that he's lost. Math involves a little detail known as PROOF. Everything else works on evidence. Basic trigonometry in application is solid unarguable PROOF. Winston, you lose entirely based on PROOF.
If I were to make an internet sound board of my favourite youtubers, I'd be very tempted to use 4:03 for shanedk.
What else can you say? I mean, of all the stupid out there, it's rare that anyone can haul out actual mathematical proof to demonstrate it.
All I can say is... hoaxers have an alarming supply of weapons grade stupid, and I applaud everyone working to stop its proliferation by fighting the global trade in stupid! ;)
In your own demonstration you failed to account for the transdispositional placement of the area rug and the subsequent gradient variation resulting from the rear legs being placed squarely on the linoleum floor leading to a transcendental juxtopositional hypermorphia in the time space continuum. And you call the "hoaxtards" stupid?!?!
And for the people in the cheap seats, yes, this is satire. Shane, you have more guts than me taking on these whack jobs.
What I love about Shane's videos is that he's absolutely relentless when going after these morons. It's a trait he shares with Potholer, which is why they're my two favorite debunkers on Youtube.
The funny part is he's saying "hoaxtards" plural. It was just me and I don't believe in any hoax. He's stuck on semantics and hasn't understood what my video showed.
I never tried to hide the fact that I moved the camera. It's obvious I can't lie about it. You're being dishonest. You know I'm no hoaxer. I even told you that you did a good job on the video and agreed with the outcome but thought it lacked accuracy because of a missing variable. I'm really glad you made this video it shows that you don't understand my point. I hope people read over our comments. They will understand.
Your ENTIRE point of contention was that I can't know that's where the camera was just from the perspective, was it not?
I said the ONLY way to change the perspective on it was to move the camera, did I not?
You only admitted you moved the camera after I pwned your ass with trig. But by doing so, you destroyed your ENTIRE point. The ONLY way the flag has the shape it does on screen, and the ONLY way your tomatoes have the same relative size, is with the camera in the same position.
It's all about focal length (it's a powerful zoom lens just watch other videos). You didn't compensate for it and therefore it's flawed. You have made this into something completely different and I am so disgusted with you. You're a maniac. I feel like I'm being stalked. LMAO. I'm done speaking to you. I'll try to answer anyone else but I'm being inundated with people whom don't understand my position because of your distortions.
wow... you just don't get it, do you?! he overlaid the digital flag with the flag in the movie... he has the EXACT dimensions of the flag... now tell me how focal length of the lens will change relative distances?
I went to MGM in Florida and they have this trick photography shot where there is a small space shuttle near your camera and when you take a picture, the shuttle appears to be full size off on the buildings and the it says it only works during certain sun positions.
Can tricks like that be overcome with the things you are talking about? (mind you, I am not a moan hoaxer, just asking).
I have seen police do what you did in that video to size a human being, so I am sure it works, but 100%?
If the shuttle is small enough and close enough to the camera, then I'm willing to bet it's not to scale; they would have flattened the model to make it look further away.
If it's more than 20-30 feet away or so (depending on the lens), that won't matter.
It's kind of like someone going to Pisa and taking a picture of himself holding up the leaning tower.
"A moderate long-focus (telephoto) lens is often recommended for portraiture because the perspective corresponding to the longer shooting distance is considered to look more flattering."
There's nothing to discuss here. The "hoaxtards" and others that said the contrary are plainly wrong!
Is is true of false that changing the lens can affect the apparent relative size of objects placed at the specific distances from the camera?
I.e. is the ratio between the apparent size of two differently sized objects, placed at different distances from the camera consistent when the lens is changed?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this question so don't flame me.
No, it does not. It doesn't NEED to. As long as the objects are in focus (and they are), it works. The only thing a pinhole camera gives you is an effectively infinite depth of field.
Even being out of focus won't change the relative size; it'll just be out of focus so you can't make precise measurements with it.
"But the perspective will be different. With the wideangle, the hands will be exaggeratedly large relative to the head. As the focal length increases, the emphasis on the outstretched hand decreases. However, if pictures are taken from the same distance, and enlarged and cropped to contain the same view, the pictures will have identical perspective.
Excerpt from the page in Wikipedia about photographic lens:
"A side effect of using lenses of different focal lengths is the different distances from which a subject can be framed, resulting in a different perspective. Photographs can be taken of a person stretching out a hand with a wideangle, a normal lens, and a telephoto, which contain exactly the same image size by changing the distance from the subject. "
While the lens makes no difference on the "perspective" as far as which objects are obscured, lenses have distortions such as barrel distortion. Wiki Distortion_(optics) for examples. This affects the mapping of points in space to points in the image. For example, wide angle lenses cause straight lines to appear curved (e.g. the door edges at 4:24 in your video). For accurate photogrammetry a camera model is used to correct the image data for this distortion. (cont'd)
The fact that zoom and dollying give two completely different effects is precisely why Alfred Hitchcock's famous "push-pull" effect works. It combines a perspective change and a variable focal length. It's best used to add weirdness to a POV when the character is overwhelmed by a key moment in the story.
By the way, it's also been called a "Hitchcock Zoom," "Dolly Zoom" and "Vertigo Effect."
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner Yes, and IMO it's become so overused it's cliche. I have seen directors use very clever and subtle versions of it, though.
shanedk 1 year ago
Whats funny is that these retards use photogrammetry to "proove" ufo's. except that they do it wrong.
jeans1515 1 year ago
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. The only way you pro-Apollo people can actually make people think they went to the moon is to keep them from seeing the evidence. I posted a partial summary of hoax evidence on a science forum. To see it, google, "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Cosmored 1 year ago
"Apollo 15 waving flag at 2:37"
When the astronaut is next to the flag, the helmet is about one fifth the size of when he walks by the flag and makes it move.
I cut two pieces of newpaper to be about the same size of the helmets. I put one of them about as far away as the flag is from the camera. In order for the other one to look five times as big, it had to be about six feet closer to me. He didn't touch the flag.
Cosmored 1 year ago
He as in, winstonsmith00?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Does anyone besides me notice that he closed his account?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
oh the pwnage... so good
pinochska 2 years ago
I'd never heard of Photogrammetry until coming across your channel. What kind of degree do you need for it?
Homer177 2 years ago
None. It's basic trigonometry.
shanedk 2 years ago
I finally decided to get around to hunting up some educational information on photogrammetry. If you go to ww w. ispr s.o rg (the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) there is an Education section, with links to lots of information on how to do both (they go together, as one of the most basic forms of remote sensing is taking a picture, and photogrammetry is a technique for reliably extracting information from pictures).
evensgrey 2 years ago
Poor gheyfunmarsbar,
He has really let both is ass and his complete ignorance hang out for all to see. He just doesn't "get it" about how camera perspective works. Maybe he would understand better if he used a large computer monitor so that he could place his eyes at the appropriate distance when examining the Apollo EVA photos in order to view the photo with the exact same perspective and field of view created by the 60mm Biogon lens uses on the Hasselblads.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Fucking brilliant! And Clayton, you should really shut the hell up. Shane is right - you are wrong. That might be hard for you to accept but... That's how it is!
HerrDerDinge 2 years ago
@HerrDerDinge
explain how I am wrong or you shut the fuck up idiot.
And just incase you know how wide was shanes wire figure, and how high was the original astro clown in his costume?
LOL @ you in advance because I know you cant answer.
You are an idiot that is just how it is.
hahahaha
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
SEVERAL people have explained how you're wrong. You're just so obstinately delusional you refuse to consider it, and so you end up making EXACTLY the same STUPID claim over and over again with NO regard for the answers people have given you.
That's delusional behavior.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
HOW WIDE WAS YOUR STICK FIGURE FFS!?
And no one has explained shit they are just hand waving you liar!
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Width is irrelevant; only height matters. ANYONE can see that. EVERYONE has tried telling you that.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
how can the width be irrelevant you liar, if he was 1mm or 1 metre wide would make all the difference, so does the angle of the flag to the camera, and FFS YOU DO NOT KNOW THE HEIGHT of the original astroclown.
Give it up it is a lame duck.
are you trying to repeat the lie so many times people believe it.
Make a new more accurate model, what are you scared of finding out the truth!
LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
No, it wouldn't, IDIOT, because we're seeing him FROM THE SIDE, and the ONLY reference points we have--arms and helmet--are DEPENDENT ON HEIGHT.
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
You are loosing the plot idiot, go have a lay down, and think about.
You do not know the original height and you do not know the width of your cartoon figure, you guessed everything.
You're a liar or an incompetent ass go make a new model papa nerd.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Sure, width is relevant in the sense that if Scott were a 6' tall pencil, he might not have brushed against the flag. But by all indications Scott is a normally proportioned adult human male, and Shane modeled him accurately. His relative height was therefore sufficient, all by itself, to place him close enough to the flag to touch it. Shane's model omitted his bulky suit, which makes the conclusion that he touched it even stronger.
C'mon, game over. Don't be a sore loser.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
@ApolloWasReal
Shane does not know the height of original astro clown in his costume, the width of wire clown, what was the exact angle of flag to the camera and how much was the pole tilting?
You see you have nothing other than a smug attitude and a fanciful cartoon.
Dont be a sore loser :-(
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Maybe you haven't seen the still photos taken of that scene from the left, but I have and I'm pretty sure Shane has. They show all those things, including how the flag was rotated well toward the TV camera, which is why Scott brushed it as he passed.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I don't even need those pictures to see that; simple photogrammetry DEMANDS that the flag MUST be in that same position and orientation relative to the camera.
If that's wrong, then basic trigonometry is wrong.
shanedk 2 years ago
You're right, you don't actually NEED those pictures but they do help make the flag's position crystal clear to the hoaxtards at an intuitive level.
They've fallen prey to a classical optical illusion: wide angle lenses exaggerate depth. Photogrammetry is sufficient to overcome optical illusions, but the extra pictures do it more intuitively. And unfortunately intuition is all they go on.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
The hoaxtards are not in any way open to correction. All the pictures in the world would achieve nothing.
shanedk 2 years ago
Sadly, you are right. But it's still important to refute their arguments so ordinary people who happen across them won't be fooled unless they really want to be.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
@ApolloWasReal
stop dreaming, the angles are guessed like everything else in shanes whimsical cartoon for over grown nerds.
Do it again with all the correct data or just shut up about it.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
So, you're saying basic trigonometry is a "guess."
Typical hoaxtard.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
just tell me the angle and stop question dodging shane :-)
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Which angle?
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
angles shaney, angles of the flag to camera and angle of tilt of the flag pole, like you didn't already know, come on papa nerd quit stalling :-)
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Clayton, ask Jarrah to consider a co-production about this moonhoax conspiracy crap.
A video about a baldheaded scubadiver in a dryingroom with a waving sleeve, or something with a C130, a little stampeding in a bedroom, about a crater making concrete busting rocket, or the copy&paste of some lunar foottracks, the 'oddities' of retro-reflectors and LRO may be? Or acknowledging the landings to prove the fakery of LRO pictures? And you will both agree on the calculation of150% of 0.5 I guess...
Rob260259 2 years ago
ok winstonsmith00 whole argument is this:
he says that we dont know how far apart the astronaut and the flag really are. why? because maybe the camera is in reallity far away from the subjects and it is using a very high number of wide-angle lens.
in his second shot of the tomatos if he removes the ruler and provides better lighting, I think no one can know for sure how far apart they really are. even if he tellls us the dimensions of the tomatos.
elpecasjose 2 years ago
If we have the height of the tomatoes, and we know the distance between them, we ABSOLUTELY CAN tell how far away the camera is. He ADMITTED to moving the camera between the two shots, confirming MY demonstration earlier in my video.
shanedk 2 years ago
I think you just let on to understanding your flaw. The way you lastly framed the argument is deceptive and contrary to the way in which you calculated distance in your first video. This is the same deception you used against my character when misrepresenting my position. I don't care if others agree with me. I know you know and that's enough for me. :>) You may now commence with you loud response. Have a nice life. No hard feelings from me.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
i have a feeling these people didnt pass basic math, even i whos terrible at math can grasp basic trig concepts "smashes face on keyboard" Gfrkhyjsy
evb4mvp 2 years ago
I think the point really being missed here is that hoaxers are shooting themselves in the foot by saying we can't accurately derive the distance between the subject and the flag from the video; if this is the case, he could have bumped into the flag and we have no way of knowing otherwise!
macman13 2 years ago
Actually winstonsmith00 is right.
The lens does change the scale.
watch this: /watch?v=1-q4dA6siC8
look at the pictures at the end
Or just Google: fun with focal length
elpecasjose 2 years ago 2
He is NOT IN ANY WAY RIGHT!!! In the very video you posted, they were MOVING THE CAMERA!!!
That's EXACTLY what I did in my original demonstration, and did again here. This confirms ME, not him!
shanedk 2 years ago
From the description of the video you linked to;
"In photography, focal length refers to the distance between the photographer and her subject"
I stopped paying attention there.
macman13 2 years ago
Shanedk, you're just like Gil Grissom!!! :D
masana2007 2 years ago
Wow there's a lot of people misunderstanding tenets of photography here. (in the comments that is)
For example, a pinhole camera means that there is no lens and no limitation on depth of field, and I don't see how that has anything to do with anything here.
macman13 2 years ago
Well, it also means there's no lens distortion, and they were trying to make that out as a significant factor.
shanedk 2 years ago
The latter I still do not get. Their video does make no sense to me in the discussion (I did some homework just to prove that I am not wrong using low-tech: a simple sheet of paper, a ruler and a pen). One could derive the positions of the camera in their shots if the wide of the their ruler is know as you did with the flag
Kudos to you, that you keep on answering to comments. This must be really exhausting...
GrandBeagle 2 years ago
Correcting myself: I meant "width" not "wide"
GrandBeagle 2 years ago
Unless NASA used some of the worst lenses ever made, it isn't.
macman13 2 years ago
FOCAL LENGTH DOES NOT EFFECT PERSPECTIVE ONLY CROPPING!
God, as a photographer it really bugs me when people claim to understand this stuff when they don't.
macman13 2 years ago
Thank you!
shanedk 2 years ago
Yes. My argument is that as the focal length of a zoom lens is increased the perspective and scale relationships (operative word) between the foreground and the background become disproportionate. Not that the perspective itself changes. but that objects along the rear of the focal plane will appear to advance closer. I just haven't been able to properly explain this.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
No, it changes NONE of those things. ALL it changes is the field of view. It does not in ANY way change ANY of the relationships of the subjects and how they appear on the screen.
If you want to change perspective, or relative scale, or whatever, YOU MUST MOVE THE CAMERA!
(You know, as you ADMITTED doing AFTER saying you "only" changed the focal length?)
shanedk 2 years ago
shanedk you are amazing.
I love your debunking vids.
AndreaZ64 2 years ago
Hey, I bet those chairs don't exist! They're probably computer graphics or doctored footage! I call chairhoax! ;)
sp00x 2 years ago
The difference between us and hoaxtards is this. When we accidentally inhaled fumes from anti insect sprays that drive around places, and started to see things, we stood firm and said "No! I don't want to be a schizophrenic!". The hoaxtards on the other hand, said "THE SKY IS RAINING EXPLOSIVE ORANGES DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT I'LL POST LIKE EIGHTY VIDEOS BITCHING ABOUT THIS TOTALLY FICTIONAL OCCURRENCE." Thusly, we are better than them entirely.
AJComixII 2 years ago
it looks like the furthest chair is floating
ZombieX13 2 years ago
Gotta give him points for moving the goalposts in a new and novel way. Lenses, baby!
Riiiight... Tard.
554466551 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you can see where the camera is from the photo that Scott is allegedly taking of Irwin, so go get it from ALSJ and do this properly and stop with this patronising bullshit.
Can you get someone else to do the voice overs as well, your high-pitched whining is incredibly annoying.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
ahhhhh! ad hominem attack? that's what you have to resort to to try and make a point? shows you clearly lost the argument
lennyhipp 2 years ago
@lennyhipp
up yours, I'm winning cock shine.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Ad hominem. And you're not winning at all Clay.
AJComixII 2 years ago
dear boy, wipe the drool from your chin before looking in the mirror and seeing a complete fucking moron. You're not only not winning, you've lost a very long time ago. The only thing more stupid than a moon hoaxer is a young earth creationist... and that takes considerable effort to accomplish
lennyhipp 2 years ago
Dear boy? Get fucked dick head there is no droll on my chin fool you have won nothing this 3D model is bullshit.
The height of clown and distance from camera is guess work therefore the result are inaccurate guess work.
I would not expect a clueless groupie like you to understand but I will try, guess work = bullshit get it idiot?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
nope. i said drool, not droll. guess all the drool got in the way.
distance from camera doesn't matter as shane QUITE CLEARLY demonstrated! all you would need is measurements... which he had too.
if i WAS shane's groupie, i'd be proud of it, but alas, i'm not... i just call bullshit when i see bullshit and stunning displays of jaw-dropping ignorance.
Care for a bib?
lennyhipp 2 years ago
@lennyhipp
it was a typo fuck face O & L being next to each other on the key board and them both being words so the spell check did not pick it up.
Why is it you think you are so smart.
Of course the distance of the camera matters, you are just not intelligent enough to understand why.
So wipe Shane's semen from around you mouth and redo this mickey mouse 3D model with all the data not just the stuff that fits you fantasy cum breath.
Care for a fresh mint?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
i'm now chuckling over how upset you've gotten over nothing.
ALL the data that is needed has been provided: the EXACT dimensions of the flag, and the height of said astronaut. both were overlaid exactly on top of the still frame. This is ALL the information necessary to recreate the scene from ANY angle as Shane quite clearly demonstrated to everyone with the smallest bit of grey matter between the ears. Instead of a wrinkled brain yours must be as smooth and aerodynamic as flipper's back!
lennyhipp 2 years ago
@lennyhipp
you know what idiot I am not upset at all you feeble minded nerd, think it is quite funny when a pathetic little gimp like you fancies his chances, give me a chance to metaphorically slap you to the floor. LOL
The model is BS you are a brainless groupie chuckling away to yourself because you are too thick to know you have already lost.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Yeah.... Sure... what ever you say pal. coming from a nitwit who thinks waving a child's DVD at a flag and talking in a nonsensical voice proves the moon landings were a hoax, i'll take it as a complement.
maybe that's not drool on your chin after all, but it still needs wiping.
lennyhipp 2 years ago
@lennyhipp
I successfully demonstrated that air displacement could move a flag, the silly voice was just for fun and it does not matter what did the waving does it dribble cheeks?
And it is a note pad not a DVD clean you glasses they probably caked in shanes semen that is why you could not tell a book from a DVD you idiot cock sucking lackey boy.
Unlike this pathetic tirade of a video, only proves shane is a lair and you are a brainless groupie, is this all you got cum breath?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
throwing around insults doesnt prove you right it just make you look like a stupid immature baby
evb4mvp 2 years ago
@evb4mvp
I did not start the insulting shit for brains, it was your bum boy hero Shane so get fisted and stick to smashing you face into the keyboard idiot you make more sense you brainless groupie fuck head.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
how so? shane showed that you people are wrong by using evidence. unlike you he does not deny evidence. all you did when presented with evidence was to insult those who present proper evidence.
evb4mvp 2 years ago
@evb4mvp
what proper evidence you idiot, shane's video is a pitiful tirade not evidence just listen to the opening lines it is just one insult from beginning to end.
And the model is not a real representation of the event in question it is a fanciful cartoon for idiots like you to get all excited about nothing.
Go back to smashing your face into your keyboard kid, your comments make more sense like that.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
So where did you go to college?
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
why do you ask?
why should I tell you?
why dont you post your CV first?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
By "CV" do you mean "curriculum vitae"?
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
what else would I mean by CV idiot?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Boy, that was a fast response.
MY response: I take it you used the abbreviation "CV" because you COULD NOT SPELL "curriculum vitae".
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
stop stalling idiot post your CV of fuck off
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
- I have completed high school (a feat not many conspiracists have pulled off).
-I have studied first-year university, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and english. (A feat I do not believe ANY conspiracist has pulled off. Did I ace all of these subjects? Not quite. I got an A-minus in psychology. (I slacked off a little too much.)
Is this resume okay? I took an academic break for a whopping four years traveling between Washington and British Columbia...
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
well done you completed high school yippee you must be the first in you family of monkeys to do so!
And flunked out of collage after a year, but your still numero uno in the monkey world give yourself a pat on the back and a banana you bullshitting idiot.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
I said I took an academic break.
I am returning to school in January...after four long, boring, mind-numbing years.
Now you give me a slice of YOUR resume. I was honest with mine so I expect you to be honest as well.
HA! Who am I kidding? You're going to lie through your teeth!
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
Did they teach you to believe in aliens and the paranormal at you school? LOL
Listen monkey brain I do not need a piece of paper to tell me you are an idiot, or one to make me fell comfortable with who I am.
Hooray for devil boy, you graduated from bumfuck high school nowheresville and are studying to be a brownpipe engineer at brokeback collage turdstown.
Maybe you can get a job driving for pizza hut or a fluffer for the wiggles when you flunk out of Brokeback?
LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
"Did they teach you to believe in aliens and the paranormal at you school?"
No. Our professors simply taught us to be OPEN-MINDED.
"...studying to be a brownpipe engineer at brokeback collage turdstown."
Nope. It's called the University of British Columbia in Vancouver; the largest post-secondary campus in Canada.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
brokeback is just its nick name LOL
are you doing a course in paranormal alien anal probing?
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
You're memory is very short. I said I would be beginning school again in January. That's a month and a half from now, Clayton.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
my memory is not short you are just a dick, if you are starting in Jan you must have selected you courses already, right dick head?
Enjoy your paranormal alien anal probes at brokeback.LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Your point is sound, (for a nice change) but on the contrary, I have yet to select my courses. Not until Friday. I must wait for my designated registration date. (Something you've obviously never heard of because, like just about all CTs, you never went to college.)
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
another unfounded clueless generalisation made by a moontard.
What if you fail your courses, or get kick out for holding seances to get the answers to your exams LOL
dont count your chickens.... unless you have it all planned out and one of your alien buddies is going to stick the answer sheet up your bottom the night before your finals. LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
I have no idea what point you are trying to make in this message.
It almost seems to me like you're trying to explain away why YOU chose not to go to college with some kind of fear/paranoia of failure, when the reason is either because you flunked out of high school or simply thought you were too smart for university. (That is why I figure Ralph Rene never finished.)
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
The point is you have not yet completed your collage education you idiot, you are in fact a drop-out with a prospectus LOL.
Going to collage does not make you intelligent or correct.
You think having a piece of paper and learning to copy what other people say is important.
In reality it is indoctrination for idiots, you are paying to be conditioned by dogma.
I can destroy any argument you put forward or your fellow half baked academics.
This was your last best hope. LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
"You think having a piece of paper and learning to copy what other people say is important"
"In reality it is indoctrination for idiots, you are paying to be conditioned by dogma"
Uhhh...do you know what a dissertation is?
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
yes I do know what a dissertation and 99.99% are not worth a crap and neither are most students.
And if your dissertation does not fit in with the current dogma it will be rejected, that's how they keep you all dumbed down.
Any information you find at brokeback you can find in a good library or on the web so what is the point other than to make yourself feel ever-so proud for being a good little parrot.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
"And if your dissertation does not fit in with the current dogma it will be rejected,..."
So who came up with the "current" dogma?
You're not very smart, Clayton. That much has been made very obvious today.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
@TremorHellborn
Your not very smart?
Why because I keep trashing you and shanes arguments? LOL
All you have is this pathetic attempt at a put down.
LOL @ shanes little catamite keep to sucking nerd dick.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Goodnight, Clayton.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
TremorHellborn: "Goodnight, Clayton"
I doubt it. This is a total hurricaning of a conspiracist. Clayton will not have a good night.
Rob260259 2 years ago
How has someone who made all-As "flunked out"?
He's been to college and done well; you don't even know how the grading system works!
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
shut up with this nit-picky crap about college and grades you idiot and answer the damn questions you have been asked that shows your video to be the fanciful cartoon it is.
lets start with the angle of the flag to camera?
tilt of the flag?
height of the flag pole?
height of the clown?
distance from the camera?
focal length of lens?
Is the gourd level from pole to clown or at a slight incline?
I await your answers papa nerd.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Or even better: do a video with your funny bear and a voice-over from Jarrah, saying "fiftypcnt" or "propagandisss".
Now that would be...
L O L
Rob260259 2 years ago
1) 2) Automatically accounted for with the perspective match.
3) Irrelevant.
4) From the A15 Press Kit.
5) 6) Automatically accounted for with the perspective match.
7) At an incline, but still irrelevant.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
just saying it is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant it just means you can not answer so you guessed it, automatically accounted for mean you dont know because you guessed the data and let your 286 do the rest.
LOL
You cartoon has been exposed for the rubbish it is, look at your fan base idiots like rob the retard and assorted nerds and male groupies with not a clue between them.
LOL
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
I'm not "just saying" it's irrelevant; by EVERY PRINCIPLE OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY it's irrelevant!
But you know fuck all about that, and you don't WANT to. You'd rather remain an ignorant, delusional pus-brain.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
keep your knickers on shaney girl!
How can data like the dimensions of the "relevant" details be irrelevant you big idiot?
You are just lying shaney, here's another one what was the height of the camera relative to the wire clown and flag pole you incompetent imbecile?
You base it all on the flag but failed to give the angle of flag to the camera, how much it was tilted forward, how high it is.
Big raspberry for Papa Nerd and your 3rd rate cartoon.
2 thumbs down!
Boo! Rubbish!
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Hey Claystarbra, did you see the bubbles around the flag?
It was no wind, it was no airco, it was the water!
Idiot.
Rob260259 2 years ago
The height of the flag pole isn't needed if you already know the height and width of the flag itself. If the flag pole were higher the flag won't suddenly change.
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
Is it just me or are you really doing the almost impossible feat of getting even less coherent with each post?
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
The ONLY relevance here is the relative positions of the flag, the astronaut, and the camera. To determine this, you need to examine the flag, the astronaut, and the camera. You DO NOT need to examine ANYTHING else! Because you're not looking at the relative position of anything else!
How STUPID do you have to be not to get that?
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
stop lying shane
answer what was the angle of the flag to the camera?
How wide was tour pathetic stick figure?
How tall was the the real clown?
LOL you are just pathetic shane all you do is shout at puff up your man breasts.
YOu model is a pitiful joke it is so inaccurate is it not even funny, take it down and make a new one with all the data allowed for and stop whining papa nerd.
claytonstarbar 2 years ago
Claytonstarbra, stop playing stupid. It's getting tedious. Have drink in your Thai bar and take a dive.
Idiot.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Alas, shanedk, your sterling efforts at debunking this technical illiteracy will be wasted on the intended targets, given that hoaxtards knowledge of photography is on a par with their knowledge of, well, just about anything else.
Dynamic range, like perspective, is another basic concept that eludes their grasp: "But there are no STARS in these moon pictures! The sky should be lit up with stars! This was all filmed in a studio!"
A studio which obviously wont be hiring them for their expertise.
owlcowl 2 years ago 3
those hoaxers can only convince the weak minded XD shane is WAY too educated for them =D
ccaptorchen 2 years ago 3
Thank you for making these hoaxers look like the idiots they are... I'm tired of people denying one of the most impressive achievements humanity has accomplished. Keep up the good work =D
TehCATintheHAT 2 years ago
you mean straight lines remain straight even if I change my camera lens?
ozmoroid 2 years ago 4
They can appear distorted depending on the lens (pillowing and pincushion effects), but they'll always be in the same place relative to everything else.
shanedk 2 years ago
umm his original video seems to have been removed.
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
You should probably add the assumption of flat space, since some of your videos also address cosmological scale phenomena, and there might be a spill-over.
dileepvr 2 years ago
Hoaxtards and mathmatics do not mix, Shane. :)
So of course they have a difficult time with this concept
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Shane, don't let the hoaxtards get to you. It doesn't take a mathematician or scientist to understand such basic concepts. Anyone who's taken a middleschool art class understands how perspective works. Your 3-D model is spot on. keep up the good work.
I love your videos.
wonslung 2 years ago
Okay everyone, I think it's time for a time out. Ring the bell, ref, ring the bell!
razoras 2 years ago
Isn't anyone going to make the "minority of one" pun?
WhyCantIVote 2 years ago
He picked one comment out of a hundred (I was drinking last night - I turned 40!) and calls me a liar when I told him immediately after why I said what I did (that I was leading him) And used all-caps to straighten out my apparent lie. I know photography quite well and he hasn't the slightest idea how lenses work. This video on perspective is correct but that's not my argument. It's beyond me how he construe my point so badly.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
My first comment:
"Excellent job you probably thought of it but there's one flaw (I hope I don't give them ammo): Lens effect. I think those cameras were 70mm and will cause a compressed perspective in that shot. Probably slight but should be noted when scaling objects in videos or photos. I think the difference can be calculated and compensated for"
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
And I corrected you, saying that the still cameras were 70mm and gave you the proper specs for the TV camera.
shanedk 2 years ago
I think you misinterpreted winstonsmith00's reply and put words in his mouth;
It seems he only wanted to demonstrate that the camera's distance affects scale; 1/2 scale in apparent size always implies 2x distance for identical objects, but give 2x camera distance from the closer object and the more distant object will be 2/3 the angle of the closer object instead of 1/2.
Regardless, you did use the flag's perspective to estimate (implicitly) the camera's distance, so no matter.
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
The camera's distance affecting scale was MY point! It was the very point HE was complaining about! My using the flag to estimate the camera's position was EXACTLY what he said I couldn't do!
shanedk 2 years ago
Yeah, I just looked in the comments on his video, and it turns out he DID lie to commenter
TheHogTieChamp (who made some VERY good points) about the observer position having not changed, but later admitted to having moved the camera and zoomed in between the two shots after you called him out on it.
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
I don't think he's lying, I think there's some confusion over language here. He has been drinking when we wrote those comments yesterday. He seems to be saying that he moved the camera but the observer position did not change, which to me makes no sense, but perhaps he can explain.
Minttzz 2 years ago
First of all, whether or not the camera moves is such a simple concept that you CANNOT attribute it to language confusion.
Second, I do NOT accept drinking as an excuse. People are responsible for what they do when drunk. Believe me, I've been burned on that a couple of times. Each time, the person who SWORE it was because they were drunk ended up being the same way sober.
shanedk 2 years ago
I should have said "apparent perspective". The second tomato shot shows as being in nearly the same spot as the first shot. Without much information it appears as if the observer is in the same position. This is what I was trying to show lenses can fool you into thinking the perspective is the same while changing the scale of objects further away.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
Except I WASN'T USING APPARENT PERSPECTIVE!!! I have the EXACT DIMENSIONS OF THE FLAG!!!
Why do you keep ignoring that? If I didn't have the real-world dimensions of the flag, you'd be 100% correct--but I DO!!! And I SAID IN THE VIDEO how important it is!
Geez...
shanedk 2 years ago
Try to keep in mind that there are people in the US who actually believe, sincerely believe, that there are aliens living among us disguised as humans.
If someone can believe that, they are NEVER going to be convinced that the moon landing was real.
christo930 2 years ago 2
That's just silly. There's no such thing as aliens living among us...
...no, such, thing. Yes, indeed. Those people are wrong...
*cough*
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I still don't understand why he didn't debunk my video. And where he comes up with calling me a hoaxer. He's dishonest at best. I just can't believe everyone is buying into it without question (accept for a few clever people). It's unfortunate. If you looked at our very first exchange you'd see what kind of guy Shane really is, and understand that I was trying to be helpful. You should give me that much.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
Maybe because, you're a FUCKING LIAR? That you SWORE up and down that you ONLY (YOUR word) changed the focal length of the lens and only LATER--after I schooled you on basic trig--admitted that you moved the camera?
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
My demonstration showed how zooming effects scale while keeping the apparent perspective the same. I said nothing about angle. That was Shane and I don't disagree with that. Zooming will not effect the shape of the flag it makes it larger and appear closer than it really is.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
Zooming won't affect the shape of the flag, but it WILL affect the angles between the parallel edges, which is what Shane used to estimate the camera distance. Your having confused "perspective" (which includes distance) with "angle" and not capitulating to that is what started this whole retarded comment war.
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
Oops,
's/Zooming/Distance/g'
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
LMAO. It's past retarded. I did correct myself on that point in the first few comments.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
You're correct about the parallel edges. The scale in my video shows that. But I couldn't use that as a starting point to gauge distance. He matched a distorted flag to another distorted flag. Fuck I can barely keep track of this shit anymore. Did that make sense?
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
But the perspective is NOT the same! The tomato at the back looks WAY smaller when the camera is up close, and near the same size when it's far away!
And perspective is all about angles! I honestly don't know what kind of photographer you are not to know this. I'm again reminded of moon hoaxers and creationists who CLAIM to be professionals yet don't even understand the basics.
shanedk 2 years ago
It would be great if we could use italics or bold text in YT comments. That aside, I fail to understand how Winston doesn't realize that he's lost. Math involves a little detail known as PROOF. Everything else works on evidence. Basic trigonometry in application is solid unarguable PROOF. Winston, you lose entirely based on PROOF.
AJComixII 2 years ago
In two videos you have made, you have done more experiments and research then any moon hoaxer has ever done. Keep up the great work.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 4
If I were to make an internet sound board of my favourite youtubers, I'd be very tempted to use 4:03 for shanedk.
What else can you say? I mean, of all the stupid out there, it's rare that anyone can haul out actual mathematical proof to demonstrate it.
All I can say is... hoaxers have an alarming supply of weapons grade stupid, and I applaud everyone working to stop its proliferation by fighting the global trade in stupid! ;)
StubbornProgrammer 2 years ago
I love you Shane!
CognosSquare 2 years ago
5 stars for use of trig
CrazyBubbleTrain 2 years ago 2
You had me at "Hoax-tards"
CrazyBubbleTrain 2 years ago 3
Shane, you are so ignorant!
In your own demonstration you failed to account for the transdispositional placement of the area rug and the subsequent gradient variation resulting from the rear legs being placed squarely on the linoleum floor leading to a transcendental juxtopositional hypermorphia in the time space continuum. And you call the "hoaxtards" stupid?!?!
And for the people in the cheap seats, yes, this is satire. Shane, you have more guts than me taking on these whack jobs.
MrHoover3000 2 years ago 6
See here the pictures taken by the LRO of the Apollo landing sites:
tinyurl (dot) com (dash) ybsw68m
lflcorreia 2 years ago
Never let the facts get in the way of a good paranoid conspiracy theory...
SilentMike0 2 years ago
What I love about Shane's videos is that he's absolutely relentless when going after these morons. It's a trait he shares with Potholer, which is why they're my two favorite debunkers on Youtube.
AHPMB 2 years ago 2
Ah, now I get it!
Thanks Shane.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
The funny part is he's saying "hoaxtards" plural. It was just me and I don't believe in any hoax. He's stuck on semantics and hasn't understood what my video showed.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
Once you admitted you moved the camera, your video only showed I was RIGHT!
shanedk 2 years ago
I never tried to hide the fact that I moved the camera. It's obvious I can't lie about it. You're being dishonest. You know I'm no hoaxer. I even told you that you did a good job on the video and agreed with the outcome but thought it lacked accuracy because of a missing variable. I'm really glad you made this video it shows that you don't understand my point. I hope people read over our comments. They will understand.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
Your ENTIRE point of contention was that I can't know that's where the camera was just from the perspective, was it not?
I said the ONLY way to change the perspective on it was to move the camera, did I not?
You only admitted you moved the camera after I pwned your ass with trig. But by doing so, you destroyed your ENTIRE point. The ONLY way the flag has the shape it does on screen, and the ONLY way your tomatoes have the same relative size, is with the camera in the same position.
shanedk 2 years ago
No it was not.
It's all about focal length (it's a powerful zoom lens just watch other videos). You didn't compensate for it and therefore it's flawed. You have made this into something completely different and I am so disgusted with you. You're a maniac. I feel like I'm being stalked. LMAO. I'm done speaking to you. I'll try to answer anyone else but I'm being inundated with people whom don't understand my position because of your distortions.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
A maniac?
aka4x7b 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mania: A state of abnormally elevated or irritable mood, arousal, and/ or energy levels.
winstonsmith00 2 years ago
According to the A15 Press Kit, it can be zoomed from an FoV of three to nine degrees. That's 3x.
I still don't understand what you think focal length could POSSIBLY have to do with it.
shanedk 2 years ago
wow... you just don't get it, do you?! he overlaid the digital flag with the flag in the movie... he has the EXACT dimensions of the flag... now tell me how focal length of the lens will change relative distances?
lennyhipp 2 years ago
I went to MGM in Florida and they have this trick photography shot where there is a small space shuttle near your camera and when you take a picture, the shuttle appears to be full size off on the buildings and the it says it only works during certain sun positions.
Can tricks like that be overcome with the things you are talking about? (mind you, I am not a moan hoaxer, just asking).
I have seen police do what you did in that video to size a human being, so I am sure it works, but 100%?
christo930 2 years ago
If the shuttle is small enough and close enough to the camera, then I'm willing to bet it's not to scale; they would have flattened the model to make it look further away.
If it's more than 20-30 feet away or so (depending on the lens), that won't matter.
It's kind of like someone going to Pisa and taking a picture of himself holding up the leaning tower.
shanedk 2 years ago
Winston - you did say -
"If you say that I moved the camera closer you're flat out wrong. I only changed the focal length of the lens."
For my benefit would you care to explain that comment?
Minttzz 2 years ago 7
(cont.)
"A moderate long-focus (telephoto) lens is often recommended for portraiture because the perspective corresponding to the longer shooting distance is considered to look more flattering."
There's nothing to discuss here. The "hoaxtards" and others that said the contrary are plainly wrong!
lflcorreia 2 years ago
.. cont.
Is is true of false that changing the lens can affect the apparent relative size of objects placed at the specific distances from the camera?
I.e. is the ratio between the apparent size of two differently sized objects, placed at different distances from the camera consistent when the lens is changed?
I genuinely don't know the answer to this question so don't flame me.
Minttzz 2 years ago
No, merely changing the lens will not change relative size. You MUST move the camera for that. Look at the trigonometry diagram again.
shanedk 2 years ago
Your trigonometry diagram assumes a pinhole camera does it not?
Now again please don't flame, but I have a suspicion that with a fisheye lens the ratio is not the same,
Minttzz 2 years ago
No, it does not. It doesn't NEED to. As long as the objects are in focus (and they are), it works. The only thing a pinhole camera gives you is an effectively infinite depth of field.
Even being out of focus won't change the relative size; it'll just be out of focus so you can't make precise measurements with it.
shanedk 2 years ago
(cont.)
"But the perspective will be different. With the wideangle, the hands will be exaggeratedly large relative to the head. As the focal length increases, the emphasis on the outstretched hand decreases. However, if pictures are taken from the same distance, and enlarged and cropped to contain the same view, the pictures will have identical perspective.
(cont.)
lflcorreia 2 years ago
Excerpt from the page in Wikipedia about photographic lens:
"A side effect of using lenses of different focal lengths is the different distances from which a subject can be framed, resulting in a different perspective. Photographs can be taken of a person stretching out a hand with a wideangle, a normal lens, and a telephoto, which contain exactly the same image size by changing the distance from the subject. "
(cont.)
lflcorreia 2 years ago
Note the operative phrase, "by changing the distance from the subject."
Just so nobody misses it.
shanedk 2 years ago
While the lens makes no difference on the "perspective" as far as which objects are obscured, lenses have distortions such as barrel distortion. Wiki Distortion_(optics) for examples. This affects the mapping of points in space to points in the image. For example, wide angle lenses cause straight lines to appear curved (e.g. the door edges at 4:24 in your video). For accurate photogrammetry a camera model is used to correct the image data for this distortion. (cont'd)
BGenerous 2 years ago