August 22, 2019, 06:56:18 AM

Author Topic: Mars: Inside SpaceX  (Read 4676 times)

Offline Flanker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • Youtube channel on Blitzmax programming prototypes
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2019, 12:48:35 AM »
can u see the hotspot and fall off areas in the classic 'man on the moon' photo?

This is not the original picture from NASA. There is a gallery with most original pictures from Apollo missions indexed by missions and film rolls (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html), linking to HQ pictures on NASA servers with additionnal informations, it's the best way to find the original pictures. Here is yours with no funky color correction (and no fall off...) : https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

And for the chinese picture, the "hotspot" is just a reflection from the sun on the golden insulation material, throught the gap beetween the body and the left solar panel. The exact same thing happened with the previous rover (Chang'e 3, check yourself).
Everyone knew it was impossible, until someone who didn't know made it.

Offline therevills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2019, 01:53:02 AM »
>It looks to me that the photo was taken at night on the moon and the spot light is coming from a light mounted on the lander itself...

Exactly!  ;)

I was referring to the Chang'E 4 photo.

Offline therevills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2019, 02:42:04 AM »

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2019, 05:43:36 AM »
>I was referring to the Chang'E 4 photo.
> hills over a mile away well lit
Of course, in your mind you'd naturally assume the Chang E carried the most powerful flood light by a factor of x100 to its nearest rival.

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #79 on: January 05, 2019, 06:09:36 AM »
>This is not the original picture from NASA. There is a gallery with most original pictures from Apollo missions indexed by missions and film rolls

You've entered the hall of mirrors. One of the photos is the original from 1969, the other is recently modified to serve a purpose. If nasa are hoaxers and they become aware one of their key photos is being used successfully to show apollo was a hoax, do you think they'll keep it the same?
For believers, their confirmation bias will stop them looking beyound nasa's webpage. But for anyone who wants to use logic rather than authority to decide which one is the original, consider this : why is the 'dark' one the one used by other websites? I don't mean apollo hoax websites, I mean nearly all other mainstream sites that support nasa, they use the dark man on the moon photo.
Ans : because that was the official photo until about 2016, the bright one is the new, photoshopped one.
Otherwise you have to believe that anti nasa people have been very active and persuasive in spreading the dark one to groups such as national geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jul20/man-walks-moon/

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2019, 06:22:49 AM »
>And for the chinese picture, the "hotspot" is just a reflection from the sun on the golden insulation material

You're guessing incorrectly what a studio set hotspot is. Its the area of lit stage that contains the object of interest, typically in the foreground, centre stage, the stage lights will point at the object.
Here's the contrast between hotspot and fall off areas

Offline Kryzon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #81 on: January 05, 2019, 08:53:42 AM »
Meems, there have been pictures taken of the moon that show astronaut tracks and american flags. That'd be quite an elaborate hoax, going to the moon to put a flag there, to prove that you went to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Imaging_the_landing_sites

How's that for falsifiable, empiric evidence.

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #82 on: January 05, 2019, 09:47:27 AM »

A few hazy pixels. Weak either way.

The mountain of evidence : the apollo photos and videos taken in-situ goes straight in your bin?  wow u really have confidence apollo was for real. not.

Offline Kryzon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #83 on: January 06, 2019, 05:26:23 AM »
I don't think it's about confidence -- or belief -- that it was for real. It's about being able to look at the moon and see the evidence over there. 
Just like someone can go to Egypt and see the pyramids -- most of us have only seen photos of them after all. If you believe the pyramids really exist, without having seen them for real, then you're being biased against humans landing on the moon.

In the meantime, let's wait for higher res cameras  :D

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #84 on: January 06, 2019, 06:42:00 AM »
>Just like someone can go to Egypt and see the pyramids
Not really. It makes sense to me that people can go there. Also we have good photos and vids of them that don't look fake.

>let's wait for higher res cameras
> implying that since the cameras in 1969-72 weren't 20 MegaPixel, or 8K movie, then they weren't good enough


erm, so what I sarcastically said about you dismissing the entire apollo footage and photo archive... is correct? Yet you'll rest on seeing that C64-esk 30x30 formless blob. Hmm, are you a 100% believer in nasa and apollo, or do you entertain doubts?

Offline Kryzon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #85 on: January 06, 2019, 07:03:47 AM »
I'm implying that a higher res camera would remove all doubt over the 30x30 formless blob, like being able to see a footprint for example.

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #86 on: January 06, 2019, 08:18:56 AM »
>I'm implying that a higher res camera would remove all doubt over the 30x30 formless blob, like being able to see a footprint for example

ok. so the '69~72 apollo photos and footage qualify for inspection and analysis?

Offline Flanker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
    • Youtube channel on Blitzmax programming prototypes
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #87 on: January 06, 2019, 12:20:33 PM »
Ans : because that was the official photo until about 2016, the bright one is the new, photoshopped one.
Otherwise you have to believe that anti nasa people have been very active and persuasive in spreading the dark one to groups such as national geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jul20/man-walks-moon/

You might be right, I've checked several magazine covers from 1969 with this picture, and all of them show a significant light fall off. However national geographic was already the one using the darker image. But now, how do you explain that in the same magazines from 1969, they show others pictures with no light fall off ?

You're guessing incorrectly what a studio set hotspot is.

English is not my native langage, I though you talked about the light reflection on the ground. There are portions on the distant moutains that are as brigh as the foreground... It's just that the ground is not uniform.
Everyone knew it was impossible, until someone who didn't know made it.

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #88 on: January 06, 2019, 05:47:19 PM »
>the same magazines from 1969, they show others pictures with no light fall off ?

Dunno. Perhaps some of the shots were done with Stanley overseeing them. Some of them were done without him hence they're amateur ones, easily spotted as stage photos.

Offline Henri

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #89 on: January 06, 2019, 07:01:55 PM »
I have an alternative theory: Perhaps the darker image that appeared in the magazine cover was slightly edited for more dramatic effect. Publications want to sell right ?

-Henri
- Got 01100011 problems, but the bit ain't 00000001