The best moonlanding hoax thread on the web

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by kaito

Interested readers of the thread will note that the 6.02 in my drawing 05 above is a linear dimension relating to the height of the tilted polyline representing the LEM and does not indicate the angle of rotation of the Conceptual Artist's Glass

Thank you for a timely response What was the angle of rotation exactly?

The angle appears to be around 5 degrees, can you confirm this to as many decimal places as you wish, from your acad drawing?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by kaito

Please list concisely your other 7 "points". They will be addressed later just before I post my new analysis.

My 7 points are the numerically listed points 1-6 and the FOV centre problem that you know is wrong. Please refer to the original post - it shouldn't be too difficult to work it out.

[apollo_gnomon]

Here are TG's questions from several pages back, quoted just as a convenience.

Originally Posted by truegroup

Kaito: Are you still claiming that the LM has a linear relationship with the distant mountains? Your whole analysis relies on knowing the elevation of the camera, its distance to the camera and the angle it forms. The picture you use shows the landing pad, this picture taken closer and slightly to the right does not(camera angle is sloped left). That should tell you that this terrain is not a straight slope to the camera. The contours are not detailed enough to account for this variation.

Your reply to the Lunar curvature issue tells me that you have only considered the height deviation rather than the perspective angle tilt such curvature produces. 1/8 and 1/4 degree for the two peaks. Please don't forget to add this slight rotation to the summit when drawing in your line of sight views.


Excerpt from PDF file from here.
"1 Introduction
Most commercial cameras and lenses deviate from the ideal pinhole model, due in particular to wide angle lens design which generates non-linear image distortion. Calibrating and correcting geometrical distortion is an essential prerequisite to the majority of 3-D reconstruction methods which are based on projective geometry."


To summarise....

1. You have an unknown camera elevation, which I asked you to quantify and you ignored. The scale markers are extremely small on the maps available and the one you used. The picture above I linked to, shows there is a rise between it and the camera, yet the map shows no such deviation due to limits in scale.

2. You have not factored in compression of the lunar landing gear on landing, you use this height to rotate the artist's glass plane, until it coincides with the ground line(see point above, which is actually unknown!).

3. You most certainly have completely ignored the non-linear relationship between near and distant objects on a wide angled lens.

4. You have not factored in angular perspective from the Lunar curvature.

5. You actually asserted that the lens was practically normal:



http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F...m_104800_e.pdf

"The Biogon f/5.6-60 mm in the "Hasselblad EL Data Camera" took part in the Apollo 11 lunar landing. This wide-angle lens can also be used for normal photogrammetric purposes in the "Hasselblad MK 70" camera."　

6. You stated the reticles were not spaced evenly:



Slivers taken from each gap






Errr, that would be a yes.




Finally, in your original third slide, you have assumed the FOV line runs straight to the base of the hill. The reason you do this is because the camera sees what appears to be the base, but it most certainly is not. That mistake enabled you to claim a discrepancy of nearly 6 degrees in the alignment, when the discrepancy is caused by your incorrect assumption. Nice job.

[headlikearock]

Kaito

In drawing number 3, can you explain how you ascertained the field of view? To my eyes it looks as if it should be rotated some 4-5 degrees anti-clockwise, which would have a significant effect on the rest of the analysis.

You can verify this by looking at other images that show the rest of the small peak that is cropped on the RHS of your reference image. You have the field of view boundary line going through very close to where the peak would be, but in the photograph it's considerably further away.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20687HR.jpg

[kaito]

Originally Posted by headlikearock

Kaito

In drawing number 3, can you explain how you ascertained the field of view? To my eyes it looks as if it should be rotated some 4-5 degrees anti-clockwise, which would have a significant effect on the rest of the analysis.

You can verify this by looking at other images that show the rest of the small peak that is cropped on the RHS of your reference image. You have the field of view boundary line going through very close to where the peak would be, but in the photograph it's considerably further away.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-136-20687HR.jpg

Thanks for your interest and the politeness of your inquiry. My posted analysis was, as I pointed out on another thread, a "first go" to establish if there was any substance in David Percy's comment that the South Massif appears much too high in the photograph. This does appear to be the case but I would prefer to answer comments when I post my more detailed analysis using the Topophoto Map data.

My reason for saying this is there are differences between the Mare Serenitatis Map and the Topophoto Map. Some of the differences will reduce the apparent discrepancy, for example the South Massif is slightly nearer in the TopophotoMap than the Mare Serenitatis Map. Some may increase it eg reduced heights using line of sight, made possible by more detailed contour information at the peaks.

As it is based on sections at 1 degree intervals it should pick up accurately the "V" at the junction of the South and West Massiff.

Also I will be making adjustments for varying distances between the camera position and the plane of the Conceptual artist's Glass which varies slightly depending on the direction of the section.

When it's posted I will be more than happy to discuss it with you....

[headlikearock]

Originally Posted by kaito

Thanks for your interest and the politeness of your inquiry. My posted analysis was, as I pointed out on another thread, a "first go" to establish if there was any substance in David Percy's comment that the South Massif appears much too high in the photograph. This does appear to be the case but I would prefer to answer comments when I post my more detailed analysis using the Topophoto Map data.

My reason for saying this is there are differences between the Mare Serenitatis Map and the Topophoto Map. Some of the differences will reduce the apparent discrepancy, for example the South Massif is slightly nearer in the TopophotoMap than the Mare Serenitatis Map. Some may increase it eg reduced heights using line of sight, made possible by more detailed contour information at the peaks.

As it is based on sections at 1 degree intervals it should pick up accurately the "V" at the junction of the South and West Massiff.

Also I will be making adjustments for varying distances between the camera position and the plane of the Conceptual artist's Glass which varies slightly depending on the direction of the section.

When it's posted I will be more than happy to discuss it with you....

No worries. I'm impressed at the amount of effort you've put into this one, and won't press you for a deadline.