|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/01/2005 : 13:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Posting in all caps does not make you right. We understand perspective in the real world much, much better than you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you want to demonstrate with this picture?
This train is going uphill and its last part is level or about level.
TO FIND HORIZON YOU MUST USE ABOUT HORIZONTAL SQUARES OR RECTANGLES OR VERTICAL SQUARES OR VERTICAL RECTANGLES WITH TWO HORIZONTAL SIDES
Study, guy, study. Learn perspetive with the greatest artists of my country
Look, you arrogant prick, the vanishing points are multiple in the picture and none of them are at the horizon.
I have learned perspective. The artists of your country are rolling in their graves with your misuse of the term.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 14:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Valiant
YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT AT ANY COST.
You said some time ago
" ... I do not believe that if I were able to show you the craft in flight, (I can't. It's a ground based trainer.) you will answer any of the questions put to you ..."
"It's a ground based trainer"
HA, HA, HA
Hey, look at this
IT'S NOT A "GROUND BASED TRAINER" 
IT CAN FLY.
SHOW ME THAT OLD CROCK IN FLIGHT
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 14:45:34 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. Four more days of arguing perspective.
bigbrain's problem is that he is confusing the horizon line of perspective imagery (a 2-D representation of a 3-D scene) with the horizon (that point tangent to the surface of the Earth or the Moon on a line which intersects the viewer's eye or camera lens). He correctly claims that on an infinitely flat plane, these horizons are one and the same, but ignores the curvature of the Moon and the fact that the LM is not level (even though he stated that it wasn't level).
If the Moon were perfectly smooth with a 1,738,000-meter radius, and the camera 1.22 meters off that surface, and pointed parallel to the tangent at the astronaut's feet, then the camera would record the Moon's horizon as being 0.068° below the perspective horizon line of any object defining a tangental plane at the location of the camera.
At any rate, since we know the LM is not level (and don't forget to thank bigbrain for proving it), then we know that the plane defined by the LM's feet (if any) cannot tell us where the horizon line is, for either the perspective or the Moon. Even bigbrain argues that his method for finding the horizon only works for things that are known to be horizontal.
I'm sure that somewhere in the mass of data NASA has are tiltmeter readings from the particular landing with which bigbrain is so enchanted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 14:49:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
HORIZON, IN A PICTURE LIKE THIS, MUST BE RECTILINEAR
No. More than one reason can explain why this is not so. (1) In my last post I mentioned barrel distortion. I.e. it can be an artefact of the lens on the camera. (2). You're assuming that the surface of the moon is a perfect plane. It is not. This more or less sums up what I said in my last post (page 9), to which you failed to make any reply. For your convenience, I'll post the assumtions you have to make (with some additions):
1. the feet of the lander are all in the same plane (the plane that "defines" the horizon). If any of the feet is out of that plane, the point where the lines intercept will over- or undershoot the horizon. This could happen because (1) the lander is on a slope or (2) the lander is on rough terrain and the legs of the lander are "distended" unequal amounts (something it should be able to do, looking at the picture).
2. The four legs of the lander form a rectangle or a square with perfect 90 degree angles. (Note added: This does not necessarily need to be true. What has to be true is that the two lines drawn (each going through two legs) have to be parallell. I have no reason to believe that this is not so, and this is probably not relevant to your picture, but it is relevant to your understanding of perspective.)
3. The lens used on the camera is not prone to barrel distortion (it was a swedish camera, so I sincerely doubt that, considering the superiority of swedish engineering. Saying that, wide-angle lenses tend to (have to) be prone to this.
4. The surface of the moon is a perfect plane (or from the view of the camera is indistinguishable from one). (1) The extent to which a body the size of the moon violates this, I can't really comment on. (2) Mountains in the background might violate this assumption.
In order for your conclusion to be valid, these assumptions must be met. Until you can show this to be so, your conclusion is confuted.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 14:59:05 [Permalink]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dave W.
Even bigbrain argues that his method for finding the horizon only works for things that are known to be horizontal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT THIS OLD CROCK IS ABOUT VERTICAL AND SO ITS BASE IS ABOUT HORIZONTAL.
I don't think virtual astronauts were so idiot to land on a slope.
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 15:08:40 [Permalink]
|
My phychic abilities tell me that bigbrain will not (seriously) try to answer any of the confutations of his perspective misunderstandings. His last post "I don't think virtual astronauts were so idiot to land on a slope." sure seems to indicate this. I predict that he will now move on to another topic altogether, in order to give us something to confute. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. This was fun for a while, but boredom is starting to set in faster than "quick-set concrete".
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2005 : 19:16:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
BUT THIS OLD CROCK IS ABOUT VERTICAL AND SO ITS BASE IS ABOUT HORIZONTAL.
"About" isn't "precisely." Being off by a few tenths of a degree can have a remarkable impact on an image. Plus, it looks to me like the LM is tilted towards the camera. That'll mess up the location of the "horizon line" a lot more, but the LM will still look "about vertical."quote:
I don't think virtual astronauts were so idiot to land on a slope.
As you pointed out, they did land on a slope. The idea that there'd be a lot of perfectly flat ground on the Moon is ludicrous, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 00:16:25 [Permalink]
|
THIS IS MY DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE
THIS OLD CROCK IS ON A PLACE ABOUT HORIZONTAL AND THE HORIZON IS FAKE
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 03:06:53 [Permalink]
|
Still on about those silly pictures, eh? bb, are these all you have? Just a few pics with some lines added to some of them and rhetoric? Nothing else?
Ok, whaddya think; would you like to go into court with no more evidence than what you've produced thus far? I sure wouldn't -- the case would be lost before I even got my chair warm, and the judge and jury would be more than a little miffed that I wasted even that tiny bit of time. They would toss the whole thing and probably levie a fine on me, or even toss me in jail for premeditated jackassery.
I'd appeal, of course, all the way to the Supreme Court. There, I might stand a decent chance, as that court sometimes embraces jackassery far more critical than mine, deciding all too often in favor of the jackass. All it would take is something in the catagory of those photos and some pretty good histrionics.
I'd stand before The Supremos with my thumbs hooked into the armholes of my waistcoat, and orate in Bryanian eloquence of the magnifence of my evidencial photographs. I'd stalk about the courtroom, waving my hands and pointing out that the general public likes photographs of all sorts, and they like them enough enough that they keep and cherish them in alblums. Indeed, they hang them on their walls in frames of the finest, gilded wood assembled by master craftsman.
I'd produce graphs and drawings of multi-colored pies that mean nothing but are good talking points to demonstrate the towering ignorance of my opposition -- how sad and confused they are, these sticklers for facts; these.... these skeptics!
And the skeptical opposition would rise in it's turn and snivle, squeak and whine about the case having not been proven by my excellent presentation. Who knows from photographs, they'd cry? Where are the criminals, if such they be, that perpetrated this alledged hoax? Where is the documentation and who profited from it all? The evidence is not there, they'd claim, and they would demand that I be returned to the can and further charged with premeditated, aggravated jackassery resulting in tomfoolery.
I would easily counter this pathetic drivel by waving my pictures yet again and stating in stentorian tones that anyone who could entertain even the slightest of doubts as to the quality of my evidence was misled and probably stupid at best, and a communist at worst. My oppostiton would reply with a sneer and an appeal to common sense, what ever that might be.
At this point, those of the judges still awake would send us all home pending their decision. But however it came out, I would not merely rest upon my laruals, no. I would be hustling to get a book deal going before they could get me committd to a room with soft walls. The Great NASA Hoax, or Bigfoot on the moon! would doubtless be a best seller.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 04:09:57 [Permalink]
|
| What a tool. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 06:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
Hey, Valiant
YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT AT ANY COST.
You said some time ago
" ... I do not believe that if I were able to show you the craft in flight, (I can't. It's a ground based trainer.) you will answer any of the questions put to you ..."
"It's a ground based trainer"
HA, HA, HA
Hey, look at this
IT'S NOT A "GROUND BASED TRAINER"
IT CAN FLY.
SHOW ME THAT OLD CROCK IN FLIGHT
Say it with me..... It's being moved by the huge crane bigbrain was bitching about NASA building.
Anything else, liar? At least try to answer the questions at the front of this thread. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 07:59:15 [Permalink]
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by filthy
Still on about those silly pictures, eh? bb, are these all you have? Just a few pics with some lines added to some of them and rhetoric? Nothing else?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are these all you have?"
No, I've said many other things.
Don't you remember?
Look at this:
Instead of steering Cassini through the last path at 100,000 miles per hour, NASA's buffoons would have steered Cassini through that ridiculous spiral to increase velocity of the probe at max of 59,250 miles per hour.
Dear Filthy, answer with your head.
BUT THE EARTH RUNS ALREADY AT 65,000 MILES PER HOUR.
Respond, you, please.
sts60 with his calculations can only confuse your head
BUT THE TRUTH IS SIMPLEST: NASA'S BUFFOONS HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT EARTH VELOCITY: 65,000 MILES PER HOUR.
What do you think about? I'd like to read YOUR opinion.
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2005 : 08:51:06 [Permalink]
|
NASA's buffoons: "ALL COMETS HAVE THE FACE OF BAD ANIMALS"
In fact   
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
