BBob, please acknowledge. Don't continue the fight simply for the sake of fighting.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-11-05 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then answer the questions. Cut and paste the answers from the link.

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

Answer: They had no explanation other than SOMETHING HAPPENED.

The evidence seems pretty clear that it is some form of smudge.

What evidence are you talking about? Cut and paste the evidence you are talking about.

Does it really matter how it changes shape in the process of being transformed from a still photo to a moving image?

Yes--absolutely--it matters. It is impossible to do on a still photo unless done purposely, and it would have to be shot frame by frame---not just the pics with the puff, but every frame of the sequence would have to be doen frame by frame. I doubt either NASA, or NOVA would do such a thing. It isn't a still photo. It is taken from film. The whole sequence on the DVD TO the Moon is only 2 seconds long, and the puff is only four frames. The astronauts are reading from the bible as the sequence goes by--no mention of it is made in the DVD.

Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. It's a smudge. End of story.

The end of story comes when the questions are answered. Smudges are easily explained---so--explain.

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

It seems you are the one who can't see the forest for the trees. Let's see what you said in your first post.

here is finally an intelligent analysis and explanation for how the image came into existence.

So how about cutting and pasting that intelligent analysis and explanation. You seem to have reversed yourself with saying such an explanation isn't necessary--such intelligent analysis doesn't matter.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-11-05 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag

Letusprey

I have read it--and now that you have shown that you have read it too, answer the questions.

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

"Evidently, the NOVA director had the still photograph put up on an easel or frame and then zoomed in on the image.

There is no evidence that this is a still picture, other than this guy saying it is a still picture.

That creates an illusion of motion, when of course you cannot get real motion from a single photograph.

You can zoom on a still picture, and it will give the illusion of movement----agreed. You can not get real motion from a still picture---agreed. Still, nothing that shows this is a still picture other than him saying it is a still picture.

It then becomes clear that the "puff of smoke" must be something that happened during the NOVA filming, and is not on the original image.

There is IS!!! The EXPLANATION--"something that happened" but what was it that happened? There is no explanation at all.

After all, you can't get a changing puff of smoke from a still photograph!

True--you can't get a changing puff of smoke from a still photograph---conclusion---it isn't a still photograph.

In fact, with a little searching (and one false start) we were able to find the exact photograph used by the NOVA people. It is labeled "AS08-14-2393", and I show it in full at the top of this page. For comparison, below are two pictures side-by-side: an image from the L.E.M.U.R. site (which was in turn sent to them by the "Electric Space Craft" publication), and the scanned Apollo image taken from the Lunar and Planetary Institute archive (clicking on the images takes you to the respective webpages).

The dot that is the actual smokestack isn't on those pics either, let alone the "smudge". How easy would it be for NASA to have erased that dot of a smokestack after they found out about the To the Moon video? Which explanation is easier to explain---NASA doctored the original photo--or how that "smudge happened to show up on four frames where the dot of the smokestack happened to be in that 2 second video. If you choose the latter---answer the questions:

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

Just to drive the point home, I overlapped the two images using a frame of the LPI image that was not cropped as closely (it shows more of the original image) and made the L.E.M.U.R./ESC image a little transparent. Again, the features line up very well. I have no doubts at all these two represent the same image.
Frame showing two images superposed

Showing two doctored superimposed pictures proves nothing.

Since the original image is clearly a still photograph, there cannot be movement in it.

The picture they are showing comes from a series of pictures showing essentially the same scene---just like a film would do. All film and video is composed of still pictures.

Since the L.E.M.U.R./ESC case for a puff of smoke is based on movement, their conclusion must be incorrect.

Since there IS movement, Bad Astronomy must be incorrect. Here is the TRUE sequence released by NASA and the pic AS08-14-2393 is clearly in the middle of a filmed sequence--a sequence easily manipulated by NASA after the video of To the Moon was shown to have the anomoly. Do you think one of the astronauts was up there clicking away on his Hasselblad for that sequence, or was there a 16 millimeter movie camera taking the pictures?

Note that this is very different than the reason the Apollo flag appeared to "blow in the wind". That was simply inertia in the flag cloth; this smoke has no such excuse.

The flag blowing in the wind is easily explained as they say---it is not true that the "smoke" does not have a reason as shown, if the ejecta was forced out with gas, it would have reacted exactly as shown in the video.

So what is that puff then? Instead of a giant object a mile high blowing out smoke, it is almost certainly a smudge of some kind on the NOVA footage.

Almost...a smudge---of some kind. Fine--answer the questions:

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

Perhaps it was on the camera used to make the zoomed sequence,

Perhaps it was on the lens. Fine, answer the questions:

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the lens? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the lens? How did they explain the smudge fading from the lens? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the lens? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from the lens in 1/6th second?

or something else that happened during production.

There it is again. The EXPLANATION!!! Something else that happened during production---LIKE WHAT???

But one thing we know for sure is that it is not a real sense of it being a object on the Moon, and therefore certainly not a giant smokestack! "

How do we know that? What was said that shows us that we know that. I don't see it. How about one of you that does see it show me how we know that. If you know that, then answer the questions:

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?