PDA

View Full Version : Really cool German debunking site (it praises Clavius)



The Bad Debunker
2002-Jul-26, 07:02 PM
Check out this really cool German debunking site (written IN German) made by Uwe Rexin from Greifswald:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de

It links to both Bad Astronomy and Clavius:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/links/index_links.htm

.. saying about Clavius:

"Sehr gute und besonders ausführliche Argumente gegen die Mondlandungslüge"

"Very good and really thorough arguments against the Moon Hoax"

I absolutely love his layout. He has two columns. In the first one, he quotes the HBs - and in the second column, he then post the rebuttals.

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de

If you want to send an email to Uwe, this is his email:

info@mondlandung.pcdl.de

PS: I know that Harald is from Germany. What do you say, Harald ? Pretty good website, isn´t it ? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

DON´T forget to visit some of Uwe´s pages on shadows ! In true Jay-style, Uwe has recreated some of the shadows.

Check out the following picture recreated by Uwe. If that picture had been taken on the lunar surface, the HBs would have cried "foul", wouldn´t they ??? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/berg.jpg


And to rebut the "shadows must always run parallel", Uwe took this picture using two pencils:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte2.jpg


You can see more of his shadow-experiments at:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/index_schatten.htm

(Click on the thumbnails in the RIGHT column)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Debunker on 2002-07-26 15:49 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jul-26, 07:36 PM
Not only has he recreated the shadows, it almost looks like he did it in Utah.

The Bad Debunker
2002-Jul-26, 07:41 PM
Hi Jay !

Shortly after your post, I added a really neat pic, where Uwe used two pencils.

Check it out ! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

AstroMike
2002-Jul-26, 07:45 PM
Can someone translate it? I don't speak German.

JayUtah
2002-Jul-26, 07:51 PM
http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/fake_tree.jpg

This is one of my peeve pictures. It's a photo David Percy uses to try to prove that shadows cast by parallel objects (i.e., the tree trunks) should produce parallel shadows no matter what the view angle.

Three trees and two yellow lines. The yello line on the left is drawn between the tree trunks. It's meant to indicate that the leftmost two trees cast shadows that appear parallel in the projected image. But Percy just splits the difference in the shadow angles. Cover up the yellow line, so that it won't fool your eye, and look at the the shadows of the leftmost two tree trunks. They are actually at a noticeably different angle. But since Percy has carefully drawn his reference line right down the middle, neither trunk shadow differs noticeably from the reference line. At casual inspection it appears the trunks and the line are all parallel.

Consider now the right two trees. The farthest one away -- the rightmost -- is too far away for us to see its shadow. But the third (from the left) tree should cast a distinct shadow. Unfortunately Percy has drawn his reference line over the top of the actual shadow!. This is consummate fraud. The viewer just assumes the shadow is under the yellow line, lying in the direction the line indicates.

What is Percy hiding?

Well, it's obvious: he's hiding the fact that his proof photos don't prove at all what he claims is true about shadows.

The funny thing is that you can look at the shadows of the park benches in the background. The left bench casts a shadow which appears to lie roughly toward the viewer. The right bench casts a shadow which is noticeably sheared to the right in the image. This is excatly what the laws of perspective dictate will happen in this case.

And yes, I have brought this to Mr. Percy's attention.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-07-26 15:53 ]</font>

CzC
2002-Jul-26, 07:51 PM
On 2002-07-26 15:45, AstroMike wrote:
Can someone translate it? I don't speak German.



Just got done reading it using babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/). Still kind of reads like 'broken English, but you get the gist of it.

CzC

JayUtah
2002-Jul-26, 08:30 PM
The two-pencil shot is kind of interesting because normally you would not expect the shadows to appear to converge as they moved into the foreground. Normally the extension of parallel lines into the foreground will cause them to appear to diverge, as do the cracks in the pavement.

But this brings up an interesting phenomenon. If the dark pencil were tilted toward the camera slightly, it would produce the shadows in the photo without revealing that the pencils are not, in fact, parallel. This is why you can't casually synthesize reliable affine-space information from photographs.

David Hall
2002-Jul-26, 08:32 PM
On 2002-07-26 15:51, JayUtah wrote:

But Percy just splits the difference in the shadow angles. Cover up the yellow line, so that it won't fool your eye, and look at the the shadows of the leftmost two tree trunks. They are actually at a noticeably different angle. But since Percy has carefully drawn his reference line right down the middle, neither trunk shadow differs noticeably from the reference line.

A little off-topic, but I've noticed that Hoagland and his group does the exact same thing with the supposedly "perfect" angles of his martian pyramids. He takes these hills and superimposes lines that show all these geometric shapes, but if you look closely you can see that the lines often don't follow the landmarks very well at all. They are just close enough to fool the eye. I also suspect that if you measure his shapes exactly, you'll find they aren't quite as symmetrical as they first appear.

It's certainly not a rare technique among cranks. The only question is whether they are doing it deliberately or whether they just really can't see how inaccurate they really are.

The Bad Debunker
2002-Jul-26, 08:36 PM
The dark pencil is indeed tilted towards the camera.

But that is exactly the point. One must never forget that a photo is a two-dimensional version of a three-dimensional world.

These are the same pencils - from a different angle:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte3.jpg

And from a THIRD angel:

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte1.jpg

And here is the original picture (so that you don´t have to go to the top of this page):

http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/schatten/bilder/bleistifte2.jpg


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Debunker on 2002-07-26 16:47 ]</font>

kucharek
2002-Jul-29, 06:41 AM
On 2002-07-26 15:02, The Bad Debunker wrote:
PS: I know that Harald is from Germany. What do you say, Harald ? Pretty good website, isn´t it ?

Yep, saw it a few weeks ago. The author uses pretty nice down-to-earth (pun intended) arguments and photos to make his point. It seems, one of the drivin' forces behind doing the website was getting rid of some tension induced by some nutty Austrian<supp>*</sup> Usenet poster, who often clutters up the german spaceflight newsgroup with silly stuff like the moonlandings were faked, things don't burn up when re-entering, chimneys don't work like current physics explain it and other stuff.
Like most others I stopped relying to his posting, because he nearly never argues. His usual reply is something like: "You are wrong and I know why! Who else knows why? Who else knows why?"

Harald

<sup>*</sup>This time, it's a joiner, not a painter...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-07-29 02:42 ]</font>

Chemist
2002-Jul-29, 12:33 PM
We can argue all about shadows with the HB's until were blue in the face, but the clinching proof in my opinion is the rocks that the Apollo missions brought back. Case closed.

Andrew
2002-Jul-29, 01:46 PM
Ah, but they "simply" used unmanned probes to bring those samples back from the moon.

JayUtah
2002-Jul-29, 03:36 PM
The Soviets were able to recover only less than half a kilogram of indiscriminate lunar surface material by this method, over three missions. Some of the individual Apollo lunar rocks already exceed this limit. Besides, the Apollo lunar surface materials comprise specially prepared samples such as core tubes which would be highly problematic to extract and return via automated or remote control technology.

Andrew
2002-Jul-29, 04:18 PM
Jay, that was only because the Soviets lacked alien technology reverse engineered from the Roswell UFOs.

JayUtah
2002-Jul-29, 04:30 PM
So why couldn't we have used this reverse-engineered alien technology to land a man on the moon?

Andrew
2002-Jul-29, 04:55 PM
Because of the instantly lethal Van Allen Belt radiation and the unpredictability of solar particle events (as pointed out by noted experts in the field, Aulis).

The Roswell aliens were impervious to radiation so they didn't need any shielding, leaving NASA engineers no way of overcoming this obstacle.

You'll have to buy my book and video for the rest. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

SeanF
2002-Jul-29, 05:02 PM
I thought it was because the aliens never really landed on Earth - their version of NASA just hoaxed it for political purposes.

Therefore, the only technology available for NASA to reverse engineer was hoax technology! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jul-29, 05:06 PM
I see, so this hypothetical alien technology, for which there is no proof. provides just enough help to make the conspiracy theory true, but not enough to make the traditional version true.

You want to sell me a book and video? Does it come with a Brooklyn Bridge?

Andrew
2002-Jul-29, 05:15 PM
Jay, you're just letting the facts get in the way of a (not so /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif ) good story.

JayUtah
2002-Jul-29, 07:36 PM
I've got some good stories too. And mine are true! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Waarthog
2002-Jul-29, 08:21 PM
It amazes me how much mileage our modern pop culture, conspiracy types, and UFOnuts get out of the wreckage of a New York University Balloon train experiment. Especially since the proponents of the Crashed Saucer Hypothesis can't agree on the details or to what use the technology was put.

Chip
2002-Jul-29, 08:38 PM
On 2002-07-26 15:02, The Bad Debunker wrote:
Check out this really cool German debunking site (written IN German) made by Uwe Rexin from Greifswald: http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de


I went to "Google - Translate This Page" and got a kind-of computerized English translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.mondlandung.pcdl.de/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmondlandung%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D UTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

(Hit the "Back button" if you get "Page Cannot be Found" - the page pops up on my computer at least.)
Good pictures illustrating shadow lines. As Jay Utah pointed out, looks like Uwe has been to the Southwest! Doesn't look as green as the Rhineland!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-07-29 16:44 ]</font>

johnwitts
2002-Jul-29, 09:06 PM
The first page translated (sort of). I don't know whether a translation breaks the BA's rules, do I'll only do the first page to let people know what they're in for!!!

Moon-landing
or
Moon-landing lie?

I pursued the first manned moon-landing at the screen as 10-year old strained and like first humans the moon entered.
By coincidence I discovered more sides and report/messages, which speak of a gigantic production by NASA in the InterNet ever.

When I was concerned somewhat more near with the proofs of the authors, I was astonished.
However less over the soundness of the indications than rather over the way the proof.
Speculations, assumptions, wrong statements, statements, tendencious interpretations...

On their sides everything, not the own theory is regarded critically.

With my sides I do not pursue the goal of proving the moon-landing taken place after my view. I would like to dedicate myself rather to the arguments of the advocates of a moon-landing lie and/or a falsification.

This side is still in the structure and is gradually completed.


My head hurts!!!

Chip
2002-Jul-30, 04:46 PM
On 2002-07-29 17:06, johnwitts wrote:
"...My head hurts!!!
Yeah. That's what I meant by a "kind of computerized English." Nevertheless, if one perhaps employs the skill of reading between the lines, you can get the gist of it. (Or just read with a German/English dictionary.) (Kidding!)