More NASA Oopsie-daisies!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That is the expected path, not a rotation while on the expected path.

At the beginning of the video, is the elephants head higher or the tail (in the video frame).
At the end of the video, is the elephants head higher or the tail (in the video frame).
If there is a difference, then the elephant rotated in the video frame.
If there is no difference, then you seriously need to see a psychologist.
If you see a unicorn not an elephant, try cutting down on the mushrooms.

Originally posted by twhitehead
At the beginning of the video, is the elephants head higher or the tail (in the video frame).
At the end of the video, is the elephants head higher or the tail (in the video frame).
If there is a difference, then the elephant rotated in the video frame.
If there is no difference, then you seriously need to see a psychologist.
If you see a unicorn not an elephant, try cutting down on the mushrooms.

And entirely 100% of the illusion of rotation--- as opposed to legitimate and actual rotation--- that the elephant appears to affect is attributed to the change in distance from the camera, as opposed to an object which does not significantly change in distance... at least, not enough to cause the appearance of rotation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And entirely 100% of the illusion of rotation--- as opposed to legitimate and actual rotation--- that the elephant appears to affect is attributed to the change in distance from the camera, as opposed to an object which does not significantly change in distance... at least, not enough to cause the appearance of rotation.

So now you can see the rotation?
Earlier you denied seeing it.
Which is it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The elephant would not appear to rotate in the least.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But that's neither here or in another spot: the elephant doesn't rotate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That elephant clearly did not rotate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Walking past: check.
Rotating: what are you on?

Deluded or not, you're saying you see something that simply isn't there.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's review.

You do see an elephant rotating, although it clearly isn't.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yet another posts a picture of an elephant walking past the camera and imagines some mysterious rotation which doesn't exist...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And entirely 100% of the illusion of rotation--- as opposed to legitimate and actual rotation--- that the elephant appears to affect is attributed to the change in distance from the camera, as opposed to an object which does not significantly change in distance... at least, not enough to cause the appearance of rotation.

Wow, did that take you long to spot.

Now given that you couldn't see an elephant right in front of your nose, don't you think you may be mistaken about the moon?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]The elephant would not appear to rotate in the least.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But that's neither here or in another spot: the elephant doesn't rotate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That elephant clearly did not rotate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wal ...[text shortened]... see an elephant right in front of your nose, don't you think you may be mistaken about the moon?

There's a difference between an illusion of a rotation and an actual rotation, yes?
You claimed the elephant rotated, and it clearly doesn't.
Are you now claiming the elephant also became elongated, as it appears to become as it passes directly in front of the camera, too?
Silly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There's a difference between an illusion of a rotation and an actual rotation, yes?
You claimed the elephant rotated, and it clearly doesn't.
Are you now claiming the elephant also became elongated, as it appears to become as it passes directly in front of the camera, too?
Silly.

There is a difference between being crazy and being stupid. Unfortunately you are both.
I claimed it appears to rotate because of the perspective of the camera.

You didn't fail to note that fact because your response clearly uses the word 'appear':

The elephant would not appear to rotate in the least.

Sorry, but a feeble attempt at pretending to have misunderstood will not get you out of this one.

You denied denied denied then finally admitted you were wrong. Either you were initially lying or you learnt something new.

Now, given that there is an illusion that the elephant rotates, do you accept that the rotation of the moon in the YouTuber's timelapse may be an illusion created by perspective or are you to stubborn to see the connection?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a difference between being crazy and being stupid. Unfortunately you are both.
I claimed it appears to rotate because of the perspective of the camera.

You didn't fail to note that fact because your response clearly uses the word 'appear':

The elephant would not appear to rotate in the least.

Sorry, but a feeble attempt at ...[text shortened]... imelapse may be an illusion created by perspective or are you to stubborn to see the connection?

I'm never too stubborn for anything, but thanks for looking out.

The moon is on its path.
The elephant is on its path.
While on its path, the moon's face rotates clockwise and then counter-clockwise, without leaving its path.
While on its path, the elephant does not appear to move either clockwise or counter-clockwise, but instead simply moves closer to the camera, and then further away, its shape changed as a function of the camera.
The moon never changed shape, did not wobble out of its path.
The only changes to the elephant were a result of camera function were ones which his shape appeared to change... but by no means the rotation seen in the moon's face.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm never too stubborn for anything,

I beg to differ given your attitude towards the elephant.

While on its path, the elephant does not appear to move either clockwise or counter-clockwise,

Yet earlier you said:

And entirely 100% of the illusion of rotation

Either the elephant appears to rotate or it does not. Please watch the video again, noting the position of the head throughout the video and the position of the tail throughout the video.

I did suggest you make a timelapse, but you were too lazy, or simply didn't want to learn anything.

The moon never changed shape, did not wobble out of its path.
The only changes to the elephant were a result of camera function were ones which his shape appeared to change... but by no means the rotation seen in the moon's face.
I have not claimed that the moons path was identical to that of the elephants. Try and pay attention. All I wish to establish is that apparent rotation is, in part a function of the position of the camera and does not necessarily reflect the real movement of the object (actually even 'real movement' doesn't make sense without talking about an observation point, but we will leave that for now, baby steps.)
When you have understood that much, we can look at exactly what apparent rotation to expect in what circumstance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I beg to differ given your attitude towards the elephant.

[b]While on its path, the elephant does not appear to move either clockwise or counter-clockwise,

Yet earlier you said:

And entirely 100% of the illusion of rotation

Either the elephant appears to rotate or it does not. Please watch the video again, noting the position ...[text shortened]... erstood that much, we can look at exactly what apparent rotation to expect in what circumstance.[/b]

While I can appreciate your desperate attempts at insult, we both know you employ the pettiness when you have nothing.
The two videos cannot be equated for several reasons.
The video of the moon is stabilized and its rotation is not based on its movement toward or away from the camera.
In order to consider the elephant as rotating, one would have to assume the frame of the camera is the reference.
By that idiocy, the street, the buildings, the entire space around the cameraman, would be considered in some type of warp.
The moon is rotating from its own position; the elephant is not.

The only laziness here is yours: you are offering evidence, it is your responsibility to present it, you should not expect others to do your work for you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While I can appreciate your desperate attempts at insult, we both know you employ the pettiness when you have nothing.

While I appreciate your desperate attempts at trying to avoid the facts, we both know that you have nothing.

The two videos cannot be equated for several reasons.
Nobody has claimed the two videos can be equated. Do try to keep up.

The video of the moon is stabilized and its rotation is not based on its movement toward or away from the camera.
How do you know this? And is the moon moving at all in relation to the camera?

In order to consider the elephant as rotating, one would have to assume the frame of the camera is the reference.
Yes, the frame of the camera is the reference, given that I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I am talking about apparent rotation in the frame of the camera. You really do have difficulty understanding English when you don't want to admit something don't you?

By that idiocy,
You have just admitted to it. How is it 'idiocy'?

The moon is rotating from its own position; the elephant is not.
How do you know the moon is rotating? All you have is the frame of the camera. Nothing more.

The only laziness here is yours: you are offering evidence, it is your responsibility to present it, you should not expect others to do your work for you.
I am offering you the opportunity to learn. If you are uninterested in learning that is your problem.
I am not 'offering evidence' at all. I am giving you the opportunity to learn something about perspective. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, you remain an ignorant fool.

Originally posted by twhitehead
While I appreciate your desperate attempts at trying to avoid the facts, we both know that you have nothing.

[b]The two videos cannot be equated for several reasons.
Nobody has claimed the two videos can be equated. Do try to keep up.

The video of the moon is stabilized and its rotation is not based on its movement toward or away from the ca ...[text shortened]... something about perspective. Take it or leave it. If you leave it, you remain an ignorant fool.

You're making it harder than it has to be.

In the elephant video--- if you're considering this rotation--- the entire field rotates: elephant, street, buildings, world.
Why?
Because the frame of reference, i.e., the camera, moves.
Had the camera been stationary, the elephant's head would have appeared in the lower left corner, traversed diagonally up and to the left, grown exponentially, filled the entire camera field, and then, having filled the entirety of the frame, exited out the upper right corner, followed by the body and then eventually the ass--- your favorite part, from what you've said.
Thus, no rotation.
Moving the camera to follow him is the only thing which could make it appear to rotate, but then you have to say the whole world is rotating with him, when it's really nothing more than the camera changing its orientation.

In the moon video, there exists no change in shape, no camera movement which prompts any rotation.
There is open space behind the moon, so the entire night sky is its frame--- and the frame doesn't move, nor does it appear to warp: the same amount of sky and moon in every frame.

Back to the elephant video.
Drawing back ten feet and using the same method as used here, the whole world would have to still rotate in order to consider the elephant rotating.
Pull back far enough to the point the camera can take in the entire scene: entrance on the left, exit on the right, without requiring any panning, and you see the scene how the mind sees it, i.e., an elephant slowly walking past, no rotation.

The only way to not see the moon rotate as it is on its path through the night sky?
To be so far away from it, you are unable to make out its distinctive markings.

The camera panning after the moon did not cause the appearance of rotation and it is a silly child's game to suggest such is the case.

But you appear to enjoy silly children's games, the kind where you pick a word, continually repeat it until it no longer triggers a meaning immediately in your head.
You eventually tire of saying it, get distracted by something shiny, and 'fork' eventually returns to its rightful place in your mind as something you put in your mouth when you're not eating cereal.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're making it harder than it has to be.

In the elephant video--- if you're considering this rotation--- the entire field rotates: elephant, street, buildings, world.
Why?
Because the frame of reference, i.e., the camera, moves.
Had the camera been stationary, the elephant's head would have appeared in the lower left corner, traversed diago ...[text shortened]... ts rightful place in your mind as something you put in your mouth when you're not eating cereal.

Getting back to the moon issue of the photo taken from a million miles out, there would only be a rotation of a couple of degrees and I DEFY anyone to see that little rotation in those photo's. From a milliom miles out, the res of the camera is not good enough to see such detail. So dissing the whole thing because of no apparent movement is simply more politicizing not science. They want to make a point based on ZERO science and THAT is called politics, pure and simple. The tobacco industry tried that, so did big oil. They were caught out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're making it harder than it has to be.

I am not the one who spent post after post denying he could see any rotation at all, then admitted it, then denied it, and is now admitting it again.

In the elephant video--- if you're considering this rotation--- the entire field rotates: elephant, street, buildings, world.
Why?
Because the frame of reference, i.e., the camera, moves.
Took you ages to figure that out didn't it. Surprising given that that is exactly what I said from the very beginning. Boy are you a dense one.

Moving the camera to follow him is the only thing which could make it appear to rotate,
And the camera did move, yet you denied post after post after post being able to see it. You truly are blinded by your delusions.

.. but then you have to say the whole world is rotating with him,
Now you are just being stupid. I do not have to say the whole world is rotating, only that it appears to rotate - which it does as you can well see if you bother to open your eyes.

....when it's really nothing more than the camera changing its orientation.
And slooowly it is starting to dawn on you.

In the moon video, there exists no change in shape, no camera movement which prompts any rotation.
I know you are stupid, but are you really that stupid? So you are saying the moon stayed in one spot in the sky for five hours?

There is open space behind the moon, so the entire night sky is its frame---
Nonsense. The frame in the video is just around the moon, it does not show the 'entire night sky' by a long shot.

and the frame doesn't move, nor does it appear to warp: the same amount of sky and moon in every frame.
Which might make a thinking person ask why that is given that the moon moved during the 5 hours of the timelapse.

Back to the elephant video.
Drawing back ten feet and using the same method as used here, the whole world would have to still rotate in order to consider the elephant rotating.
Pull back far enough to the point the camera can take in the entire scene: entrance on the left, exit on the right, without requiring any panning, and you see the scene how the mind sees it, i.e., an elephant slowly walking past, no rotation.
Wow, you are finally starting to get it (I hope). Given that I said just that pages ago, why did you fail to understand it back then?

The camera panning after the moon did not cause the appearance of rotation and it is a silly child's game to suggest such is the case.
You will note that I didn't suggest that such is the case.

But you appear to enjoy silly children's games, the kind where you pick a word, continually repeat it until it no longer triggers a meaning immediately in your head.
You eventually tire of saying it, get distracted by something shiny, and 'fork' eventually returns to its rightful place in your mind as something you put in your mouth when you're not eating cereal.
I see you are hallucinating again. Let me know when the latest batch of drugs wears off so we can continue discussing the moon and perspective.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Getting back to the moon issue of the photo taken from a million miles out, there would only be a rotation of a couple of degrees and I DEFY anyone to see that little rotation in those photo's.

I can see it. Obviously you need to take the photos and overlay them on top of each other, but when you do, the rotation is measurable.

From a milliom miles out, the res of the camera is not good enough to see such detail.
Actually it most definitely is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can see it. Obviously you need to take the photos and overlay them on top of each other, but when you do, the rotation is measurable.

[b]From a milliom miles out, the res of the camera is not good enough to see such detail.
Actually it most definitely is.[/b]

Do share your work.

Maybe you can show how the clouds move, too.