Care to explain how the Soviets knew that the US can't have gone to the moon when they tracked them doing it?
There are hundreds of articles saying that this and this person did this and that in USSR and is able to support US claims or interests. This is a kind of Curriculum Vitae in Internet saying that this person is looking for job from abroad in space science. I know people who have done this. We can get reliable information from certain official sources, however. This article is not so serious and it does not really tell what was done and what were the results. Anyway, Russians know exactly what the facts on Apollo really are.
In other words, you can't explain it, other than to say all your countrypeople are lying, trying to get hired by US interests? And were doing that even when, under Soviet rule, they could not have been (without defecting)?
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #301 on Dec 15, 2011, 1:36pm »
As usual unsupported claims that NASA used technology far more sophisticated tnah Apollo to hoax the whole thing. No evidence of where and when this technology was developed and built or who used it.
Who designed all these computers and camera systems and remote probes? Who built them? Who tested them?
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 254 Location: Denham, England
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #302 on Dec 15, 2011, 3:55pm »
I'll give Tsialkovsky some credit, at least he proposed an actual theory, even if it was shot down in flames in the next post and he had to quietly back track from it.
I'll give Tsialkovsky some credit, at least he proposed an actual theory, even if it was shot down in flames in the next post and he had to quietly back track from it.
Most HBs don't even get that far.
And he is has good writing writhing skills as well. However his exercise in rational persuasion fails from its lack of an empirical basis. He can argue about the unseen angles dancing on the heads of Soviet pins forever, but until he proves the angels exist, they are just dancing in his imagination.
Well at least I didn't make it while criticizing his writing. That would have been embarrassing. Although it does have certain characteristics of a Freudian slip.
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #306 on Dec 15, 2011, 9:00pm »
I have prepared few Moon pictures by taking an Apollo Panoramic camera picture (digitizing it) and then by takin contour data from Moon maps (which have been done during the same Apollo mission) and from that material by displaying a 3D model (ground-level perspective), I have obtained a nice Moon view ... just little color added to the B&W landscape (in Apollo pics tha background is also B&W with added color hue). And then I added my color photos from earth to the foreground (me feeding a camel there). And nobody can see any problems in the picture. Today, I can use similar material from LRO or Selena (from USGS I can get digital data directly).
If I fix the foreground to the map coordinates x,y,z, I can fly up and around and see the landscape in correct perspective like in Google Earth. I did this just to show to my friends that photographs and videos cannot be used to verify anything. In early 70s digital image processing was a common toy ... of course it was mostly used e.g. in Landsat-1 image processing (-71 on).
In Langley they did not render pictures in 1960s but used analogic and digital material together - they had a huge Moon ball with camera railway and they had taken hundreds of photos from space vehicles in different positions (probably they were able to calculate the transformations digitally). But very soon they had image processing software comparable to later commercial products (CAD, GIS, "photoshop").
When Apollo-11 was said to land, there was an animation in CBS showing the Moon surface and many americans were sure that this is real even if "animation" was shown. Time code was added and Neil's talk was pre-recorded to the movie (later said to be real). If you watch the first Apollo videos from orbit, they are very similar and you can see that the background is sometimes jamming and foreground goes fluently.
In this film NASA is preparing an exact copy of Moon surface at a landing site. If you go to 17:00 you can see how they exploded the craters and there is a comparison of real moon photo from satellite and aerial photo from the staging field and they match exactly. To fix this landscape to the 3D data I could make just perfect moon photos and put my camel there, too.
"My feet they finally took root in the Earth, but I got me a nice little place in the stars, and I swear I found the key to the universe in the engine of an old parked car..."
I have prepared few Moon pictures by taking an Apollo Panoramic camera picture (digitizing it) and then by takin contour data from Moon maps (which have been done during the same Apollo mission) and from that material by displaying a 3D model (ground-level perspective), I have obtained a nice Moon view ... just little color added to the B&W landscape (in Apollo pics tha background is also B&W with added color hue). And then I added my color photos from earth to the foreground (me feeding a camel there). And nobody can see any problems in the picture. Today, I can use similar material from LRO or Selena (from USGS I can get digital data directly).
Call me doubtful. I've rendered the whole Moon and segments of lunar surface, using publicly available material. I have used both hand-created elevation data and translated DEMS. The largest issue to contend with was that no image base exists in which shadow information is absent -- although some patches on nearside are shot with a high solar angle, much of the lunar imagery contains shadowing that makes it useless as a diffuse channel.
In addition, although the elevation of the Moon is not that great, it is sufficient to generate give-away texture stretch.
In short, it is not possible to simply take available lunar imagery and construct believable lunar landscapes with it. You will need extensive touch-up, extrapolation, and generation of extra texture detail both in normal maps and in the diffuse, color, and specularity maps.
Oh, I'd also like to single out this comment: "in Apollo pics tha background is also B&W with added color hue"
Technically, any image that can be described in a CMYK color space is "B&W with added hue." But this sounds like what you are suggesting is that all the Apollo surface record was in fact B&W film, and the prints were hand-tinted before release. This is, well, nonsense.
If I fix the foreground to the map coordinates x,y,z, I can fly up and around and see the landscape in correct perspective like in Google Earth. I did this just to show to my friends that photographs and videos cannot be used to verify anything. In early 70s digital image processing was a common toy ... of course it was mostly used e.g. in Landsat-1 image processing (-71 on).
In Langley they did not render pictures in 1960s but used analogic and digital material together - they had a huge Moon ball with camera railway and they had taken hundreds of photos from space vehicles in different positions (probably they were able to calculate the transformations digitally). But very soon they had image processing software comparable to later commercial products (CAD, GIS, "photoshop").
When Apollo-11 was said to land, there was an animation in CBS showing the Moon surface and many americans were sure that this is real even if "animation" was shown. Time code was added and Neil's talk was pre-recorded to the movie (later said to be real). If you watch the first Apollo videos from orbit, they are very similar and you can see that the background is sometimes jamming and foreground goes fluently.
In this film NASA is preparing an exact copy of Moon surface at a landing site. If you go to 17:00 you can see how they exploded the craters and there is a comparison of real moon photo from satellite and aerial photo from the staging field and they match exactly. To fix this landscape to the 3D data I could make just perfect moon photos and put my camel there, too.
Are you this ignorant of the history of computer graphics?
Let's throw out a couple examples. The computer game Myst, using mere stills, with ambient channels and shadow mapping instead of ray tracing, still took months at a render farm.
Before that, the wireframe models of the broken antenna displayed by HAL to the astronauts on 2001 was exactly that; a wire frame model. Coat hanger wire, in fact. Painted white and shot on film.
The ability to generate hours of footage with full ray-tracing (proper shadows, anisotropic reflections, etc.) is just within this decade coming down to the point of being a small (but still not trivial) task.
Not only were the computers not up to it, much of the techniques had yet to be developed within your time frame. Carmack was still in school writing his first papers, for instance.
No; I'm sorry if you are able to whip up something off Google Sketchbook that fools your slack-jawed friends, but creating believable fake imagery of the Moon is today still a million-dollar task requiring an imaging team and a year or two to work (as evinced by the fact that not a single Hollywood movie has yet managed the trick). Go back to when these images were being shown life on worldwide TV and, well....I lack the adjectives to express how ludicrous that is.
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #309 on Dec 15, 2011, 10:13pm »
Here's some state of the art computer graphics apprently from 1972. And that is the only rendered imagry in the video, the stuff before is vectors and wire frames. This is some CGI from 1974. Even if one were to assume that NASA could somehow have access to better than state of the art computer graphics, nothing in that generation could even remotely compare to the detail, lighting and texture of the moon as seen in Apollo imagery and video.
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #310 on Dec 16, 2011, 12:04am »
I am old enough to remember some of the Apollo mission coverage. None of the NASA animations looked "real" at all; they were clearly just that - animations.
Apart from your wild claims about image processing and rendering state of the art back then, your claims about LM maneuvering, how rockets are "steered" in general, Apollo docking mechanisms, lunar sample provenance, and availability of Apollo images in the '70s are all still wrong, too.
And the notion that the lunar surface EVAs could have been faked on Earth is just laughable, unless you can show us a vacuum chamber a few kilometers wide, equipped with artificial gravity - yes, we have thought about what it would take to try faking the EVA imagery sequences.
From the university where I taught computer graphics in the mid-1990s. That was state of the art for anyone.
If anyone is claiming NASA had some "magical" computer graphics technology in 1969 to render photorealistic images and physically-based animation, then that's just comically wrong. Really, really, really wrong. As an expert, I can categorically state the Apollo film and video was not produced by computer animation.
Joined: Nov 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 375 Location: Old Lyme, CT
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #313 on Dec 16, 2011, 1:49am »
Soon the argument will be the gubmint had the super-duper high tech stuff.
In the Navy we were stuck with the AN/PSN-11 portable GPS receiver (we pronounced it Pissin' Eleven but not out of a sense of humor) while all the civilian ships were using Garmins.
"Show us a photo of either the descent or the ascent rockets firing and the exhaust plume. And exactly how does a space craft fly when "The engine is NOT ON"" -Stelios at the DIF Google search this site
Re: photos on NASA don't make sense « Reply #314 on Dec 16, 2011, 1:50am »
I knew this claim was bogus from personal observation, but I am a layman in that realm, so thanks to nomuse and JayUtah for saying all those experty words about it.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s37/b2220128/achnaten.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i44.tinypic.com/10z8brk.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/07/03/03jul_mercuryupdate_resources/256981main_caloris_color_lg_strip.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/117/2/a/Raven_over_Neo_Venus_by_Ravens_Cry.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Animals/Dogs/space_dog.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.bautforum.com/signaturepics/sigpic31082_1.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i817.photobucket.com/albums/zz99/Chew64/Chew/me.jpg "[avatar]")