|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 13, 2007 21:48:43 GMT -4
I think we can reduce conspiromaniac a little slack here. After all, if he looked at the web services to translate certain things become clear. It is clear, however, that he decided to rather strange poetic style express their views. While that in normal conditions can be clever, in this case only serves to confuse you and your goal post. I do not understand much of what he said. BertL understand it only as a fine for some reason, although Dutch is not related to Russia!
(Translated from English to Russian to English using Google Translate. Just to show the difficulties in this matter. )
Or as Juliet once said: Tisza, but your name is my enemy; You assume, though not Montague. What's Montague? Ironically hands, or feet, In addition to hands or person nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, some other names! What in the name? what we call a rose In any other file name as the sweet smell; So would Romeo if he This is not Romeo, Save expensive that perfection, which he must Unnamed. Romeo, or your name, And for that name which is not part of you Take all myself.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 13, 2007 22:09:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 14, 2007 3:32:22 GMT -4
Basically, all of what you say is hard to understand because of the bad use of English. As judged by your messages, you understand beautifully me. If you not comprehensible my English, we can speak on Russian language. Using the video we used, there is nothing we can be accurate about; that is why I listed a number of points of why things are not accurate. Let's summon it up: Because of the low quality video, we do not know the exact number of frames the dust took to fall. Because of the low framerate, we do not know how long it took for the dust to fall even if we were to know for sure how many frames it took. Do you agree with this? Even 5 frames per second it is enough that to see the difference between the first numeral of the speedup on the Moon and Earth. Moon - 1,… m/c2; Earth - 9,…m/c2 Do you understand the difference between numerals 1 and 9? How much you necessary signs after comma that to see the difference between numerals 1 and 9? However, despite these two systematic mistakes in your analysis, you used accurate measurements of the time the dust took to fall and the height from which it fell, which you used to calculate the apparent gravity. Do you agree that these measurements are not accurate and reliable, given the low quality and low framerate of the video? Do you agree that, therefore, your calculations are not reliable? You do not like the quality video for calculation of the speedup of the free fall. But you like it as video material NASA, proving stay astronauts on the Moon. Why do you certain that this film has shoot on the Moon? After all, in your opinion, video such ill-conditioned that nothing will not discern and will not consider. You have said that american were on the Moon, and you believe in this as in the god.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 14, 2007 3:59:35 GMT -4
.... I put a little arrow on the video to show where I think the right-most edge of the right boot .... I say about left leg of the astronaut!
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 14, 2007 4:00:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 14, 2007 4:06:30 GMT -4
You have said that american were on the Moon, and you believe in this as in the god. I hope this works... (translated to Russian using AltaVista Babel Fish)Мы верим этому потому что будет множество легко подтверженного доказательства доказывая что человек пошел к луне по мере того как история показывает. Доказательство против его обеспечило теми не верят легко оспорено и научно и аналитически доказано неправильно. Мы верим ему потому что было бы невозможно держать уровень засекреченности необходимо доказать конспирацияо. Мы верим ему потому что, в конце, далеко легке пойти к луне что она должна фальсифицировать ее. And in case the text did not come out right here in the post above: (English translation available upon request.)Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 14, 2007 4:20:49 GMT -4
After doing the back and forth translation that Ginnie did earlier using Google, I think that Google translates a bit better than Babel Fish. So here is the Google-ized version of my previous post: Мы считаем, что это потому что есть много легко проверить доказательств, что человек пошел на Луну, как показывает история. Доказательства против него, представленной теми, кто не думаю, что это легко спорной и научно и аналитически оказались неправы. Мы считаем, что, поскольку невозможно было бы сохранить уровень секретности необходимо доказать сговор. Мы считаем, что поскольку, в конце концов, гораздо легче перейти на Луну, что фальсифицировать его. Once again, if the text above did not come out right, try this: Cz
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 14, 2007 10:07:17 GMT -4
After doing the back and forth translation that Ginnie did earlier using Google, I think that Google translates a bit better than Babel Fish. So here is the Google-ized version of my previous post: ............................................................................................. Once again, if the text above did not come out right, try this: Cz Many thanks. You have convinced me that I do not cost to change my translator. He such sh*t either as all rest translators. These automatic translators give the gibberish unconnected sense. If you have no at least initial preparation on language that deal hopeless. But I have caught the general sense of your text. Signifies, and you understand my. This gives confidence for me. And else, no or one infallible proof that american were on the Moon!
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 14, 2007 11:18:02 GMT -4
So it is impossible, all must be equally considered: 44 frames = 1+(14/30) s = 1.47s Inaccuracy*: (1/30) * 2 = (2/30)s = 0.07s d = .5gt² g = 1.622m/s² t = 0.73 (lower bound) 0.8 (upper bound) d_low = 0.44 meter d_up = 0.52 meter So it is impossible,Inaccuracy is added and deprived. t =(1.47-0.07)/2= 0.7 (lower bound) t =(1.47+0.07)/2=0.77 (upper bound) d_low = 0.40 meter d_up = 0.48 meter Dust fall calculations:Start: 353 frames into clip End: 376 frames Time for full fall: 23 frames = (23/30)s = 0.77s Inaccuracy*: 0.13s (as calculated before) No, Inaccuracy - 0.07s Time for full fall: 0.77s (lower bound) 0.9s (upper bound) No, t - 0.7s(lower bound) and t - 0.84s (upper bound) d = .5gt² g = 1.622m/s² t = 0.39 (lower bound) 0.45 (upper bound) Stop! Here is big mistake! The soil it is impossible consider as person. The soil makes the free fall, only falling downwards. The soil, moving upwards, is coupled with leg of the astronaut so this part of time to consider it is impossible! I find no sense check your calculation further.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 14, 2007 11:49:21 GMT -4
So it is impossible, all must be equally considered: 44 frames = 1+(14/30) s = 1.47s Inaccuracy*: (1/30) * 2 = (2/30)s = 0.07s Wrong. The first and last frame are chosen on the moments the astronaut is still in the air. Therefore, the time the astronaut is in the air is at least 44 frames, or 1.47 seconds. That is why 1.47 seconds is the lowest bound, and not 1.4 seconds. Again, wrong. I've just explained why your lower bound is wrong. Your upper bound is also wrong, as you need to add in the possible inaccuracy of both the beginning and the end of the astronaut being in the air. Because our actual framerate is 15FPS, one needs to use 2/15 = 0.13 seconds of inaccuracy, and not 0.07. This is can only be added to our 44/30 = 1.47 seconds time, and not subtracted (as the astronaut is in the air for at least 1.47 seconds). Again, wrong. I've explained it. Wrong. Explained. I see your point, but I disagree. The astronaut kicks the dust up. The dust is not stuck to the astronaut's leg: the astronaut kicked it so that it gets an upwards force (and speed). But, let's say you are right. That means we have the astronaut's upwards speed for an unknown number of time, then a downwards speed for another unknown number of time. We are basing it all on a bad picture quality, low resolution, low framerate file, so measurements are unreliable as they are. There are so many variables it's impossible to accurately calculate 1) the time the dust is in the air and 2) the height the dust reaches, and therefore 3) the apparent gravity that behaves on the dust. Your 'gravity' calculations are so inaccurate the difference between the moon's gravity and and your calculated gravity means nothing. It's simply not based on accurate enough measurements.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 14, 2007 11:53:05 GMT -4
You do not like the quality video for calculation of the speedup of the free fall. But you like it as video material NASA, proving stay astronauts on the Moon. The source doesn't matter. Saying "it's from the NASA website" doesn't take away the fact there is a practical framerate of less than 15FPS, the worst available compression, and a very low resolution film. It certainly is from the NASA website; that doesn't make the quality of the film high enough to get accurate measurements from. Because everything that points otherwise is based on inaccurate measurements and an assumption they are good enough. What? I don't understand. I'm not religious. It's not a matter of faith either. It's more something along the lines of Occam's Razor.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 14, 2007 11:59:55 GMT -4
As judged by your messages, you understand beautifully me. If you not comprehensible my English, we can speak on Russian language. I can understand the general lines, but that doesn't mean it's not hard to make out what you mean. If you say "you understand beautifully me", for example, I can tell that you mean to say "you understand me well". But that's not without effort. Having to decipher your posts and finding out what you mean is quite frustrating. No, it's not enough. As I said before, inaccuracies that come with a low framerate, combined with bad quality and low resolution footage, give for such inaccurate numbers a difference between 1 and 9 is fully expectable. The measurements you performed in order to calculate the apparent framerate of the soil are simply not accurate enough. Don't pretend your measurements are more accurate than they really are - they are not, and they cannot be. It's not possible to get accurate measurements from that <15FPS, 320x240 MPEG-compressed video.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 14, 2007 17:18:25 GMT -4
And else, no or one infallible proof that american were on the Moon! I gave you one from your own Government of the time, a Government that was locked in to a contest with the US where they were trying to be first there. You seem to have ignored it because it didn't discuss the particular footage you want. You can't take one image from the programme and say "I find this suspicious" then discard all other evidence. BertLs has shown quite comprehensively why you should not be trying to analyse the poor footage you are using, which means that you need other methods to determine if they really went. What better evidence is there than the word of your own Government of the time and the records of their tracking the US Missions as they did the landings?
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 15, 2007 7:09:07 GMT -4
And else, no or one infallible proof that american were on the Moon! I gave you one from your own Government of the time, a Government that was locked in to a contest with the US where they were trying to be first there. You seem to have ignored it because it didn't discuss the particular footage you want. You can't take one image from the programme and say "I find this suspicious" then discard all other evidence. BertLs has shown quite comprehensively why you should not be trying to analyse the poor footage you are using, which means that you need other methods to determine if they really went. What better evidence is there than the word of your own Government of the time and the records of their tracking the US Missions as they did the landings? It is interesting question. I have special opinion about this question. But I shall not speak about this problem because I have difficulty of communicate on foreign language. I have many difficulties in talk about sand. P.S. You flatter powerfully for itself, if you think that you known motives of a politician actions.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 15, 2007 11:36:37 GMT -4
You do not like the quality video for calculation of the speedup of the free fall. But you like it as video material NASA, proving stay astronauts on the Moon. The source doesn't matter. Saying "it's from the NASA website" doesn't take away the fact there is a practical framerate of less than 15FPS, the worst available compression, and a very low resolution film. It certainly is from the NASA website; that doesn't make the quality of the film high enough to get accurate measurements from. I not faith my eye! Do you want to say that this video no proof of landing astronauts on the Moon?! I agree with you, my friend! Ha-ha-ha? Because everything that points otherwise is based on inaccurate measurements and an assumption they are good enough. You contradict to itself. You speak that video such bad that impossible to calculate, where this has shoot on Moon, Earth or on Mars. And then and there you speak this video there is infallible proof of the debarkation of americans on the Moon. It is nonsense! You are a typical believer. Your motto: I have believed - because absurd!!! I'm not religious. It's not a matter of faith either. It's more something along the lines of Occam's Razor. You are fanatic! Logic powerless in this case. Amen!
|
|