|
Post by RAF on Oct 16, 2007 10:16:14 GMT -4
Why you can not return on place of "Apollo" boarding once again and once again? As I previously stated, why go to a location where you have already collected samples? If I really thought it would "shut up" the HBs, I'd be the first to advocate a return to an Apollo landing site, even if it was a "waste" of money, however I don't really think that new pictures would convince HBs anymore than the "old" pictures have, so whats the point??
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 10:28:09 GMT -4
Inaccuracy is given usually with sign (±).It can be noted that way, but it is not required. When computing quantization error, it is acceptable to give the error in terms of "no less than" and "no more than." Video device indicates 30FPS!You're using a video obtained from a convenience source. The video clip you are using is not suitable for photographic analysis, and NASA does not purport that it is. You cannot be assured that the frame rate you see in your version is preserved back to the original frame rates. You must account for frame-rate conversion in your analysis. Can you give me the reference to a more qualitative variant this video?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 16, 2007 10:37:52 GMT -4
Can you give me the reference to a more qualitative variant this video? www.spacecraftfilms.com/So, from what I understand your "dust falls from 0.5 meter high"-measurement is based on the height the astronaut jumps? But didn't you calculate the height of the astronaut using lunar gravity? You concluded that the gravity isn't lunar gravity; then why did you use lunar gravity to measure the distance the dust falls?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 10:39:08 GMT -4
Can you give me the reference to a more qualitative variant this video?
Spacecraft Films.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 16, 2007 11:11:37 GMT -4
I can look at the re-matrixed video I have of A16. I'm fairly sure the jump section is on the video (and its not kinescope). I can rip it and upload to a file share server for everyone to do full res comparisons with. I'm not at home so it will be a few hours before I can do this. This is not from Mark's DVD this is JSC material first generation.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 16, 2007 11:13:42 GMT -4
If you would want to do that, I, for one, would appreciate it very much, dwight.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 16, 2007 11:18:10 GMT -4
Sure Bertls, hopefully that segment is on there (it is not a complete A16 record). I will do it at full res MPEG2 if that is OK, that way there is minimal compression loss. I'll be home 22:30 CET so anytime after that if you don't mind staying up late.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 11:34:33 GMT -4
I have many difficult in communicate on foreign language.You certainly have sufficient command of the language to ridicule us and imply that our arguments are not sincere. If you wish us to be patient with your difficulty communicating in a foreign language, then please be judicious in how you use that language. You are making many of the errors amateurs commonly make in trying to analyze the Apollo video. Your computation is based on guesses and assumptions, and taken from poor video. You really cannot study authenticity that way. I speak always about approximate estimation of the speedup of the free fall! For this calculation is enough of school course of physics! NASA presents this video as proof of the debarkation on the Moon. If I can not use this video for calculate, NASA must acknowledge that this video is not proof of the debarkation of Americans on the Moon! If NASA no wants to acknowledge it, so you can not disturb me to enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 16, 2007 11:38:02 GMT -4
*sigh*
The reason the video is not usable is because its quality is too low.
If I showed you a very small picture of me in France, and the object behind me was so tiny it might as well be the Big Ben, it doesn't mean I wasn't in France. It means you can't determine from the picture whether I was in France of not.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 12:05:15 GMT -4
This not that it is necessary. I wanted to get the file.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 16, 2007 12:21:33 GMT -4
NASA presents this video as proof of the debarkation on the Moon. If I can not use this video for calculate, NASA must acknowledge that this video is not proof of the debarkation of Americans on the Moon!
That is all good and fair, but that video is available online as a matter of convenience, if you want to claim something is strange, then that may be vaild if that video clip were the _only_ source. It isn't, and you have been shown emphatically that it isn't. You were also shown that higher resolution versions are readily available, and indeed I will be making said clip available in its best resolution possible in a matter of hours. So hows about showing a little patience and gratefully acknowledging that:
1. People have been showing you where valid flaws exist in your calculations.
2. Those same people are supplying you with a better resolution video openly available from the very organisation you claim are hiding something.
A little understanding and appreciation will go a long way around here. I seriously doubt you will reimburse me or anyone here for the time and effort I or they put in to making your computations easier, so a little gratitude is welcome and dare I suggest, necessary.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 16, 2007 12:47:28 GMT -4
NASA presents this video as proof of the debarkation on the Moon. If I can not use this video for calculate, NASA must acknowledge that this video is not proof of the debarkation of Americans on the Moon!
NASA publishes material for many purpose, including publicity and other non-scientific purposes. Further, not all the information on their web site is created by NASA. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, for instance, is a private site hosted by NASA.
It is up to you to show that the the specific video file was published for the purpose you say. Anyway, determining that this particular video is not proof of the moon landings does not provide evidence that the landings did not occur.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 14:44:47 GMT -4
NASA presents this video as proof of the debarkation on the Moon.
Absolutely not. NASA provides portions of the Apollo video record in convenient downloadable form as a public service for reference, general interest, and entertainment. In no way whatsoever does NASA represent that the small, downloadable clips made available from time to time constitute a body of evidence from which the authenticity of the Apollo missions can be determined.
If I can not use this video for calculate, NASA must acknowledge that this video is not proof of the debarkation of Americans on the Moon!
NASA does not claim that one small downloadable video clip is by itself proof that the Apollo missions were real.
NASA does have, and does make available to any researcher who seeks it, reasonably faithful copies of the entire video record from Apollo. NASA did not create that material with the pre-ordained intent to prove the Apollo missions were real. The video record nevertheless serves as evidence because it contains observations that must be explained parsimoniously by hoax proponents before their hoax hypothesis can be considered a better explanation than NASA's.
If you wish to analyze the Apollo video for photogrammetric inconsistencies, you are responsible for locating and using the best available material for that purpose. And you are responsible in any case to account for possible sources of infidelity, inaccuracy, or uncertainty in that data as part of your conclusion. No one is forcing you to undertake such an analysis; but if you do, your analysis will naturally be judged according to the standard methods and criteria.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 16, 2007 14:48:43 GMT -4
This not that it is necessary. I wanted to get the file.
Laziness is not an excuse for failing to obtain the material best suited to your proposed analysis.
|
|
|
Post by conspiromaniac on Oct 16, 2007 23:14:38 GMT -4
Laziness is not an excuse for failing to obtain the material best suited to your proposed analysis. Video, which is pride of folk and NASA, you have declared unimproved! The person, who spent much time and money on this work, you have declared lazy! It is beautiful example of demagogies! Who are not lazy? This not lazy who blunt looks at screen and yells: "? we there were ?" with pail of popcorn and flask of coca-cola in hands?! I shall not pay half of its month salary for DVD disk! If you cherish honor of NASA, you will give me more qualitative variant this video. If you will not do this, it signifies you are simply bluff. But I shall work in any event, and you not will rejoice this. I promise!
|
|