|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 4, 2008 12:35:39 GMT -4
Try it again so that the shadow points away from the center of the image and you will have something. Clarification, please: Center of the image, or center of the bottom edge of the frame? If the former, I have already provided that. If the latter, an example of an Apollo photo displaying this phenomenon would be...? [Edit: Ah, just re-read the EF thread and saw the references to AS12-47-6984 - 86. I will then dispute the "directly above the feet" requirement, since the astronauts must lean forward significantly to offset the weight of the PLSS. Note that the astronaut's shoulders in the two photos in question are not perpendicular to the direction of incoming light rays (as evident by the asymmetrical shadow, specifically the top of the PLSS relative to the helmet.) As such, the forward tilt of the astronaut is rendered in the shadow, causing it to actually "point" away from the bottom center of the frame. I also dispute the seemingly arbitrary choice of determining the "direction" of a shadow by apparently drawing a line from the apex of the helmet's shadow through the crotch of the shadow, particularly on the off-axis photos, but that's another matter.]
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jan 4, 2008 13:11:37 GMT -4
Try it again so that the shadow points away from the center of the image and you will have something. Clarification, please: Center of the image, or center of the bottom edge of the frame? If the former, I have already provided that. If the latter, an example of an Apollo photo displaying this phenomenon would be...? Chugga chugga chugga chugga.... Too late, the goalposts have moved again! Apparently now all photos must be taken at chest height while attached to a bulky spacesuit. Thereby rendering photographic evidence invalid since it can be claimed that the camera was angled away from the body... So now the only way to prove this is to do it yourself. For someone reason, neither Jack nor Duane appear to have tried this. FWIW, Jack is saying that this kind of photo is impossible with a chest-mounted Hasselblad. The red line should be angled more toward the centre, not the left.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 4, 2008 13:27:27 GMT -4
I like how he wants feet in the picture with shadows not leading to the feet. Of course, there is no Apollo photograph like that - and shadows do tend to lead to the feet of standing people - so there is no way to achieve that requirement.
I don't think I'm patient enough to converse with someone so screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 4, 2008 13:51:02 GMT -4
..with very bulky cameras
"Very bulky" compared to what? The EL/500 itself is no bulkier than any other similar Hasselblad camera.
...sans their viewfinders
What does this have to do with the nature of the camera optics? Whether the astronaut can see the framing has no bearing on what the framing actually is and how it affects the outcome of the projection.
...attached to bulky, ridged chestplate attachments
Utterly false.
The RCU was not "ridigly" attached to the EMU. The PLSS/OPS straps come over the shoulders and attach to a single ring on the center of the chest area of the micrometeoroid and thermal garment with snap-clasps. An ordinary set of cinch buckles appears on each PLSS strap to adjust the length to suit each wearer.
At the rear top corners of the RCU assembly are two ordinary hooks that hook into the cinch buckles. The RCU hangs loosely only from these; there is no other RCU attach point. The RCU is able to move within the broad tolerance of these loose hook attachments. There is full range of rotation in the pitch axis, and limited ranges of motion in the roll and yaw axis. But is absolutely, completely false to insinunate that the camera cannot change orientation without the entire astronaut also changing orientation.
Unlike Jack White, I have actual, practical, first-hand experience in this setup.
...with your body turned to the center of the picture , is not applicable.
Armstrong took the "anomalous" photo AS11-40-5961 while standing on the rim of West Crater. There's no reason to suppose he must have been standing perfectly vertical.
Further, the Gold camera handle shadow is misleading as a perspective reference since other photos in the West Crater series clearly show the camera lying at an angle on the lunar surface, so it's handle is evidently not vertical.
For someone reason, neither Jack nor Duane appear to have tried this.
Good thing I have. Neither of those guys is speaking from adequate knowledge of or experience with the Apollo hardware.
The red line should be angled more toward the centre, not the left.
Simply rotating the camera slightly about the optical axis throws all kinds of cold water on that presumption. And contrary to what White naively assumes, that type of rotation was entirely possible with the RCU-mounted Hasselblad.
Further, if the physical horizon is used as an orientation reference, it can be argued that AS11-40-5961was indeed taken with just such a rotation (i.e., clockwise a few degrees about the optical axis). That would tend to make Armstrong's shadow appear more vertical with respect to the frame edges.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 4, 2008 18:21:16 GMT -4
Oooh. David C says Jack White is a plant. Duane considers himself a JW successor. Both are adamant in their views. Both are firm HBs. Who will win? Is Duane the secret love-child of Jack White? Is David more perceptive and about to blow Jack's CIA cover of more than 40 years? Find out on "The Young and the Witless". Hi Duane! It took me until this post to realize that David wasn't referring to vegetation. I thought he was comparing Jack White's intelligence to that of a carnation or broccoli. Maybe he was? ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 4, 2008 20:15:16 GMT -4
Didn't you know? David thinks we're all paid disinformation agents. Actually, isn't that why he isn't here anymore? For claiming that repeatedly with no evidence presented?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 4, 2008 21:25:31 GMT -4
So NASA plants people to say Apollo was a hoax AND also plants "disinfo agents" to say it was real? Way to argue both sides of something!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 4, 2008 22:33:49 GMT -4
GROUCHO: Now, look! There are two fellas trying to attack you, aren't there? JOE: Why -- GROUCHO: Exactly. You've got two bodyguards, haven't you? There you are. 50% waste. Why can't you be attacked by your own bodyguards? (Groucho ad-lib'd here; "Your life would be saved and thats, err, 100% waste.")
JOE: What're you gettin' at? GROUCHO: I anticipated that question. How does an army travel? On it's stomach. How do you travel? On a ship. Of course, you're sav- ing your stomach. Now, that same common sense will save you -- JOE: I don't think you -- GROUCHO: Oh, I realize it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at it from a woman's ankle... What do you say? JOE: I'll tell you what I say, I say -- GROUCHO: I knew you'd see it. I'm your new bodyguard. In case I'm gonna attack you, I'll have to be there to defend you, too. Let me know when you want to be attacked and I'll be there ten minutes later to defend you.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jan 5, 2008 5:35:26 GMT -4
Sounds like our (insert government/military/legal institution here)!
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2008 9:27:01 GMT -4
Primary rule of life. The government is not there to keep you safe under all circumstances, so don't rely on the government for your first line of defense.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 8, 2008 17:43:11 GMT -4
BTW : On what thread does Rocky call Jack White a plant?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 8, 2008 22:05:44 GMT -4
David C suspected him of being a plant on the Loose Screw forum.
I'll see if I can dig up the post.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 9, 2008 0:20:29 GMT -4
David C suspected [Jack White] of being a plant...
Let me know when he's upgraded to "vertebrate."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 9, 2008 1:49:06 GMT -4
David C suspected [Jack White] of being a plant...Let me know when he's upgraded to "vertebrate." Wouldn't he have to grow a spine and face up to his critics instead of ignoring them or calling thenm NASA Provacators for that to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 9, 2008 1:53:32 GMT -4
|
|