|
Post by nomuse on Jun 12, 2008 22:34:52 GMT -4
I'm struggling to understand how the "fake" is supposed to work in this case.
From Turbonium's other posts, the camera is "right up against" the window. From this latest set, it is unmoving. So there is no possibility of introducing parallax to a fake Earth close by on the other side of the window.
The only hoax explanation, then, is that someone suddenly decided to move the model Earth right in the middle of the broadcast. And not only did no-one notice at the time, they never bothered to correct it later, either.
I find this laughable. And it's a stupid way to do the shot in any case.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 12, 2008 23:45:26 GMT -4
Just for the record: my video test work out virtually identical to Data Cable's except I shot mine at midday. The window stays in one spot, the light fixture moves. If I get around to posting it, I'll give the url.
This whole argument makes me wonder why, when the makers of Lord of the Rings were shooting Gandalf and Frodo in the forced perspective dinner sequence, did they use a mechanical table which accounted for the same type of parallax we're observing here, if it is such an impossible thing?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jun 13, 2008 12:14:18 GMT -4
This is obviously a trolling exercise, it's too stupid to be anything else!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 13, 2008 12:43:24 GMT -4
This is obviously a trolling exercise, it's too stupid to be anything else! I suspect you're right. Turbonium's claims defy logic, I can't imagine anyone believing that what he says makes more sense than actually going to the Moon.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 13, 2008 14:44:26 GMT -4
Well, if you think that going through The Van Allen belts would cook you crispy, or that the moon would slag you with x-rays if you so much as tiptoed on it, and you thought that whatever a goverment does is evil, and that they act like melodramatic villans, smart enough to pull off the biggest hoax, but not smart enough to stop theose 'meddling kids'. For all I know they think there is this guy who runs the conspiriciy that has a a lair, sendingiesout NASA death squads to terrorize THOSE WHO KNOW, and other wack-tastic conspircy theory makes more sense sense then sending people to the moon in their little world view.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 13, 2008 15:35:49 GMT -4
Since taking notice of the nay sayers, I realise many here must have already spotted it, but it does appear odd that a stand is taken then proof looked for. In this case a minutiae of the event. Escapes me why but raises the question, is the capability accepted? It is not challenged directly. It is avoided when asked by other posters, so I assume the science and capability is sound in the land of this thread starter?
Also, side note. Do proponents of Apollo 20 challenge HB and vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 13, 2008 16:21:10 GMT -4
Like the Monk Plus, hoax believers are capable of believing dozens of incompatible ideas at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 13, 2008 16:47:57 GMT -4
And in an odd twist, they try to take debunkers to task for proposing multiple alternatives. Conspiracists try to imply that debunkers believe all the proposed alternatives must be true.
So the typical argument focusing on an "anomaly" goes:
Conspiracist: Here is this anomaly. It proves that the photo was taken in a studio. Debunker A: What makes you so sure a factor necessarily tied to a studio environment was resonsible for that anomaly? C.: It's superficially consistent with a certain hypothetical cause. Besides, what else could it possibly be? (e.g., besides a studio light, Coke bottle, stagehand's arm) D. A: Well it might be this; you have to eliminate that if you're going to argue indirectly. Debunker B: It might also be this other cause; you have to eliminate that too. C.: That's ridiculous; you've each proposed something different and they can't both be true. You're contradicting each other, and the fact that you can't agree on a cause means you probably don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 13, 2008 17:46:31 GMT -4
That is so true. Many times when a HB proposes brings up something odd the 'AP's suggest an alternative happening. Most of us are amateurs, so it's no wonder that different alternatives are suggested - but at least we do some research and find a plausible solution that fits in neatly with reality. So far, the only anomaly that I haven't seen a definitive answer is the astronaut walking by the flag which then moves. But I think at least three or four possible answers were given why this might happen, or maybe even a combination of more than one or more factors.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 13, 2008 20:25:54 GMT -4
And in an odd twist, they try to take debunkers to task for proposing multiple alternatives. Conspiracists try to imply that debunkers believe all the proposed alternatives must be true. So the typical argument focusing on an "anomaly" goes: Conspiracist: Here is this anomaly. It proves that the photo was taken in a studio. Debunker A: What makes you so sure a factor necessarily tied to a studio environment was resonsible for that anomaly? C.: It's superficially consistent with a certain hypothetical cause. Besides, what else could it possibly be? (e.g., besides a studio light, Coke bottle, stagehand's arm) D. A: Well it might be this; you have to eliminate that if you're going to argue indirectly. Debunker B: It might also be this other cause; you have to eliminate that too. C.: That's ridiculous; you've each proposed something different and they can't both be true. You're contradicting each other, and the fact that you can't agree on a cause means you probably don't know what you're talking about. That's exactly Cosmored's(aka, DavidC's) stance; he sees different alternate, although more likely, explainations to the hoax theory, and cries that there's a contradiction and that the hoax theory MUST be true. He doesn't realize that HBs also give alternate explainations, sometimes contradicting eachother. Straydog, for one, does not appearently share the view of the "no stars claim". Nor does he think unmanned missions are fake. JarrahWhite, on the other hand, does believe these things.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 13, 2008 20:40:24 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 13, 2008 20:51:02 GMT -4
That's exactly Cosmored's(aka, DavidC's) stance... Is he the one who did the about face on the engine exhaust visibility argument? It went something like this… Conspiracist: We all know that rocket engines produce visible flame and smoke, yet we don’t see any in the video of the LM taking off from the Moon. This is conclusive proof the landings were faked. Debunker: Hypergolic propellants produce little flame and smoke. Furthermore, when in a vacuum an engine’s exhaust will quickly expand outward and cool, thus dramatically reducing the visibility of the gas. Conspiracist: Ah ha! I just found evidence of visible flame in the LM video. The debunkers say this shouldn’t be possible. This is conclusive proof the landings were faked.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 14, 2008 0:58:04 GMT -4
The alternatives are important when the conspiracy argument is indirect. The indirect argument is signalled by phrases such as, "What else could it be?" or "This can only be..." Any argument that suggests that hypotheses other than the one offered have been, or should have been, examined and dismissed, and in which the only evidence in favor of the offered hypothesis is that its implication matches the observation, are indirect arguments.
These are very easy arguments to construct. And they are easy to refute. The refutation is simply to come up with at least one plausible hypothesis that hasn't been considered. Any number of them can be proposed, and they don't have to all work together. Any one of them could be the answer; it only matters that the conspiracist has not considered it before holding up his desired hypothesis by default.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 14, 2008 2:57:20 GMT -4
I have come across mr C's arguments before in browsing around the interweb. Appears to be on Mars at the moment. Or not, as the parachutes won't work according to others but that is leaning away from this topic.
I see the point though and recognise (more familiar with now(?)) the MO.
Back to this one though. I can see where the error is in the thought for the earth and the window, I have no DVD of the issue but the demonstration is clear. It should be easy to say "hands up, made an error of judgement". My money is on no hands up. To lose that point will mean having to concede the rest is possible but would I be right in thinking there will be a fall a back "ah! but so and so could not have happened because.....". So the tiny portions of the event are tackled as impossible. Still begs the question, can the OP say why or at what point in your theory is it time to fake? What part of getting there is the impossible bit so it had to be faked?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 3:05:09 GMT -4
Not if there is simultaneous rotation of the camera. You are ignoring the critical factor of camera rotation. By assuming translation only, your analysis of the video is incomplete and flawed. Along with everyone else here (save one) who ignored camera rotation, you mean? Perhaps you (and some others) need to be reminded of that fact... Umm... how about this: the astronaut moved a little bit to one side and that caused his view of the Earth to be obstructed. Couldn't the fact that the CSM/LM Stack was performing PTC maneuvers during this stage of the mission also explain why the Earth appears to move out of the window? Yeah, I thought of that too and almost mentioned it but it looked to me like right before the Earth is obscured the camera moves. It could be either (or a combination of both) of those explanations, or something totally different. But the point is that is took us little time to think of two logical explanations for Turbonium's "mystery". But yes, the camera does definitely move or "jerk" to one side a bit, changing its perspective on the window, which would also change what was seen by the camera through the window. Edit to add: Here is a quicktime clip (2.65mb) I just shot of a street light outside my kitchen window. The edge of the window remains much more constant in the frame than the CM window edge above, which according to you means a constant camera angle. Yet the street light disappears behind it. The light didn't move. My house didn't move. Explain how I did this. On the contrary, the camera very clearly jerks as the earth disappears behind the window frame. Perhaps it's also explained by simply moving the camera to the right and at the same time rotating it (the front of the lens) to the left. Hell, I've done that hundreds of times. It has the effect of moving a background object out of frame to the right. Try it sometime -- you don't even need a camera. Any tube-like object or your hands cupped around your eyes will do the trick. The camera clearly moves to the right but also pans commensurately leftward in order to keep the window frame in roughly the same position in the frame. The evidence for this is the change in aspect in the window frame, measured by the angle between the right-side bezel edge and the lower bezel edge; and the change in aspect and relative position of the reflected item as reckoned relative to the window frame. These shifts cannot occur without a change in camera position. The simultaneous pan makes the movement less readily apparent upon only casual inspection. Parallax effects are highly sensitive to small camera motion, and there is plenty of quantifiable evidence of the camera motion. What do you mean, "consistent camera angle"? I don't want to sound negative, but the window edge gives us a frame of reference to verify that the camera angle is not consistent at all. Did you and I use a different window edge, or something? Something very interesting is the reflections quite visible in two of the three images. What is being reflected there? The window acts as a mirror, and there's quite some change in perspective of that reflection. Just the change of perspective expected from a camera moving slightly to the right while panning to the left. OK I have successfully recreated the disappearing earth by using my kitchen window and a house wall lamp about 20m away (roughly where infinity on a lens corresponds to). I'll post sometime when I get around to it. TV basics 101 if you ask me hence no dash to show the blatantly obvious. Minus a bit of hand held shake the edge of the window stays in the same position. The movement is because the camera is moving, not the Earth. ...address the numerous instances where your assertion that the camera didn't move was shown to be erroneous. The "moving" Earth has been addressed; your claim that the camera does not move has been met with evidence to the contrary which, to my observation, you have not accounted for. So you simply ignore the analytical evidence? You asked us for our input, and now you're just selectively sidestepping it. I can look at the video containing the frames you provided and see very clear evidence of a change in camera position. ___________________________________________________ Up to this point, there was only one brief mention of camera rotation, in a post by kiwi. Everyone else who had posted on this issue ignored it, although phantomwolf then claimed two others had also mentioned it... The better argument is that pointed out previously by Jay, Dwight, and Kiwi, that as the astronaut moved, he rotated and panned the camera to try and keep the window in appropimately the same position thus causing a change in angle and the distant Earth to be obsured by the window frame. Then data cable - who had made no mention of camera rotation previously - suddenly added it to his argument.... But as to the particulars of the camera movement, are you claiming that the camera must only have translated? That it could not have rotated as well? So that leads to my next post...
|
|