|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 21, 2008 3:41:56 GMT -4
Three consecutive stills, in which time the "Earth" vanishes, while the window frame remains in the same position. [Emphasis mine] This is an outright lie which you crudely attempt to conceal by stacking the frames side-by-side: Even in your nagware-encoded GIF it is plainly obvious that the window is jerking around throughout the entire clip.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 21, 2008 4:18:57 GMT -4
As I see it, panning and rotation were not being presented as one and the same, throughout much of this discussion.
Panning always means rotation. You were simply wrong.
It can't be ruled out as possible, but I find it extremely improbable.
Irrelevant. You presented an indirect argument which has now been refuted.
...while the window frame remains in the same position.
No it doesn't. And you still haven't addressed what happens when the camera simultaneously trucks and pans. The point of such a movement is to keep the foreground relatively in frame.
If you claim this effect was achieved entirely by camera movement (panning, etc.) then I'd like to know how, exactly.
By ordinary application of appropriate force. You make it sound like rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 21, 2008 4:20:45 GMT -4
...so why is the "Earth" so large in the third still?
Notice the aperture change. You're such a great photo analyst, you figure out what happens following an aperture change.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 21, 2008 9:15:42 GMT -4
So let's look at the two arguments. We have: Simple camera movements cause the Earth to be blocked behind the side of the window vs. Elaborate and unnecessary setups involving a projected Earth which should be stationary but moves unexpectedly. Either no one notices or they don't bother to do a retake. Which makes more sense?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 21, 2008 16:01:53 GMT -4
Which makes more sense? Especially since Turb has already admitted that Apollo 8 already made the journey, so there's no reason 11 couldn't have done at least that much as well.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 22, 2008 1:15:10 GMT -4
Three consecutive stills, in which time the "Earth" vanishes, while the window frame remains in the same position. [Emphasis mine] This is an outright lie which you crudely attempt to conceal by stacking the frames side-by-side: Even in your nagware-encoded GIF it is plainly obvious that the window is jerking around throughout the entire clip. Then there is an extremely insignificant change in position, if you want to nitpick. And that becomes much more apparent after cropping the first frame, as in this sequence...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 22, 2008 1:21:37 GMT -4
Notice the aperture change. You're such a great photo analyst, you figure out what happens following an aperture change. The "Earth" is much larger in the bottom right frame - even before the aperture change....
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 22, 2008 2:16:36 GMT -4
So, why did they need to fake the mission? Why did they have to go to all the trouble of the fake footage, fake lunar set, wires and all, faked rockets, faked telemetry, faked research, samples, and blueprints? What made the landings impossible?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 22, 2008 2:48:46 GMT -4
Then there is an extremely insignificant change in position, if you want to nitpick. No nitpicking is involved. You chose the phrase "exact same position," which is most decidedly false. And how significant a change in position (and orientation) is required to obscure a for-all-photographic-intents-and-purposes infinitely distant object with a very-near foreground detail?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 22, 2008 6:35:45 GMT -4
The "Earth" is much larger in the bottom right frame - even before the aperture change.... I'm confused as to just what Turbonium is seeing here. Looking at the Spacecraft Films' Apollo 11 DVD at what I think is the appropriate spot, * I see a window frame on the right, behind which a small Earth has disappeared at its upper right, and on the left of the scene is a light fitting. * At 0:39:57 in "Unscheduled Television Transmission at 30:28 GET," when the following dialogue occurs: 39:49 - GET 31:13:32 Collins: How's everything going down there? You guys happy with the spacecraft systems? 39:53 - GET 31:13:37 Houston (Duke): Roger, affirmative. Everything's looking really good to us, over. A little earlier at 0:39:43 the camera had been zoomed in on Earth and the aperture set so that it was correctly exposed and we could make out blue oceans and white clouds. There is also a blind over most of this window – or perhaps Aldrin's star charts. The "blind" cuts off a large part of the earth at 0:39:49, and when it disappears I'm more inclined to think it disappears behind the blind rather than the window frame. But it's hard to tell exactly because at 0:39:56 the camera's aperture is opened and the tiny portion of the Earth still showing turns into a lens-flare, and the flare spreads out over part of the blind, as we would expect. This flare is quite a bit larger than the small part of Earth that was last visible, as we would also expect. On the left of the scene is the fluorescent light fitting, and flare from it. At times we can make out the two stems on either side of its U-shaped bulb. Parts of both of them are clearly visible in Turbonium's frame, at the bottom of the vee-shape. And even the greenish colour-cast from a 1960s fluorescent bulb is there for all to see. So where is this "large Earth" he is talking about? If we really are looking at the same piece of TV broadcast, and the light bulb indicates that we are, Earth is not even in the scene. Turbonium: Do you believe that the light fitting on the left is actually a window, and that the flare from it is Earth? Back in December 2006 you convinced yourself that lens flare was a globe of the earth, when the only resemblance the flare had to a globe was that part of it was "roundish." Which happens a lot with lenses.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 22, 2008 10:32:02 GMT -4
Then there is an extremely insignificant change in position, if you want to nitpick.
Irrelevant. The effect of a truck-and-pan movement is to keep the foreground relatively in-frame. What part of that continues to slip past your comprehension?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 22, 2008 11:15:22 GMT -4
I don't see the Earth at all in the bottom right frame. I see it in the upper left frame. Are you sure you're looking at Earth?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 22, 2008 13:21:17 GMT -4
So let's look at the two arguments. We have: Simple camera movements cause the Earth to be blocked behind the side of the window vs. Elaborate and unnecessary setups involving a projected Earth which should be stationary but moves unexpectedly. Either no one notices or they don't bother to do a retake. Which makes more sense? Hoax believers appearently have no problem in believing the latter. Applies to nearly everything when it comes to Apollo. One HB would rather believe that stars are all airbrushed out of images and phots taken in a sunlit setting in space than accept that a camera set for a sunlit scene cannot properly expose the stars.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 22, 2008 13:24:18 GMT -4
Isn't this whole conversation nonsensical? I praise the patience of my fellow forum members.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 22, 2008 13:28:36 GMT -4
Isn't this whole conversation nonsensical? I praise the patience of my fellow forum members. Pretty much, yes. I find that any conversation with any hard core HB is nonsensical. They make up their own logic and think their's is the only truth, regardless of the lack of scientific support and evidence. The nonsensical nature, and my loss of patience, was a factor in me deciding to stop posting on the comment section of Jarrah's video (the "Marsfaker" one). BTW Ginnie, is that a new avatar you have? I don't recall seeing that one before.
|
|