|
Post by Czero 101 on Jun 22, 2008 13:39:44 GMT -4
It seems to me that Turbs is just using this inconsequential nitpick, coupled with his once-weekly appearances here, serve only as distractions and to delay having to answer the more important questions that have been asked of him.
His lack of response to those questions, coupled with his Quixotic need to discuss matters of minutia and / or semantics almost to death speak volumes towards the depth of his lack of understanding of the subject and shed clear light on his true motivations.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 22, 2008 14:06:00 GMT -4
Isn't this whole conversation nonsensical? I praise the patience of my fellow forum members. BTW Ginnie, is that a new avatar you have? I don't recall seeing that one before. Yes. I left the Duchamp-Mustache Cult and joined the Wdmundt-Fifties Rocket Cult. Alas, wdmundt has left leaving me the only member. You can see that BertL and echanton still are wearing their mustaches. This is my version of a rocket that would be in a classic fifties scifi movie. I probably change my avatar too much, but sometimes I get bored and this is basically the only forum I belong to. 'Basically' meaning, I'm on BAUT too but rarely visit. EDIT: Oops! Sorry for getting off track here.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 22, 2008 17:55:56 GMT -4
If you claim this effect was achieved entirely by camera movement (panning, etc.) then I'd like to know how, exactly. A bulky, hand-held video camera, being jerked around to and fro by a floating astronaut inside a very cramped capsule. Yet for a fraction of a second, he simultaneously moves and pans (or tilts/or rotates) the camera, while the window frame, etc. remains in the exact same position throughout. The frame does NOT remain in the exact same position, and it is quite possible that he simultaneously moves the camera in the way required to produce the visible effect. If you claim it was produced by a false earth image being moved outside the window then I'd like to know how, exactly. I crew attempting to simulate an object that doesn't move around, and yet for a few seconds they wave the image around outside the capsule? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 22, 2008 17:57:52 GMT -4
Define insignificant. We certainly do want to nitpick, because your incredulity was based on their being no positional change whatsoever, which clearly is not the case. If you can't formulate your arguments right then put a bit more thought into them.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 22, 2008 21:09:53 GMT -4
The answer of course is the one used when ever something that is supposed to be proof of a fake, turns out to be proof of a moon landing.,"Whistle blower" Who is than killed at ripe old age (if identified at all) by "NASA death squads" proof of which is never given in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 23, 2008 6:05:57 GMT -4
Turbonium: Do you believe that the light fitting on the left is actually a window, and that the flare from it is Earth? Aha, Turbonium does indeed believe that. He said so in an earlier post: ...In the clip, notice how large the "Earth" has become, when they show the first window again. The stills below show the "Earth" in the first window, then in the second window, and once again back in the first window.... Turbonium: I respectfully suggest you give up trying to analyse photographs, movies and TV images because you are absolutely hopeless at it and you make yourself look quite foolish with your strange utterances and wrong guesses about what can be seen and what can or cannot be done, when those of us who are experienced know otherwise. The most recent proof of your hopelessness, besides this example, was when you didn't even know what members meant when they said "pan." Give up until you've learnt a great deal more about the subjects, preferably from experience. I repeat: What you see on the left of that frame is not "the first window" and there is no "Earth that has become large" in the scene. It is a light fitting with a U-shaped fluorescent bulb casting a greenish light. You can see it more clearly at other times during the TV transmissions when the interior of the Command Module is shown. You still claim that the "truck and pan" method apparently can't work in the case of the disappearing Earth. Have you taken into account that because of the greatly increased exposure, what we are seeing is a flare that is bigger than the quarter- (or smaller) Earth we last saw? That is why it blinks out faster than we saw a little earlier, when the blind slowly spreads across the Earth. Try this: 1. Position yourself less than two metres from a vertical object, such as a window frame with glass on the left and wall on the right. 2. Line up a small background object, more than 40 metres away and level with your eyes, with the left edge of the foreground object. 3. Cup your hands around one eye in such a way that there is a definite top-centre. 4. Place both objects in the centre of your "viewfinder." 5. Move a few centimetres to the right and at the same time pan to the left so that the foreground object stays in the centre. 6. Observe what happens to the background object. Note: These instructions are simple and basic, so must be applied intelligently.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jun 23, 2008 13:25:12 GMT -4
He's stringing you along, he has no intention of seriously answering any questions. I think he know's he is wrong but enjoys the attention.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 23, 2008 18:38:17 GMT -4
Have you taken into account that because of the greatly increased exposure, what we are seeing is a flare that is bigger than the quarter- (or smaller) Earth we last saw? You mean kinda like this? To someone unfamiliar with basic photographic principles, the 2nd image would seem to show an "earth" which is much larger and therefore closer than the first image. In reality, these two video frame caps were taken only seconds apart, with the same camera, same focal length setting, and same photographer position. The only difference was that the iris was opened a couple stops for image #2. The ASCOTs could honestly alleviate much of their suffering, simply by making a genuine effort to study the sciences at hand.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 23, 2008 18:39:46 GMT -4
The ASCOTs could honestly alleviate much of their suffering, simply by making a genuine effort to study the sciences at hand. Excuse my ignorance on the abbreviations, but what does ASCOT mean?
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 23, 2008 18:43:13 GMT -4
The ASCOTs could honestly alleviate much of their suffering, simply by making a genuine effort to study the sciences at hand. Excuse my ignorance on the abbreviations, but what does ASCOT mean? Something I came up with. It seems appropriate. A nti- S cience CO nspiracy T heorist
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 24, 2008 5:50:04 GMT -4
Too funny. Good prediction, sts60. This thread has turned into comedic gold. I would say turbonium is yanking our chains, but it seems far more likely that his fanatical belief in the hoax theory coupled with his gigantic ego prevents him from even realizing what an absolute idiot he makes himself out to be. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 24, 2008 7:19:29 GMT -4
Excuse my ignorance on the abbreviations, but what does ASCOT mean? Something I came up with. It seems appropriate. A nti- S cience CO nspiracy T heorist Think you can use this material here for your next "Luna Toons"? The content here is nearly on par with Ralph Rene's stuff. He'd make a great subject for "Luna Toons", BTW.
|
|