|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 6:58:57 GMT -4
I watched the video of the "Earth" being filmed through that window. It's simply amazing - the "Earth" somehow floats right out of view!.... I can't wait to read your 'explanations' for this one.... Perhaps it's explained by this amusing observation by a photographic and Apollo "expert": The cameraman is somehow able to keep filming a steady view of the Earth, while floating weightlessly, directly backwards in a pitch black capsule, packed with two other people, and various pieces of equipment everywhere. With absolutely no change to the Earth's image... 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. Turbonuium, I am astonished that you should be so ignorant as to not understand how this could be done. Are you REALLY that ignorant, or are you just yanking chains for the fun of it and indulging in a bit of attention-seeking? And how about not swanning in so infrequently, not being a seagull, not changing the subject and, instead, actually getting around to answering our questions of around 18 months ago? Is that asking too much? First of all, I can only post when I have the time to, so get off that soapbox. Second, I went back to pick up where I left off. As you seem to think I skipped past your old posts, is it asking too much to repost your questions so I can properly deal with them? It's a lot easier than trying to sift through hundreds of posts and guess which ones you want me to answer... And if I'm really so "ignorant", then prove it. I asked someone else to duplicate the effect, and I have yet to see a reply. So why don't you enlighten me, and post a clip which recreates the same effect. It should be very easy for you to do, since you've done it hundreds of times" already...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 7:22:23 GMT -4
Ok, Turbonium, explain to us what you think happened? Why would the fake Earth have moved? Was it an accident? If so, why didn't they do a second take? Was it on purpose? If so, why? I want answers to this. I'm getting really tired of you dodging or ignoring any questions we ask of you. You are getting dangerously close to being banned for trolling. Try answering to an entire forum by yourself within a few minutes, and you'll quickly realize it has nothing to do with trolling. Imo, the fake Earth is a projection being moved around outside the capsule. That's why we see it 'appear' in another window soon after it 'disappears' from the first window. This is where I disagree with Sibrel. He believes they are in LEO at the time. I think the fake Earth moving around, and the 'moving round light' previously discussed here, are both points of evidence that the capsule is right here on Earth, and not in LEO (or in space, period) The fake Earth and the round light can only be effects created from outside the capsule. (As a side note, I've always doubted that NASA would take such a risk - to wit, sending the Apollo 11 astronauts out into space/LEO. If there was a fatality, it would screw up the entire 'storybook ending' NASA had planned.)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 7:41:44 GMT -4
Turb's is just attempting to make up for, or rather, cover up his lack of knowledge and understanding of what he is seeing by dredging up these long-debunked hoax claims. He has no proof of a hoax or conspiracy. Never has... Never will... All he does is repeat his same tired opinions which are not based on anything even resembling hard evidence, logic or fact, or make up incredibly obtuse stories to explain what he thinks he's seeing - anyone else remember the "That's not a crater, its a tortoise shell on the Moon!" discussion that took place a while back on UM. That's an example of how he works. No proof... no logic... and no ability to admit when he's got something wrong. He's trolling, pure and simple. And when he is unable to bring forth a challenge to the answers given to the "questions" he poses, he displays typical hoax proponent behavior by dodging the questions, ignoring the proof presented to him, abandoning the thread and changing topics. For all the flapping and hand waving he does, the guy must have an incredibly developed pair of arms, in direct opposition to the development of his obviously lacking mental abilities. Cz If all you can do is spout infantile comments, then find someone and somewhere else to direct it at. Because I'm really sick and tired of you following me around everywhere I post, like an obsessed deviant, just so you can flame me. Maybe you should find a forum where you can find others fixated on posting the same type of crap you do day after day.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 7, 2008 7:51:16 GMT -4
Ok, Turbonium, explain to us what you think happened? Why would the fake Earth have moved? Was it an accident? If so, why didn't they do a second take? Was it on purpose? If so, why? I want answers to this. I'm getting really tired of you dodging or ignoring any questions we ask of you. You are getting dangerously close to being banned for trolling. Try answering to an entire forum by yourself within a few minutes, and you'll quickly realize it has nothing to do with trolling. Imo, the fake Earth is a projection being moved around outside the capsule. That's why we see it 'appear' in another window soon after it 'disappears' from the first window. This is where I disagree with Sibrel. He believes they are in LEO at the time. I think the fake Earth moving around, and the 'moving round light' previously discussed here, are both points of evidence that the capsule is right here on Earth, and not in LEO (or in space, period) The fake Earth and the round light can only be effects created from outside the capsule. (As a side note, I've always doubted that NASA would take such a risk - to wit, sending the Apollo 11 astronauts out into space/LEO. If there was a fatality, it would screw up the entire 'storybook ending' NASA had planned.) The key words here are "I think". You just have a hypothesis. One that has no evidence to back it up. NASA takes risks just by sending the shuttle into orbit. Indeed, launch and reentry are the most dangerous parts of any space flight. Apollo was only seperated because they went beyond LEO. Your claims are baseless.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 7, 2008 7:57:53 GMT -4
Second, I went back to pick up where I left off. As you seem to think I skipped past your old posts, is it asking too much to repost your questions so I can properly deal with them? It's a lot easier than trying to sift through hundreds of posts and guess which ones you want me to answer...Always glad to oblige. I got three solid hours of sleep so the following should be reasonably clear. In the OP of this thread, you made two claims: 1. Implied claim - Earth too large to be seen in entirety through window:They're (supposedly) ~130,000 miles from Earth, and can see (and film) the entire Earth, through the 9" diameter hatch window, from a position several feet away?Jason and I both pointed out that the Earth would indeed fit entirely in a 9" diameter window for distances up to just over 12 feet. The entire point is moot according to Jay's post immediately following mine, but simple trigonometry refutes your claim anyway. 2. Claim: Earth not visible - CSM stack pointed toward Moon at that time:At this time, the astronauts would not have had a view of the Earth through the hatch window, which was in the CSM's nose cone!As Czero pointed out, the flight plan shows that PTC roll was scheduled for that time. PTC roll is performed with the longitudinal axis basically perpendicular to the Earth. While the consensus is that the PTC roll was stopped for the PAO event, there would be no reason for an attitude change. Thus, your claim that the stack would have been pointed toward the Moon is also wrong. (In any case, as multiple posters pointed out, there is in general no compelling reason for the "nose" of a spacecraft to be pointed toward its destination.)
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 7, 2008 8:04:54 GMT -4
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.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 7, 2008 8:14:29 GMT -4
I doubt Turbo will buy into it. Little things like experimental verification do not get in the way of the beliefs of an HB.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 7, 2008 8:26:28 GMT -4
Meh. He didn't even respond to me showing him wrong. ): Oh well, maybe next time he comes online.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 7, 2008 9:53:09 GMT -4
Which explains my overwhelming urge to actually do nothing regarding uploading the video. Maybe its the hypnotic motion of that lamp disappearing and reappearing with no logical explanation as the kitchen window is in the same spot.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 7, 2008 10:57:54 GMT -4
Talking about uploading videos, does anyone have high-quality footage of the shot where the Earth magically disappears into nothingness[/woo]? The best I could find was on YouTube, and that's... not very good, quality wise.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jun 7, 2008 13:13:18 GMT -4
If all you can do is spout infantile comments Proof again that you ignore any FACTS posted that disagree with or disprove your "theories". I have posted lots of information in response to your "arguments" most of which you simply dismiss out of hand because they don;t jive with your viewpoint. And if posting what is a relatively accurate recounting of your history and modus operandi in regards to these forums - albeit with a somewhat sarcastic edge - bothers you, then either change they way you deal with these issues or suck it up and do what you do best... ignore it. then find someone and somewhere else to direct it at. Because I'm really sick and tired of you following me around everywhere I post, like an obsessed deviant Hmmm.. paranoid much? You and I post on TWO boards... well, in reality, we post on one board, you just visit this board on occasion to handwave and perpetuate your foolish ideas. The fact that I have issue with the way you ignore some evidence and twist other evidence to suit your "theories" is what prompts me to respond to you. If you can't handle someone willing to take you to task for the swill that you spout, then that is your problem, not mine. Interesting, also, that I don't see you harping on the other people in this and the other forum who are equally disenchanted with your tactics and chose not to hide it. Perhaps you're the one obsessed with me...? just so you can flame me. Oh and of course, YOU have never been one to insult people or pick apart their posts... Maybe you should find a forum where you can find others fixated on posting the same type of crap you do day after day. Again, Turbs, if you can't handle someone who has an opposing viewpoint and is able to throw back the mud you regularly sling at people for having differing viewpoints, then that is NOT my problem. Cz
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jun 7, 2008 20:17:30 GMT -4
That's a new one on me. Most HBs can't get around the fact that it is all obviously filmed in zero G and thus cite LEO as a location. I know you are overburdened with a backlog of unanswered questions but please tell me how the zeroG was faked? I have just watched all the Apollo 11 tv recordings and things are floating all over the place, it is all one continuous take (certainly longer than the 30secs or so of weightlessness you could achieve with a parabolic flight). There are objects that rotate in all axis. Invisible wires? and water droplets? How precisely is this possible on earth?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2008 2:16:36 GMT -4
Which explains my overwhelming urge to actually do nothing regarding uploading the video. Maybe its the hypnotic motion of that lamp disappearing and reappearing with no logical explanation as the kitchen window is in the same spot. Don't worry, I'll respond to your video. Btw, what happened to the post with the first clip?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 9, 2008 5:50:03 GMT -4
Which explains my overwhelming urge to actually do nothing regarding uploading the video. Maybe its the hypnotic motion of that lamp disappearing and reappearing with no logical explanation as the kitchen window is in the same spot. Don't worry, I'll respond to your video. Btw, what happened to the post with the first clip? Considering that you spent your last posts whining about having to answer fifteen people's questions, it would seem prudent that you at least try and answer them when you do get around to posting. Especially since nearly everybody is asking the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 10, 2008 0:04:32 GMT -4
Considering that you spent your last posts whining about having to answer fifteen people's questions, it would seem prudent that you at least try and answer them when you do get around to posting. Especially since nearly everybody is asking the same thing. I was simply clarifying my situation, so it wouldn't continue to be misinterpreted as trolling, etc. If you think I was "whining", then you've got it totally wrong. As for the questions... (1) angular size and (2) spacecraft orientation. Angular size - from my calcs, the Earth could be seen through a 9" diam. window from 130,000 miles away. It's still possible to view Earth from a position several feet away from the window, if the viewer/window/Earth are in proper alignment. Not a certainty, but nonetheless possible - so I'm willing to concede on this point Spacecraft orientation - I'm not willing to concede on this point, as I see problems with it. sts60 (and Czero) contend that "PTC roll is performed with the longitudinal axis basically perpendicular to the Earth." According to NASA... The Apollo Lunar Module and Command and Service Modules had a PTC of one revolution per minute.er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/barbeque.htm If the capsule was rotating at 1 rpm, then they wouldn't have been able to film the Earth through the same window for more than 10-20 seconds at a time. But in the 30:28 GET TV transmission, we see the Earth being filmed through the same window for more than 2 minutes.
|
|