|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 14, 2008 1:31:53 GMT -4
By the way, while I am waiting here for some real arguments...
You're the delay. You've been asked several questions about the premise of your questions and comments, which you have not answered. You've simply tried to dismiss it all as "rhetoric."
I think I might have misjudged the agenda of the regulars who post here.
What "agenda" would that be? Your passive-aggressive approach to debate has been quickly detected and deflected. Would insusceptibility to silly debate tricks qualify as an "agenda?"
I’m not yet into trying to convince anyone of anything, I just want facts.
"I'm only asking questions," is the most common hoax believer approach. Distance yourself from that perception, if it is inaccurate, by graciously answering the questions that have been put to you and by shouldering any burden of proof for the premises underlying your questions.
People here seem to want me to elaborate on something that is not completely understood as far as I am concerned. Why would anyone do that?
You have stated that you do not believe the explanation you knew would likely be given regarding the reflections. You have laid heavy expectations unreasonably on others. You have asked questions regarding footprints, which contain hidden premises that have been identified and presented back to your for elucidation.
You seem to have this odd notion that anyone can show up, challenge the prevailing believe, lay heavy burdens of proof on everyone else, and then sit back and chide them for inaction. Unfortunately you appear to be the lazy one here.
Pretty sad place if you ask me…
And it was your goal all along to try to create that impression, wasn't it?
Sorry. This is a debate forum. You have arrived voluntarily, stated a position, and attempted to make a case. Unfortunately since all you can do is shift the burden of proof, you can't get very far with people who are used to such shenanigans.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Nov 14, 2008 1:45:55 GMT -4
By the way, while I am waiting here for some real arguments based on accessible footage that we can all analyse together and discuss, anyone knows of a good forum or newsgroup where people actually make attempts to back up their claims about Apollo missions? Why yes, right here. Pity you can't. It's becoming increasingly apparent that you have an agenda - you summarily dismiss all the arguments provided to date, demand that others do all the work, refuse repeated requests to back up your dismissal or explain the basis of your doubts, and then paint yourself in taunting tones as the aggrieved party. Are your posts here more about the attitude than the content? It certainly seems so. Seen it all before.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 14, 2008 2:31:10 GMT -4
Oh, it's tiresome, isn't it?
Oh, I admit--I am of little help here, though I have observed multiple reflections off a single glass surface more than once in my life! However, I have never yet encountered the question that the proponent side cannot and will not answer cheerfully if presented in polite terms. I have never yet encountered the question that the "just a few things" side will.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 14, 2008 4:47:05 GMT -4
I see it everytime I look in a mirror. It's only noticable if you know what you're looking for, but you'll see a double reflection, a ghostly one off the glass and the primary one off the silver backing.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 14, 2008 4:49:39 GMT -4
Interesting stand point. I learn something new everyday (or forget I have seen it before). If you are waiting for someone to say it is a multiple reflection and why, how have you decided it is fake? I had a multiple reflection the other night. During a long exposure (30 seconds or so) I picked up a street light. It looks like a multiple orange hexagonal in the corner of one of my shots. Now, somewhere in my camera lens are a few bits of glass and a view finder. I do not know but assume that during the exposure the reflections are a result of the internals and the time it was open? So I think that reflections are quite complex and can be the result of a single source. How have you disproved a single source and interaction of the camera on capturing such an event?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 14, 2008 5:15:01 GMT -4
By the way, while I am waiting here for some real arguments based on accessible footage that we can all analyse together and discuss, You have HAD real arguments, but you just won't accept them. The post before yours was a detailed description with times and sources of some footage that might be useful in your discussion. It is accessible. Just because it is not accessible in high quality full screen video on the web doesn't mean it's not available. If you're not willing to seek and use the best quality visual evidence in your fact-finding exercise then what's the point? We have no aghenda except to correct ignorance. It is hard to do that with someone who will not accept answers given and refuses to explain his reasons for it. You are not just trying to get facts. You are trying to show that by our inability to meet your absurdly high burden of proof such facts cannot be provided and therefore Apollo remains unproved. Sorry, reality just doesn't work that way. We want you to elaborate on your reasons for not accepting the answers given and your reasons for finding things suspect in the first place. The reason anyone would do that is because it provides a sensible framework for discussion. If we know WHY you find something strange we can possibly help you understand it better, or maybe even look at it differently and agree that it is strange. You won't give us that chance. All you are doing now is rejecting explanations for no good reason. How are we supposed to argue with or against that? You're not providing a basis for debate. What evidence would you accept, and why do you consider that an acceptable standard? You're the one evading direct questions and dancing around the point. Answer the following questions: Why don't you accept the multiple reflection off multiple layer answer? Why do you think the footprints are suspect? Why do you expect answers to be found in low quality comressed movie files on the web? Then you won't mind going elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 14, 2008 12:11:04 GMT -4
By the way, while I am waiting here for some real arguments based on accessible footage that we can all analyse together and discuss, anyone knows of a good forum or newsgroup where people actually make attempts to back up their claims about Apollo missions? That is quite funny. You haven't provided any substance, just empty words. If you think there is something wrong with visor reflections tell us what it is. It's not up to us fill in the blanks. If there is an explanation that works (double reflections off two layers of visor) then why should we rule it out? You've given us no reason to believe that explanation is wrong. Our "agenda" is to clear up misconceptions about the Moon landings. Your agenda appears to be to create arguments. You can't figure it out? Really? It seems pretty clear to me. The section labeled "The Hoax Theory" is for discussions about "The Hoax Theory". Pretty complicated, isn't it? You clearly have a hoax agenda, so why don't you just come out with it? Quit being dishonest. We gave you facts and you ignored them. You don't want facts, you want people to agree with you. Now, I want you to drop the act. You aren't fooling anyone with your "I'm just asking questions" routine. Tell us why the visor reflections explanation we gave you is wrong. And drop the attitude or I will ban you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 14, 2008 14:29:12 GMT -4
Here's the image I posted a link to earlier: This is a good example of just how common double reflections are. Please note the woman's reflection in the window. If it can happen so clearly here, why is it so inconceivable as an explanation for the reflection off the astronaut's visor?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 14, 2008 15:09:42 GMT -4
Ews may be confused by the apparent shape of the reflections. He (mis)uses the term "spherical aberration" to describe them. However, he may be unaware that the YouTube version of the footage from which he is drawing his conclusions has employed a digital zoom to magnify the pixels from some previous source. Interpolation has occurred in this zoom to avoid pixelation. However, the shape of the reflection that appears in the YouTube video is far more likely to be the product of original quantization errors magnified and masked by smoothing.
In any case, it is folly to suggest that the shape and position of any light sources, or a rectification of the reflection paths through reflectors, can be accomplished with any useful accuracy. The data are simply to coarse for any such attempt to be reliable enough to support a conclusion. But the principal point is that the "spherical" shape -- or any other characterization of shape -- must first be reconciled with the condition of the data. Ews bears that burden of proof before he can demand any explanation that leads to some specifically shaped reflection.
|
|
|
Post by gerardcuccinotta on Nov 15, 2008 2:03:11 GMT -4
Ok, I suppose it is time for a summary so we can eliminate 95% of the empty rhetoric that was posted and concentrate on the two topics. ... Anything else worth mentioning? ews The angle is worth mentioning . Considering one source of light (the sun) , the angle prevent this smaller point of light to be the product of a reflection in the inner layer , so this explanation is not working. The smaller point being a little bit higher on the frame than the larger one.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 15, 2008 2:12:56 GMT -4
And which reflection is the primary and which a secondary? How did you determine that?
|
|
|
Post by gerardcuccinotta on Nov 15, 2008 2:34:25 GMT -4
And which reflection is the primary and which a secondary? How did you determine that? The secondary reflection , in the case it was due to some inner layer reflection of the single source of light (the sun) , would be the smaller one on the left. But it doesn't work , because the angle of the light source will cause this eventual secondary relfection to be lower than the first . here the smaller one is on the left , but higher than the larger reflection.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 3:07:39 GMT -4
And which reflection is the primary and which a secondary? How did you determine that? I will assume that only the largest two “spherical aberrations” on the right are present to simplify matters. I will also assume that only surface A (outer) and B (inner) are present. I will finally assume that we are in the presence of multiple reflections on multiple layers. We are discussing this piece of footage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=680E6FprCHM (See at time 0:30) Light reflects on surface A and reaches the observer (here, the camera). We will call this reflection #1. Some of the light is transmitted through surface A and reflects onto surface B and must, again, be transmitted through surface A to reach the observer. We will call this reflection #2. How can you not understand that reflection #2 cannot be more intense than reflection #1? Isn’t this basic optics? Do you now understand why I was asking for a light path sketch earlier on? JayUtah, this was a quick post. I will certainly produce a rebuttal for your previous post when I have a minute. You actually provided what you think is some substance in that post and it warrants a reply. Let’s hope that LunarOrbit won’t ban me before I get to it tomorrow… ews
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 15, 2008 4:39:42 GMT -4
You mention intensity. How have you measured the intensity? I ask because it is a video on youtube. Have you compared this with the original and eliminated digital errors? MPEG can be quite a tease.
And why assume?
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 15, 2008 5:21:38 GMT -4
The DAC is tilted, as can be seen from the horizon (much clearer in the SCF Apollo 14 DVD than in the zoomed-in clip), which accounts for the smaller reflection appearing noticeably higher. Also, the idea that the inner reflection should be lower assumes the two reflecting layers are concentric, which is not necessarily the case.
The shadow of the helmet on the PLSS (easily visible at around 0:26-0:28) in the clip) indicates that he is facing pretty much straight at the sun, which would agree with the larger spot being the primary reflection.
|
|