|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2008 23:50:42 GMT -4
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.sta5.html#1451116145:11:16 Young: Me too, Charlie. Fact is, let's bring the Rover back up here. 145:11:23 Duke: Well, I'm out. I'm not getting out again, and getting back in. 145:11:26 Young: No, I don't mean that. I mean let's bring the Rover back up here. 145:11:29 Duke: Oh, you want to pick it up, huh? 145:11:30 Young: Yeah. 145:11:31 Duke: Okay. (Pause) 145:11:36 Young: Okay, now. We've got to swing it around. (Pause) There we go. 145:11:50 Duke: Okay. 145:11:51 Young: That's more like it. (Long Pause) [As indicated above John parked on a heading of 174. Frame AS16-110-18010 suggests that they may have put it on a somewhat easterly heading. Because they don't re-initialize the Rover Nav system before the leave for Station 6, the indicated Rover heading and the bearing to the LM will be off by the difference between the initial heading of 174 and whatever the heading was after they moved the Rover.] [Duke - "Like I always say, 'If you don't like your parking place, you just pick it up and walk off with it.' It was easy to pick up. I don't remember the details. I'm trying to picture it in my mind; but, apparently, we parked and it was pointed down a slope and there was a little bench behind us, so we just picked it up and hauled it back."] [Jones - "One at either side at the midpoint?"] [Duke - "Yeah. You just get out, right where your seat was, and there was a handle on the frame."] [ AS16-107- 17511[ shows the handle on John's side of the Rover. The Rover has a terrestrial weight of about 230 kg (500 pounds) and a lunar weight of about 40 kg (88 pounds).] [Jones - "Both hands on the handle?"] [Duke - "I don't remember exactly, but I think both hands on the handle. It was sort of like you could reach up and...There was a handle down there and, also, you could reach up under the chassis and pick it up - spread your hands apart a little bit, that gave you a little balance on the thing. It was easy to do."]
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 18, 2008 2:15:14 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Dec 18, 2008 8:00:16 GMT -4
I think the problem is that Eric, oops, I mean "Oldman", is expecting to see the same features in 2 different photos, taken from different locations, pointing in slightly different directions, and at different heights.
For example, the second photo is taken from within the crater, and also further away from the rover, so the amount of detail visible is greatly reduced. Think of looking at a chessboard from a few inches above and slightly behind it. Everything is very clear and easy to make out. Now move ten feet away, and bring your eye-level down much closer with the board. Much more difficult to make out the pieces and their location. Now factor in the irregularity of the lunar surface, & the poor contrast. How can anyone who isn't an expert in photogrammetry expect to come to any meaningful conclusions based on those two images, given the difficulties mentioned above?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 18, 2008 10:25:21 GMT -4
Let's pretend the photos of the rover are composites. How does that prove the moon landings were faked? I'll admit, I haven't followed this thread all that closely, but has oldman actually claimed the landings were faked? All I recall offhand is his declaration of "fraud."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 18, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -4
Let's pretend the photos of the rover are composites. How does that prove the moon landings were faked? I'll admit, I haven't followed this thread all that closely, but has oldman actually claimed the landings were faked? All I recall offhand is his declaration of "fraud." That's the problem. He talks alot but doesn't say much of anything.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 18, 2008 12:28:08 GMT -4
After the lengthy OP, I expected to see something more when I looked at all the images. But I don't see anything that jumps out at me. As postbaguk said, two different locations, two different elevations, two different distances and thus levels of detail, and two different lighting angles. Plus plenty of disturbed soil in front of, behind, and to the side of the rover. The two red lines are pure conjecture; there's nothing to support that tracks, whatever their visibility in the 020 image, should come out that far anyway.
OK, oldman, I've looked at the images, and they don't look particularly suspicious to me, nor evidently to anyone else here. So what exactly do you claim was composited, and how, and why?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 18, 2008 12:33:40 GMT -4
I'll admit, I haven't followed this thread all that closely, but has oldman actually claimed the landings were faked? Well, I think when someone comes to a forum called "Apollo Hoax" and claims a photograph is fake, it is safe to assume that the fraud they are referring to is that the moon landings did not really happen. But oldman can correct me if I'm wrong. That is why people keep telling him "fraud" is too vague.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 18, 2008 13:59:13 GMT -4
Well, we've moved from "fraud" to "composite photography". Perhaps when oldman tells us what exactly he claims was composited, and how, and why, we'll start to get somewhere. The photographic "anomalies" he's pointed out are not very convincing, so we might as well hear the details of his scenario.
Here's why I generally avoid discussions of individual photos, and am uninterested in looking at any more "missing-track" threads in particular: Although I had optics way back when in phsyics, and know the basic principles of photography, I'm not an expert. But such claims rarely even involve expertise, anyway; they're just an endless exercise in subjective claims of what is "anomalous" or "suspicious", or extrapolations from insufficient data in what the crews should have done. There will never be additional images from Station 5 intermediate to what we've seen, or from entirely different angles. There will never be a timeline and map of the precise paths the astronauts took moving the rover, or moving around the rover. The relatively sparsity of such data allows one to argue endlessly about what it should have looked like.
There's really no point to it. That's why I ask, what exactly was supposed to have been composited, and how, and why. Even if one claims that the entire thing was filmed on a Brobdingnagian artificial-reduced-gravity vacuum "soundstage" somewhere, why would scenarios involving a self-propelled wheeled vehicle and two crewmen require faking the motion of... a self-propelled wheeled vehicle and two self-propelled crewmen?
What, how, and why.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 18, 2008 16:01:46 GMT -4
I looked at the anomalies site.
Wow. That's some pretty hard- hitting analysis. :0
Apparently, the astronauts couldn't have possibly lifted the Rover, because they would be lifting 90 pounds. Each. Not together.
I guess HB's have trouble dividing by 2.
Personally, I could lift 90# pretty easily, 45# even more so. I'm not that big, and I'm currently in pretty soft shape, but I used to toss 90# sacks of concrete and 50# boxes of nails around HomeDepot all night without much hassle. Ninety pounds of two-man lift, once or twice in a work day, for fighter pilots in their prime? Yeah, that's "hard to believe."
Next.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Dec 18, 2008 20:26:12 GMT -4
All this examination of an alleged anomaly in one photo ignores the simple and indeniable fact that even proving one photo fake only proves that that photo is fake, whereas proving one photo genuine proves that the moon landings happened.
With that in mind, I really cannot understand a mindset that focusses all this attention on a tiny detail of one picture when there are much bigger issues that would need to be addressed in any accusation that the landings were hoaxed.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 19, 2008 3:42:55 GMT -4
A big problem with Oldman is that he doesn't seem to know anything about putting up a decent, logical argument and defending it. It's a pity really because he certainly appears to have a bit better brain than some HBs we've had here, but he doesn't seem to know know how to really use it. He seems to believe that he only needs to point out something he doesn't understand and that allows him to claim fraud or "composite photography." Yeah, right! Eyebrow-raising stuff for many of us. In his other opus I asked him, in reply #58, if he knows anything at all about logical fallacies and he didn't even bother to reply. Oldman: Do you know anything at all about logical fallacies -- begging the question, circular reasoning, etc? If not, Google them. Do you know that if anyone can point out that you have committed a logical fallacy, your argument is completely blown out of the water? In fact you don't even have an argument -- you have to start again, but this time keeping all logical fallacies completely out of what you say. Since then he has committed at least one more logical fallacy than he had at that time. Eyebrow-raising, sigh-heaving and head-banging stuff! If such people don't want to be helped, I guess there's nothing much we can do besides leave them alone to enjoy their ignorance. I'm happy to help with sensible posts and questions about photographs when I can, and have occasionally solved the odd Apollo mystery, but as others here have pointed out, Oldman's current claims are largely a waste of time, particularly when he can't even put up a proper argument.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 19, 2008 11:04:10 GMT -4
oldman is at least producing (or reproducing) arguments in reasonable detail, and attempting to defend them. That puts him well ahead of most HBs. But, as I mentioned above, the arguments basically boil down to a subjective interpretation of what "looks right", and there can be no end to such claims. They're part of a sort of emotional induction process: "this picture looks funny <argument ensues>; well, this one looks funny <more argument>; well, look at this one..." The idea is to give an impression of a large amount of funny business going on, supporting the contention that Apollo was somehow faked. (I do admit to being vastly entertained by the notion that two astronauts couldn't have lifted and moved the rover easily.) But, since none of the individual arguments are very convincing, and most people here have significant knowledge of the Apollo record, such an approach leads nowhere. Hence my desire to get to the point of oldman's claims: what exactly does he claim was faked, and how exactly was it faked, and why exactly was it faked?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 19, 2008 12:21:38 GMT -4
Simple question oldman, why do YOU think the tracks are missing? A one word post saying 'fraud' or 'hoax' isn't enough.
|
|
|
Post by slang on Dec 19, 2008 20:33:02 GMT -4
Fraud AND hoax!
There! THREE WORD REPLY!
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 20, 2008 19:04:13 GMT -4
Fraud AND hoax! There! THREE WORD REPLY! [The Count]Ah Ah Ah![/The Count]
|
|