raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 21, 2008 0:54:48 GMT -4
Oh shucks, I think we scared oldman off. Too bad, I was hoping for some kind of, well. . .answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 21, 2008 2:01:54 GMT -4
No, he'll certainly be back to complain about our unwillingness to jump through his silly hoops.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 22, 2008 7:36:02 GMT -4
That's a good question for any hoax believer.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:22:11 GMT -4
AS16-110-18006 (OF300) 173k or 1237k Rightward of 18005, showing the back of the Rover. In this photo, note that the Rover is not sitting on it's own tracks. After getting off, John decided at 145:11:16 that the Rover had to be re-positioned and, rather than spend any time getting back on, he and Charlie picked the vehicle up and moved it.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#M110Yes, we all know NASA's explanation for why the tracks don't align with the rover in AS16-110-18006. I stated this in my original post. This thread is about tracks that are missing in AS16-110-18020. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:24:39 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."] Again, we all know NASA's explanation for why the tracks don't align with the rover in AS16-110-18006. I stated this in my original post. This thread is about tracks that are missing in AS16-110-18020. Please state your point.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:27:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:29:02 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? You don't need to be an "expert in photogrammetry" to expect to see tracks in this photo. All you really need is a little common sense. The tracks should be unmistakably apparent in this photo (AS16-110-18020). First, our viewpoint itself isn't an issue. The ground is sloped downwards with respect to our viewpoint and so we're not looking head-on at the ground next to the rover which is what I believe you are implying. The left track cuts across the small crater, the edge of which is obviously sloped downward with respect to our viewpoint (notice the sudden downward direction of the wheel's shadow). Likewise, if we were actually looking head-on at the ground where the right track should be, we wouldn't be seeing any shadows on the ground in this area either. Notice that we can clearly see the shadow that is cast onto the ground by the large rock sitting just to the right of the rear wheel's shadow. This tells us that the slope of the ground in this area is also downward with respect to our viewpoint. As far as "poor contrast" and other viewing "difficulties" are concerned, there is nothing that would keep us from seeing the tracks in this photo. In fact, we can easily make out small rocks and even pebbles near the rover. We also have no trouble distinguishing shadows on the ground from the surrounding soil. We can also easily identify the footprints near the front of the rover. If there was not enough contrast for us to see the tracks then why is it that we can see all of this other detail so readily? Furthermore, if contrast were an issue with respect to seeing the tracks, then how is it that we are able to see rover tracks extending towards the upper right corner of the photo (farther in the distance than the rover itself)? Also, the tracks should be even more visible due to the angle of the sun in this photo. You'll notice that the footprints in the middle of the photo and those near the front of the rover reflect sunlight much better than the surrouding soil (as they are compacted). As this shows, if the rover's tracks were not missing from this photo, then we should easily be able to identify them just based on the difference in their reflectivity with respect to the surrounding soil. Then there's the matter of the rover's tracks extending towards the camera in this photo which would make them even more visible... Anyone who thinks that the contrast of the original photo is an issue can simply enhance the contrast of this photo as I have done here... www.sigmirror.com/pfiles/5032/AS16-110-18020T.JPGThe irregularity of the lunar surface is also not an issue. What irregularity in particular would keep us from seeing the rover's tracks in this photo? The ground looks "regular" enough to me. In fact, the areas in question are downright smooth not to mention completely undisturbed.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:31:47 GMT -4
As postbaguk said, two different locations, two different elevations, two different distances and thus levels of detail, and two different lighting angles.Differences in our viewpoint between these two photos is irrelevant considering that we can easily make out small rocks, pebbles and footprints at the same distance as the rover, not to mention *rover tracks* even farther in the distance than the rover. Plus plenty of disturbed soil in front of, behind, and to the side of the rover. Sure, there's disturbed soil visible in this photo but none of it is relevant to the missing tracks. The two red lines are pure conjecture;No, the two red lines are not conjecture. That's just more wishful thinking on your part. Their placement is well supported in my original post. there's nothing to support that tracks, whatever their visibility in the 020 image, should come out that far anyway.Sure there is. Take a look at the two annotated photos linked here... www.sigmirror.com/pfiles/5287/AS16-110-18010a.jpgwww.sigmirror.com/pfiles/5289/AS16-110-18020b.jpgSurface features common to both photos are circled using different colors. As you can see from AS16-110-18010a, the feature circled in cyan is clearly within one rover length distance from the pictured rover's right front wheel. This distance is represented by the white line that has been added to the bottom right corner of this photo. Now, looking at AS16-110-18020b, if we extend this same line to the left and keep it parallel to the side of the pictured rover, it falls almost exactly at the point where I said the expected tracks would extend to in my original post.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 17:32:42 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. Nowhere on apolloanomalies.com/missing_tracks_as16-110-18006.htm does it state that the astronauts lifted 90 lbs *each*. Here's each of the three references that you're apparently incapable of either reading or understanding: "There's no pause whatsoever before Duke--wearing a pressurized spacesuit--agrees to help lift the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell." "So, where's this slope that's mentioned in the voice transcript that motivated these two astronauts to lift the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell uphill while wearing pressurized spacesuits (when all that was really necessary was for Young to simply push a button and pull back on a lever)?" "Also missing are any drag marks. Why would the astronauts pick up the rover clear off of the ground just to reorient it (on the moon it still weighed almost 90 pounds)?"
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 24, 2008 18:01:05 GMT -4
Judging from the responses thus far in this thread, apparently my argument isn't such nonsense after all. ;-)
When those responses are simply repeated calls for you to step up and take some intellectual responsibility for your position, it's not a good idea to crow about how many of them there are.
Do you ever intend to accept any burden of proof for your "fraud" claims?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 24, 2008 19:00:29 GMT -4
Oldman,
The point of the response given to you is to show that a claim of fraud is not the most likely explaination; they show more likely, alternative explainations.
Claiming "fraud" is the last resort.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 24, 2008 19:22:44 GMT -4
Claiming "fraud" is the last resort. Unfortunately the way Oldman seems to be interpreting this is that unless some "anomaly" can be explained to his satisfaction, he can claim fraud by default. That's not the way it works. Fraud is a specific allegation that must be proven by specific evidence, not indirectly merely by the inability of something else to clear some arbitrarily set bar.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 19:25:56 GMT -4
When those responses are simply repeated calls for you to step up and take some intellectual responsibility for your position, it's not a good idea to crow about how many of them there are.
My position is that this and/or other Station 5 photos have been fraudulently manufactured using composite photography and that's far more than you've stated as a cause for this anomaly other than to deny it even exists (while at the same time having admitted that you didn't even understand the anomaly). Again, you can't explain why the tracks are missing from this photo and so rather than making this clear to everyone, you simply shift focus onto my not providing you with sufficient details regarding my explanation even though such details aren't the least bit relevant to your explanation for this anomaly. Tell us your explanation for this anomaly.
Do you ever intend to accept any burden of proof for your "fraud" claims?
I've already made my case. Now let's hear yours.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 24, 2008 20:29:33 GMT -4
Do you think oldman that just perhaps you'd cut us all a break and let us first have at least 5 whole minutes with our families on this Xmas eve? I know it's a big ask, but I'm hoping you'll grant us all, however undeserved it may be, the chance to indulge in reality? Surely the crimes of NASA after having survived 40 years, can hold on just a touch longer?
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 20:40:45 GMT -4
Unfortunately the way Oldman seems to be interpreting this is that unless some "anomaly" can be explained to his satisfaction, he can claim fraud by default.
At this point in the thread I've already shown that this is an actual anomaly by addressing everyone's relevant points that have been made. Here we have tracks missing from a photo in which one has every reason to expect them to exist and be visible. If you know of some reason why tracks should not exist or be visible in this photo then state your reason.
That's not the way it works. Fraud is a specific allegation that must be proven by specific evidence, not indirectly merely by the inability of something else to clear some arbitrarily set bar.
Wrong. If you can't explain the serious anomaly that is demonstrated by this photo in terms of the photo being genuine, then how can this photo be anything else but fake? Again, if you know of some reason why tracks should not exist or be visible in this photo then state your reason and cut the BS.
|
|