|
Post by BertL on Jul 21, 2009 19:05:50 GMT -4
The hammer and feather seem to start dropping at frame 1166 (although it might have been earlier, but we cannot tell at this point). Here's a screenshot from the frame. I can't seem to find the original studies I made of the thing, though. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 21, 2009 19:12:33 GMT -4
I find that using the video to exactly work it out a tad erroneous. Perhaps the best way would have been for them to have a calibrated pole to see the drop point. But that did not happen, it was not planned as such so should be taken as such. At least for the hoax proponent.
I seem to remember going through this question before and that refers to my comment about it being erroneous? I managed a different timing to the poster, I think. Started to get deep into leaning and hammer length etc.
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 21, 2009 19:13:43 GMT -4
The explanation is that people can come up with all kinds of statistics to prove their point. But statistics can be easily manipulated to what ever you want them to be. Baseball would be the perfect example. A team can lose 10 in a row so they suck then they win 10 in row they are great but in reality they are an average team.
Think about it. Its like that in every facet of lige. ;D
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 19:14:37 GMT -4
Indeed, if the video rate and the audio can be altered/interleaved in any way possible, it is doubtful whether the reported event happened on the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 19:17:17 GMT -4
Okay, the astronaut is 132 pixels high, the hammer and feather are 86 pixels up on the astronaut. 86/132=.651515 recurring. The height quoted by johnsmith for the astronaut in his suit was 1.86 metres. 0.651515x1.86=1.2118179. So call it 1.2-1.3m metres(allowing for the graininess of the footage) as opposed to Johnsmith's original estimate of 1.5-1.6.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 19:45:41 GMT -4
The calculation based on the pixels of the still image is flawed because the cameraman is obviously standing at a higher altitude than the astronaut and from this perspective it would appear that the height of both hammer and feather is lower than the actual one.
Have you also noticed that both hammer and feather are falling down approximately 0.10-0.15 meters below the boots as the astronaut is clearly standing on a bulge?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 19:59:29 GMT -4
Have you also noticed that both hammer and feather are falling down approximately 0.10-0.15 meters below the boots as the astronaut is clearly standing on a bulge? Wow, you drop gems like that and then don't want anyone else to speculate?
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 20:04:25 GMT -4
One can count the number of pixels below the boots after hammer and feather hit the ground. It is the same kind of argument being used by my opponent to reduce the height to 1.2-1.3 m.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 20:04:42 GMT -4
However, this does not explain why the audio rate remains unaltered. Audio and video were always recorded separately. Any attempt synch-up is purely post-processing.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 20:05:03 GMT -4
One can count the number of pixels below the boots after hammer and feather hit the ground. It is the same kind of argument being used by my opponent to reduce the height to 1.2-1.3 m. Have you ever heard of perspective?
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 20:08:05 GMT -4
Indeed, I used the term "perspective" already.
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 21, 2009 20:08:17 GMT -4
The only thing I can add to this conversation is this: If you have to cut a piece of wood and on one side you have a laser cut with a micron measurement and on the other side you slam it with an an ax, what do you get? Think about it!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 20:08:56 GMT -4
What is your training and experience in photogrammetric photographic analysis?
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 20:16:36 GMT -4
Are only the experts in "photogrammetric photographic analysis" eligible to participate? The height of approximately 1.6 m is stated officially by NASA. Should we assume that the NASA specialists in "photogrammetric photographic analysis" provided us with wrong data?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 20:30:20 GMT -4
Are only the experts in "photogrammetric photographic analysis" eligible to participate? You're making assertive statements in the field of photogrammetry. I want to know if there is any point to asking you to provide a suitable analysis according to accepted methods. Please answer my question. Do you have any training or experience in photogrammetric methods of photographic analysis? The height of approximately 1.6 m is stated officially by NASA."Officially" how? Simply because it was stated anonymously on a web site provided for downloading convenience samples of Apollo photography does not establish it as the correct value. Should we assume that the NASA specialists in "photogrammetric photographic analysis" provided us with wrong data? You're the one assuming the 1.6-meter figure is reliable. Your only basis for that assumption is that the figure appears on a web site in the NASA domain. What is your understanding of how that 1.6-meter figure was arrived at?
|
|