|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 20:46:27 GMT -4
I provided my arguments. You can provide your own "suitable analysis according to accepted methods" if you wish.
Does it mean that the anonymous information provided by the NASA web site should not be trusted? Such a statement may open a can of worms...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 21, 2009 21:10:15 GMT -4
I provided my arguments. You can provide your own "suitable analysis according to accepted methods" if you wish.It doesn't work like that. The burden of proof is always upon the claim of fraudulence, therefore squarely upon you. Kindly do not shift it. Your "argument" is based largely on unsubstantiated assumption and assertion. For example you say the astronaut is "clearly" standing on a rise. Yet the same visual appearance can also be accounted for by perspective: the projective transformation in the lens. Therefore there is no "clearly" about it. You bear the burden to prove that the projected effect is the result of an actual variance in terrain and not simply the natural behavior of optics. Your claim is further based on such absurd statements as the assumed reliability of the video rendition because the audio appears not to have changed. This fundamentally misunderstands how these video presentations were composed, and how video technology for the web works. And yes, I have training and experience in photographic analysis and interpretation, and have had my work published and reviewed in international peer-reviewed journals. Does it mean that the anonymous information provided by the NASA web site should not be trusted? Such a statement may open a can of worms...No, it means that you have based your argument in this case on information of unknown origin and reliability. Yet you seem to want everyone to accept it without question. Handwaving at other potential problems will not distract from this one. You seem to believe that only a counter-argument is warranted here in response to your claims. However, there is no burden of proof upon a disputation of what you present as direct evidence. The strength of that evidence is fair game. Therefore the prime question regarding the 1.6-meter estimated height is what you did to ascertain how that figure was derived. Do you plan to substantiate your claim, or merely to state it?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 21, 2009 22:05:02 GMT -4
The 1.6m drop height is not authoratative and as we seem to be in the realms of 'looks like' science then try this; measure the distance from the shoulder to the top of the head of a 6ft man. You will find that in order for the drop to be 1.6M he would have to drop it from about shoulder height and it clearly isn't (we can agree that much I hope). Looks much more like 2/3rds of his height so 1.2 M seems a better guess. And that's all it is, a guess. Now given the difficulties we have in timing the drop from this compressed footage and knowing an actual value for the drop height we are, I suggest, within acceptable limits of what we would expect on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 22:18:29 GMT -4
JayUtah, I presented my comments on the basis of the video and text provided (anonymously ) in the NASA website. I asked the forum members is there an explanation concerning the contradiction between time and height during the free fall. I did not claim that I have any definite solution concerning the said contradiction. Also, I never stated any "claim of fraudulence." This is a forum, we can all share our observations. If you have "training and experience in photographic analysis and interpretation" it is up to you whether to provide voluntarily any additional facts that contradict my observations. Also, if you have exact knowledge "how these video presentations were composed, and how video technology for the web works" which could be expressed in numbers, please share it with us. I admit that the visual appearance of the astronaut standing on a rise could be an actual variance in terrain or natural behavior of optics. I stand corrected. The core of my observations (height - approximately 1.5-1.6 m, time - approximately 1.1 seconds) remains the same.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 21, 2009 22:58:37 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. This is the most astonishing leap of logic I've seen all day. Care to explain it in a little more detail?
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 21, 2009 23:33:33 GMT -4
Okay, everybody, calm down! This feat to duplicate on film is incredibly difficult. Perhaps not so much today, given Motion Capture systems, but remember when this film was made. Not possible then. Technology did not exist back then. I challenge anyone to tell me it did, and I will take it up with them. You are getting into my expertise now.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 21, 2009 23:43:47 GMT -4
As my opponents say, the commented material is QuickTime video in the NASA web page being posted anonymously and altered in such a way that all one can say with any certainty is that the two (hammer and feather) are released at the same time and land at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 21, 2009 23:51:44 GMT -4
time - approximately 1.1 seconds Sorry John, but can I ask how you measured the time?
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 0:10:29 GMT -4
I used millisecond chronometer and measured the time 100 times. The average value was less than 1.1 seconds. I rounded up the result to 1.1 seconds. The standard deviation was approximately 0.1 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 0:15:59 GMT -4
Explain how you controlled for your response time.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 0:22:47 GMT -4
I asked the forum members is there an explanation concerning the contradiction between time and height during the free fall.You asserted there was a contradiction. It is your burden to prove that the video is anomalous. You raised the issue that the video may not depict an event that occurred on the Moon. Do you intend to argue that point or not? If you have "training and experience in photographic analysis and interpretation" it is up to you whether to provide voluntarily any additional facts that contradict my observations.No, it is up to you to substantiate your assertions. My job at this point is to identify the assertions that have not been supported. If you simply assert your belief and do not substantiate it, there is no need to refute it. But as a matter of fact I have already volunteered facts that you omitted to consider, such as the terrain issue and the video synch issue. It is up to you to educate yourself in the sciences, facts, and processes that affect your claims; it is improper for you to wave it off as speculation while you wantonly speculate. The core of my observations (height - approximately 1.5-1.6 m, time - approximately 1.1 seconds) remains the same.The core of your observations remains unsubstantiated and uncontrolled. You have no case, and to demand that others provide background and details is untimely.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 0:29:26 GMT -4
My response time could mainly increase the mean value as the chronometer could be activated almost immediately after the free fall is initiated but I guess that my response is a bit delayed in the end to make sure that both hammer and feather reach the ground.
I assume that a better estimation could be made by simply counting the number of frames with specialized software.
|
|
|
Post by gonehollywood on Jul 22, 2009 0:30:39 GMT -4
JayUtah: Great points.
But, lets discuss how this would have been "pulled off" on film. nobody is doing that. So tell me, Mr. Expert, just exactly how was this done? How? Really? Have you researched the the how this might have been possible? No? Are you an expert in cinematography? I'd like to to hear how you think that was possible back then, without facts, and I'll address them. And please do not show me some Charlie Chaplin videos or I will not answer you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 4:25:28 GMT -4
My response time could mainly increase the mean value...I didn't ask what you surmised the effect would be. I asked what you did to control for your response time. Did you adopt a scientific approach at all? I assume that a better estimation could be made by simply counting the number of frames with specialized software.A better estimation starts with better data whose frame rate is known and controlled back to the original source. What have you done to check your results against the best data you can obtain?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 22, 2009 4:47:09 GMT -4
A more reliable way to measure how long the hammer and feather take to drop, is to watch the footage frame by frame, and count the number of frames the two are in free fall. Then you simply divide the number of frames with the framerate, et voilá, instant more reliable measurements.
(Using this more accurate method I got a figure of 36 or 40 frames at 30FPS, giving a drop time of 1.2 or 1.3 seconds. Unfortunately I can't remember which of the two it was.)
On top of that, you don't need expensive software to measure this. The .mpg version I originally had could simply be opened in the (free for non-commercial users) VideoMach software, where the clip could be examined frame by frame. Another free piece of software that can do this is VirtualDub.
|
|