|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 7:49:24 GMT -4
Fair enough, I respect your comments.
That's why I installed Ulead Video Studio 11, uploaded the large 80 Mb MOV file and precisely measured the time between the last frame when the objects are still firmly in the hands of the astronaut (00:59:16) and the first frame when the objects appear firmly on the ground (1:00:24).
Therefore, the estimated time interval is at most 1:08 seconds according to the video.
The distance which could be traveled for 1:08 seconds on the moon surface with even greater acceleration of 1.63 m/s^2 is
d = [1.63*(1.08)^2]/2 = 0.95 m
Therefore, on the moon the 1.83-meter-tall astronaut in lunar boots is supposed to release both hammer and feather at CROTCH level or below, which obviously is not the case as observed in the video.
This is the contradiction in this video according to my point of view.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 22, 2009 8:16:06 GMT -4
Does anyone know the frame rate of the original camera? How does that compare with the .mov? Is there any pulldown or similar going on?
Just wondering.
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Jul 22, 2009 8:43:39 GMT -4
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 22, 2009 8:44:29 GMT -4
d = [1.63*(1.08)^2]/2 = 0.95 mTherefore, on the moon the 1.83-meter-tall astronaut in lunar boots is supposed to release both hammer and feather at CROTCH level or below. What kind of disportionate freak 1.83 m tall human being has a crotch 0.95 m high?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 22, 2009 8:58:03 GMT -4
Lunar gravity does vary over the surface, I'm not sure by how much though It might be more accurate to measure the distance using hammer lenghts. There were two hammers in the toolkit I believe? You'd need higher quality footage though.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 9:19:42 GMT -4
The one having lunar boots being several centimeters high I suppose. One can check the average value based on United States Army data at robyn.faeriemanor.org/BodyProportions.php which is 88-89 cm. Adding several centimeters for the lunar boots one can get 91-92 cm. So, to be more precise, 95 cm would be slightly above the average value, but there is a large standard deviation of crotch heights though.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 22, 2009 9:22:44 GMT -4
Also, I never stated any "claim of fraudulence." You are on a board whose general purpose is to discuss the idea that the Apollo missions were a hoax and a fraud, in the forum designated for that purpose and questioning the validity of the missions. Why shouldn't we think you are saying it is a hoax? If you do not think Apollo was a hoax, please say so and ask the moderator to move the thread. Otherwise many here will continue to believe you are proposing a hoax rather than trying to get clarification of information you do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 9:31:43 GMT -4
Well, at the strongest mass concentration (mascon) points the increase in acceleration is at most +200 milligals (1 gal = 0.01 m/s^2) which is equivalent to +0.002 m/s^2, a value which does not affect noticeably my calculations.
See "Implications of the Lunar Mascon Discovery" by Paul M. Muller in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 116, No. 5 (Oct. 13, 1972), pp. 362-364.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 9:45:45 GMT -4
Well, to clearly state that something is a hoax, one should have a firm proof. As I obviously have no access to the original analog tape, I share my observations concerning the digital file provided by NASA to the public. And I think that I am in the right thread.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 22, 2009 9:54:05 GMT -4
Adding several centimeters for the lunar boots one can get 91-92 cm. And then deducting away several centimeters for the thickness of the suit...
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 9:55:09 GMT -4
Thanks, MarkS, you somehow missed the YouTube and DTV sites.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 11:01:52 GMT -4
The one having lunar boots being several centimeters high I suppose.How many are "several?" And which boots did you measure? How far into the ground do those boots sink? How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 11:04:55 GMT -4
Therefore, the estimated time interval is at most 1:08 seconds according to the video.Describe your method for accounting and controlling for any frame-rate conversions that may have occurred in the production of your data. Also, please comment generally on frame-rate conversion's effect on using frame count as a timer. This is the contradiction in this video according to my point of view.This is not a matter of points of view. This is a matter of having done the proper technical analysis of the data. How can you assure us that your "contradiction" is not simply your errors, uncertainties, or omissions?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 11:09:31 GMT -4
You are on a board whose general purpose is to discuss the idea that the Apollo missions were a hoax and a fraud, in the forum designated for that purpose and questioning the validity of the missions.Agreed. The stated purpose of this forum is to discuss and debate hoax theories. The notion that the hammer-and-feather experiment was "really" shot in normal Earth gravity, or somehow doctored, is a common argument in favor of a hoax; and it typically comes accompanied by just such amateur photo analysis as johnsmith is presenting. Plus, he raised the possibility himself in his post that has now been quoted by two different people asking for clarification. Given the above, I think it's safe to treat this as a hoax theory until specifically disclaimed otherwise. The argument, "I didn't say anything explicity," is insufficient in this venue. One is expected to propose hoax theories here.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 11:13:26 GMT -4
Well, to clearly state that something is a hoax, one should have a firm proof.That hasn't stopped any of the other hoax proponents. The problem remains that you are questioning the validity of Apollo evidence in a forum where that activity signals that you're proposing a hoax theory. Please explicitly state what you have concluded on the basis of your findings, so that there will be no further misunderstanding of your intent. As I obviously have no access to the original analog tape...What have you attempted in the way of obtaining more suitable data? I share my observations concerning the digital file provided by NASA to the public.Why do you imply that NASA considers that data suitable for the type of analysis you propose? Why do you seem to believe it is suitable?
|
|