|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 18, 2010 19:18:18 GMT -4
Why is this effect not apparent in other footage? Oh, but it is apparent in a lot of other footage. You're just not looking at it as closely. How much Apollo EVA footage have you still-framed and carefully examined? LM ascent is the most dramatic example because you've got little bits of insulation flying all over the place, and each bit moves quite far between successive frames. So you get a red dot, then a green dot, then a blue dot, and so on for each bit. It certainly doesn't look natural. Oh, there's another phenomenon that frenat (I think) mentioned, and that's blooming. If the footage you saw passed through a kinescope stage (i.e. display on a CRT and recording by a film camera), then you also have CRT artifacts to consider, and one of those is "blooming". If the high voltage supply to the CRT anode isn't perfectly regulated, then it will decrease as the average picture brightness increases -- such as when Scott and his bright suit enter the picture. A drop in anode voltage causes the electrons to move more slowly and to be deflected by a greater angle as they pass through the magnetic deflection yoke. This causes the entire picture to get a little bigger, hence the name "blooming". I think I can detect a little of this as Scott enters the picture. It's easy to forget about a lot of these video artifacts as we look at our modern LCDs driven by digital computers displaying digital data that had been transferred over a digital network. Digital systems don't accumulate artifacts at each stage; analog systems, like those on Apollo, do. One of the reasons I'd really been looking forward to going back to the moon was to see it all over again but in digital high definition TV, with a continuous real-time stream of high resolution digital still photography better than the Apollo Hasselblads. The communications aspect of Apollo helped inspire me into a career in communications engineering, and we've come so far since then... Now you're talking. That was perfectly explained. I'm convinced.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 18, 2010 19:36:06 GMT -4
Why not that far away for static? They are in a vaccum which offers no resistance. All of our assumptions about static are based on our experience on Earth where it has to work through the insulator we call air. OK, I'll buy that, how would it work? I mean how does static electricity effect the movement of the flag when he is near it for this bit, but not when he is standing on the opposite side? IF it was static, then the charge difference (between him and the flag) wouldn't always exist. I don't personally think it was static but I don't think one could rule it out based on distance alone.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 22, 2010 16:56:39 GMT -4
I've studied this one quite a bit, and I conclude you're seeing video artifacts. Why is this effect not apparent in other footage? I could see why an HB would shrug this off. Is there a way of elaborating on this...specifically the same instant in time, so I can better understand it.......It kind of makes sense, but not quite. ka9q - I saw this video link on one of the replies on JWs ambush. www.youtube.com/watch?v=efzYblYVUFkIt's the lead up, jump salute and afterwards sequence. It clearly shows all sorts......the ground is 'moving'.....and so is the flag, it is just bizzare and clearly something to do with the video.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 23, 2010 2:47:36 GMT -4
It clearly shows all sorts......the ground is 'moving'.....and so is the flag, it is just bizzare and clearly something to do with the video. Keep in mind that Youtube compresses its videos VERY heavily. So when you consider everything that image has been through between the camera lens and your screen, it's pretty amazing that you can see anything at all... I would really like to see us return to the moon in my remaining lifetime, if for no other reason than to see it all over again but with modern high resolution digital cameras and transmission links. It would be a completely different experience. And it would be fun to watch the smoke come out of the conspiracists' ears as we watch the astronauts examine the artifacts at an Apollo landing site, showing the effects of nearly a human lifetime of unfiltered solar UV and extreme temperature cycling.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 23, 2010 9:32:51 GMT -4
... And it would be fun to watch the smoke come out of the conspiracists' ears as we watch the astronauts examine the artifacts at an Apollo landing site, showing the effects of nearly a human lifetime of unfiltered solar UV and extreme temperature cycling. I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it!
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 23, 2010 16:44:44 GMT -4
I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it! Yup, no doubt you're right. They'd claim that "everybody knows" nothing can possibly change on the moon without air or water erosion, so the degradation of the Apollo materials had to have been caused by weathering right here on earth, proving they're just showing the original moon sets out in the desert in Area 51...
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jul 23, 2010 22:37:02 GMT -4
I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it! Yup, no doubt you're right. They'd claim that "everybody knows" nothing can possibly change on the moon without air or water erosion, so the degradation of the Apollo materials had to have been caused by weathering right here on earth, proving they're just showing the original moon sets out in the desert in Area 51... Shhh; don't give them a head start! ;D
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 26, 2010 18:26:52 GMT -4
I have no doubt that the HBs would come up with a ludicrous explanation to dismiss it! Yup, no doubt you're right. They'd claim that "everybody knows" nothing can possibly change on the moon without air or water erosion, so the degradation of the Apollo materials had to have been caused by weathering right here on earth, proving they're just showing the original moon sets out in the desert in Area 51... The thing is, are NASA actually going to go out on a limb here and endeavour as part of the next missions to shut HBs up? ie. will they actually land next door to the old gear? And what steps do you think they will take (if any?)to completely shut people up that they are actually on the Moon? They are doing those LRO pictures for new sites I thought. Is there a lower closer pass for those LRO pics plannned soon?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 26, 2010 18:51:21 GMT -4
The thing is, are NASA actually going to go out on a limb here and endeavour as part of the next missions to shut HBs up? ie. will they actually land next door to the old gear? And what steps do you think they will take (if any?)to completely shut people up that they are actually on the Moon? You are assuming that NASA gives a damn about the HBs, the serious ones don't make up a large enough portion of the population to matter to them (the various oft quoted survey results showing a large portion are pretty much meaningless without additional information, eg how the survey was conducted and what exactly how the question was worded). OTOH NASA are very likely to revisit at least one of the old landing sites in order to study the how the materials were effected by long term exposure to the lunar environment.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 26, 2010 19:04:33 GMT -4
just quickly coming back to the A16 YT video. It is sourced more than likely from VHS, which was an analog system prone to unstable video expecially when replayed on simple off the shelf machines with no Time base Correction. As ka9q explained the addition of YT compression adds to the "movement" effect.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 26, 2010 19:06:36 GMT -4
OTOH NASA are very likely to revisit at least one of the old landing sites in order to study the how the materials were effected by long term exposure to the lunar environment. Yes, that's a perfectly good reason for going back. We don't have a very big database on the effects of long-term space exposure. Most of the objects we launch into space have burned up in the atmosphere or simply weren't designed for retrieval. Our only sample point on long term lunar exposure is Surveyor III. It spent about two and a half years on the lunar surface before being visited by the Apollo 12 astronauts, who brought back some components for study. It wasn't originally designed as a lunar environment exposure experiment, so I don't think it included many materials that we'd like to know about. We also have LDEF, which spent 5.7 years in low earth orbit, much longer than originally intended because of the Challenger disaster. But low earth orbit is a very different environment than the surface of the moon. Atomic oxygen is a major factor in LEO but insignificant on the moon. The moon, on the other hand, has far wider temperature swings because of its long day, and it spends most of its time well outside the earth's magnetosphere. I don't know of very many other space artifacts, 40 years old or older, whose locations we exactly know. And hey, anything with the side benefit of further helping to shoot down the conspiracy theorists is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 26, 2010 19:33:44 GMT -4
The thing is, are NASA actually going to go out on a limb here and endeavour as part of the next missions to shut HBs up? Was that a deliberate Apollo 15 reference? Because I like it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2010 1:41:08 GMT -4
The thing is, are NASA actually going to go out on a limb here and endeavour as part of the next missions to shut HBs up? Was that a deliberate Apollo 15 reference? Because I like it. I'd love to see a return to the Apollo 15 site, just because there was so much that they weren't able to do the first time that they could have an entirely new mission in the area and cover new ground for the whole mission. However, with prominent people, including Obama, being so against a return to the moon, I now doubt we'll see it in our lifetime. Perhaps the Chinese can do it and we'll get to see them carrying the torch of Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 27, 2010 8:12:26 GMT -4
I'd love to see a return to the Apollo 15 site Apollo 15 is my favorite lunar mission simply because of that spectacular canyon. In my opinion, public support for space is almost entirely about pretty pictures. Imagine going back to Hadley Rille with modern digital cameras.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 28, 2010 11:17:24 GMT -4
I'd love to see a return to the Apollo 15 site Apollo 15 is my favorite lunar mission simply because of that spectacular canyon. In my opinion, public support for space is almost entirely about pretty pictures. Imagine going back to Hadley Rille with modern digital cameras. I'm not sure they would do much better, those Hasselblads took good pictures. A more spectacular question is going back to Hadley with modern climbing gear.
|
|