|
Post by randombloke on Oct 15, 2010 11:33:36 GMT -4
You have to wonder why they didn't just hypnotize the hb trouble makers. Oh, but that's the beauty of it! They did; all the HBs have been hypnotised into acting like passive-aggressive, reason-deficient jackasses so that no-one would ever believe them. It's far cheaper than actually paying anyone off, and it even works!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2010 12:02:03 GMT -4
The thing is, who wants to back through 50 pages....to dig out all the outstanding questions? Mr Rodin appears to be relying on that. Undoubtedly, because every troll relies on exactly the same reluctance. The typical m.o. is exactly what has happened here: the proponent drops a proposition and engages in just enough debate to make him seem reasonable. Then he disappears for long enough that the discussion grows stale. He returns with new material and steadfastly ignores the pending debates. After enough iteration he can respond to expressions of impatience by saying things like, "Gee, I don't recall all the pending questions. Will someone please be so kind as to summarize?" In short, he shifts the burden of managing his dissociated debate style. The natural reluctance to slog through previous discussion can then be spun as, "You can't back up your claim that I'm not responding," or "I made a reasonable request and you're treating me badly." It's a well-worn, cheap debate trick and I have no sympathy for it. If Rodin wants to change the subject a dozen times, it's his responsibility for dealing with the loose ends of his dozen open lines of questioning.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Oct 15, 2010 12:16:18 GMT -4
I still chuckle when i come on here and see people really trying to prove that the landings TV was faked and it was either done in a studio, vacuum, or some desert somewhere in the dark.
This point of view typically comes from a person who has actually never been involved or hasnt any experience/ knowledge of film making and the process of doing it.
Yet they continue to use their own "laymans" view of the world to redefine how it was done just as if they had created it themselves on their HD cameras. In reality the sound stages, resources, equipment, lighting, effects were not available in the mid to late 60s to accurately film something on this scale and look this real for even small scenes. We cant even do it today with the technology at hand let alone 40+ years ago.
Ill try and cut them off one by one.
1. Filming in a vacuum on earth is a difficult thing to do. Even the largest vacuum chambers, such as the Space Power Facility are smaller in width than the average soundstage. Therefore filming anything with the lighting and reflectors needed to shoot something this big wouldn't be possible. You would end up with cables all over the place.
2. Filming outside is generally regarded a nightmare to do due to extra lighting requirements (especially in the dark). The other problems include access and logistics to the sites, environmental issues such as wind, dust, rain, humidity etc etc.
You would also need to light a huge area with light arrays to get the light shown in half these movies . i.e. lighting foreground and backlighting etc.
To put it into perspective when they filmed From the Earth to the moon and to get the level of lighting in a sound stage they had to build new lamps as they had used up all the available lamps in the world to replicate the sun.( Quoted by Richard Toyen -Production)
Continuity.
This is the film makers nightmare and has unstuck many of the best directors and film makers in existence.
There were hours and hours of footage throughout the whole apollo mission and im not entirely sure how much and how long teh footage is. So ill make an assumption that the total of apollos TV footage and Film footage is about 10 hours in total. (small i know )
Lets take ten top Blockbuster films which equate to the same film time of 10 hours (600 min) and look at the number of mistakes which are obvious or have logged by steely eyed missile men..
Apocalypse Now 391 Mistakes (153 min) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 297 Mistakes (141min) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 289 Mistakes (161 min) Star Wars 263 Mistakes (121 min)
Total Time = 576min Total mistakes = 1240 !!
It would be interesting to see if the number of faults people can point to in 10 hours of Apollo footage are greater that the total of 1240 across all these well funded and edited films.
Total principal photography and post production time on these projects equals 5 years in total just for 10 hours of footage which is laden with mistakes and omissions.
Now compare that to apollo footage where i haven't seen a single continuity error in the stuff i have seen.
Not one badge in the wrong place or tool in the wrong hand or one mark that wasn't there in the last frame.
All people seem to find is photographic anomalies in out of date footage, which are at best are light tricks and perspective issues.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 15, 2010 12:21:43 GMT -4
He could start by answering... He could start by answering the pending questions on the title topic. The issue is his attempts to fit photographic measurements to an ideal parabola. The pending questions are: 1. Have you performed an error analysis on your data? If not, why not? If so, what is the result? 2. Have you performed a photogrammetric rectification on the photograph? If not, why not? If so, how does that affect the measurement? 3. Have you performed a statistical curve-fit (instead of a subjective visual curve-fit)? If so, how did your results differ from the visual method? If not, why not? And no, I don't intend to supplant any of the other suggestions for questions. In my opinion, Rodin is on the hook to answer all of them. Rodin, when last I heard, considers this an open question. He doesn't consider his analysis complete. Therefore there should be some motivation to answer these questions, which I believe will help his analysis along. I assert that these questions are unanswered. Rodin has stated he believes all his questions are answered "to some extent." I don't believe these questions are answered to any extent; but his statement accepts a burden of proof either to provide an answer now, or to indicate where and when some answer was given. Therefore at least on these questions I will tolerate no further delay or dodge.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 15, 2010 19:02:28 GMT -4
I still chuckle when i come on here and see people really trying to prove that the landings TV was faked and it was either done in a studio, vacuum, or some desert somewhere in the dark. What I chuckle about is that despite their supposed technical skills, and the hours of YouTube videos they produce, not one of them has ever attempted to put their claims into practice and produce their own "faked" Apollo footage to prove that their claims work as stated.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 15, 2010 19:27:00 GMT -4
He could start by answering... He could start by answering the pending questions on the title topic. The issue is his attempts to fit photographic measurements to an ideal parabola. The pending questions are: 1. Have you performed an error analysis on your data? If not, why not? If so, what is the result? 2. Have you performed a photogrammetric rectification on the photograph? If not, why not? If so, how does that affect the measurement? 3. Have you performed a statistical curve-fit (instead of a subjective visual curve-fit)? If so, how did your results differ from the visual method? If not, why not? And no, I don't intend to supplant any of the other suggestions for questions. In my opinion, Rodin is on the hook to answer all of them. Rodin, when last I heard, considers this an open question. He doesn't consider his analysis complete. Therefore there should be some motivation to answer these questions, which I believe will help his analysis along. I assert that these questions are unanswered. Rodin has stated he believes all his questions are answered "to some extent." I don't believe these questions are answered to any extent; but his statement accepts a burden of proof either to provide an answer now, or to indicate where and when some answer was given. Therefore at least on these questions I will tolerate no further delay or dodge. One more for the pile: 4. Have you found the original source of the video under examination or otherwise attempted to correct for the compression and transcoding losses inherent in converting video between formats for web distribution, in any way?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Oct 15, 2010 19:32:14 GMT -4
I still chuckle when i come on here and see people really trying to prove that the landings TV was faked and it was either done in a studio, vacuum, or some desert somewhere in the dark. What I chuckle about is that despite their supposed technical skills, and the hours of YouTube videos they produce, not one of them has ever attempted to put their claims into practice and produce their own "faked" Apollo footage to prove that their claims work as stated. Well HB's aren't big on experimentation and when they do try it is embarrassing stuff like using leafblowers to show the LM should have made a bigger crater. Also can't help but notice that after about three posts Rodin has vanished once again.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 15, 2010 19:32:45 GMT -4
And not only that, they buy into blatantly faked footage like the ladder descent fauxpas vid, or rudbrps stage hand on apollo 16 faked footage as if it is the gospel truth. Look at duanes comments regarding the latter.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 16, 2010 17:01:17 GMT -4
He could start by answering... He could start by answering the pending questions on the title topic. The issue is his attempts to fit photographic measurements to an ideal parabola. The pending questions are: Scuse the snip, keeping the post size down. Point taken. I was jumping ahead. First first, then deal with the next.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 17:44:56 GMT -4
Look I am sorry I can't be around all the time. I have read all posts since last visit and will respond. i have another piece of evidence i want to introduce first.
back in a few mins
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 17, 2010 18:36:13 GMT -4
i have another piece of evidence i want to introduce first. NO! Respond to our questions first. I will ban you if you start any new topics before following through with your existing obligations.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:37:35 GMT -4
i have another piece of evidence i want to introduce first. NO! Respond to our questions first. I will ban you if you start any new topics before following through with your existing obligations.Its your forum do as you wish
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 17, 2010 18:40:10 GMT -4
I have moved your photograph and the comments that followed it to a hidden section of the forum. Once you wrap up existing arguments I will bring it back.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 17, 2010 18:42:22 GMT -4
NO! Respond to our questions first. I will ban you if you start any new topics before following through with your existing obligations. Its your forum do as you wish Yes, that's it rodin, prove to everyone that you can't cope with people actually questioning your suppositions. Are they so weakly founded that you would rather run and cry "but he banned me before I could prove anything" than actually try to defend them?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:50:48 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics Common sense, observation rather than just measurement and esoteric calculation Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example?
|
|