|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 7:45:26 GMT -4
Turbonium: Just out of curiousity, what are the astronauts discussing in the video when "the arm" is on screen? I think Bean is saying ''you can really move around up here. You don't seem to get tired" You must have known that already, no?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 7:49:52 GMT -4
...we lack the ability to describe fuzzy images well. In order to describe an abstract or unfamiliar shape to someone else, we must it relate it to something that the listener understands or recognises. We use terms similar to "like" or "a bit like" to help in our describing. I don't at all see a "bare arm" in the pictures. Certainly, the object has features that vaguely resemble those of an arm, but the proportions look wrong to me, and "looks like" doesn't mean the same as "is." Finally, Mr Occam forces me to settle for the folded antenna, which the shape looks more like than anything else. A very common hoax-believer argument is "Looks like x, therefore must be x." That's Harald's rorschaching. kiwi have you looked at the video segment I linked earlier? It also, imo, moves like an arm......
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 5, 2005 8:33:54 GMT -4
All the stills except for the last set are from the Spacecraft films Apollo 12 DVD. I have been using angle 2, which has the video without the text overlays.
The last set of stills are from the From the Earth to the Moon DVD.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 15:18:35 GMT -4
I've added approx. lengths to the mesh to compare with the "arm" - watching the online video of this segment to see the movements it makes, I can't square it with being this 4 ft.+ length of mesh that is moving. Nor is it the mesh that I see in the online stills. The DVD stills have a "double-knuckling" effect that is, imo, not because it more accurately shows the "ribbing", but that it is very distorted in resolution to create a doubling effect. Have you compared the "people and shade" still to the DVD version? I think you will see just how "smeared" or "pixelated" the DVD still is when compared to the online still. Same with the still of the "chair".
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 5, 2005 15:44:47 GMT -4
I still don't understand how you get a forearm out of that. It looks most un-forearm like to me. Let alone the "knuckles" without a hand and the lack of any kind of transition to an upper arm.
Are you saying this is evidence that the Apollo landings were faked?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 16:06:52 GMT -4
I still don't understand how you get a forearm out of that. It looks most un-forearm like to me. Let alone the "knuckles" without a hand and the lack of any kind of transition to an upper arm. Are you saying this is evidence that the Apollo landings were faked? You took the words right out of my mouth, sts60. I don't see how anyone can see an arm in that picture.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 5, 2005 16:57:38 GMT -4
When this thread first started I thought that he was pointing out a shoulder, an upper arm and part of the forearm of someone carrying a backpack of some sort. Not that I thought that was really the case but it was my Rorschach interpretation. Seeing the whole thing as a vertical forearm make even less sense to me.
Turbonium, how do you propose that anyone determine the length of the object in the video capture from that clip? It is blurry, overexpose, has what appear to be compression artifacts, is at an indeterminate distance, and contains no reference to any identifiable object. given this what possible method could one use to determine the size from that photo alone?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 17:37:01 GMT -4
When this thread first started I thought that he was pointing out a shoulder, an upper arm and part of the forearm of someone carrying a backpack of some sort. Not that I thought that was really the case but it was my Rorschach interpretation. Seeing the whole thing as a vertical forearm make even less sense to me. Turbonium, how do you propose that anyone determine the length of the object in the video capture from that clip? It is blurry, overexpose, has what appear to be compression artifacts, is at an indeterminate distance, and contains no reference to any identifiable object. given this what possible method could one use to determine the size from that photo alone? I am suggesting that you watch the video segment that this still is from to get a better idea as to why I see this as an arm. The motion is important to note because it shows the free range of motion that an arm, and not much else I can think of, is capable of doing. I don't expect to convince you from this alone, because as I said earlier, the DVD version is "pixelated" even more than the online version. Same problem with the other anomalies I see with the "people" and the "chairs" - but I still am not convinced of the possible alternatives for what they are. I'm very frustrated by how the DVD version turned out - it doesn't do anything to help resolve the problems, it has made it worse. And it both irks and intrigues me that only this segment is worse than the online version of Apollo 12 video clips....
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 5, 2005 18:54:57 GMT -4
The object in the video is tapered in the middle: The ratio of the length on one side of the narrowest point to the length of other side is ~1:1.
While I am typing this, I happen to have two examples of forearms in front of me. From elbow to fingertip, the narrowest portion is the wrist. With my fingers extended, the ratio of elbow-to-wrist : wrist-to-fingertip is ~2:1 (this, incidentally, is a well-known ratio taught in art classes). With my fist closed, as if to hold something, the ratio of elbow-to-wrist : wrist-to-knuckle is ~3:1. Measure your own arm to confirm this.
- The object does not match the proportions of a human forearm; therefor it is not a human forearm. - Both the mission timeline and the transcript have Pete Conrad setting up the S-band antenna, while Al Bean sets up the TV camera. - Photos show that Conrad set up the antenna straight out from the MESA, ~20 feet from the LM. - The TV camera was also to be set up ~ 20 feet from the LM. Video shows that Bean moved almost perpendicular to the sun, which would have been to the right and not far from where Conrad was working on the antenna. - The camera had a 28x21 degree field of view. When we see the object, it takes up slightly less than the full vertical frame. Assuming the furled part of the antenna is 4 feet long, this would mean the camera was ~12 feet away at the time it pointed at it. - The furled antenna, as shown in the photo, is tapered in the center, which is consistent with the object. - The tip of the pole, shown three seconds after the main body of the object, matches the feed horn shown in photographs of the deployed antenna.
All of the evidence is consistent with the object being the S-band antenna. The sole image of the object is proportionally not consistent with a human forearm. What then, does Occam's Razor suggest?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 5, 2005 21:12:13 GMT -4
What then, does Occam's Razor suggest?
I'm pretty sure that in this case, Occam would have hauled out his chainsaw.
The camera had a 28x21 degree field of view.
Out of curiosity, where did you find this figure? Zoomed out to full wide angle, the camera had a 43 x 32 degree field of view.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 5, 2005 21:42:49 GMT -4
The DVD stills have a "double-knuckling" effect that is, imo, not because it more accurately shows the "ribbing", but that it is very distorted in resolution to create a doubling effect."Double-knuckling" is not one of the artifacts MPEG compression will introduce. Compression artifacts are in the form of blockiness and perhaps ringing or rippling within those tiny blocks. The doubling effect you see at the top is the inner joint and the end of each rib. I think you will see just how "smeared" or "pixelated" the DVD still is when compared to the online still.Just what is so smeared and pixelated about the following image, which I captured off the Spacecraft Films DVD? DVD Capture--Uncompressed BMP, 901 KBAll the prominent artifacts here are part and parcel of early Apollo color video. That they are missing from the online version shows not that it is better, but that it is missing information.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 21:49:33 GMT -4
OK - here is my arm beside the "arm" - not a perfect match, but makes my point valid, I believe.....
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 5, 2005 21:50:01 GMT -4
The camera had a 28x21 degree field of view.Out of curiosity, where did you find this figure? Zoomed out to full wide angle, the camera had a 43 x 32 degree field of view. I combed all of my mission reports, but couldn't find the dimensions listed. I finally used an overhead diagram from the Apollo 11 report that showed the field of view. I measured the angle with a protractor to get the width, and calculated the height, based on the 4:3 aspect ratio. With a 32-degree vertical FOV, and the 4' object not filling the frame, that would put the separation at 8 or 9 feet. Thanks for the correction. Where did you get it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 21:54:08 GMT -4
joe - i am talking about the "people and shade" still I posted - the online version is MUCH better quality.....
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 5, 2005 21:55:50 GMT -4
OK - here is my arm beside the "arm" - not a perfect match, but makes my point valid, I believe..... No, because of the way you cut out the shape of your arm. This introduced a suspicious gouge. Please show us an unmodified photo of your arm (preferably agains a dark background) so that we can make a proper assesment of the shape. Thanks.
|
|