|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 13:53:30 GMT -4
margamatix;You`re interpretation as to what has been taking place in your threads is as invalid and ill argued as the unsupported and laughable hoax theories you believe in.You`ve not argued a single point but repeated opinions in a childlike manner.You may have removed you last signature but you`re plainly still in dreamland. ;D But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2005 14:07:39 GMT -4
Here is a link to the uncropped, first-generation scan at the Project Apollo Image Gallery. The smoothed dust from the engine exhaust is very clear.
|
|
|
Post by hubcapdave69 on Aug 20, 2005 14:12:48 GMT -4
When there is behavior behind such an accusation that can justify it, it's not ad hominem.
You seem quick to respond to those things you consider ad hominem but are rather quiet on the responses which actually prove your ideas incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by hubcapdave69 on Aug 20, 2005 14:15:02 GMT -4
Here is a link to the uncropped, first-generation scan at the Project Apollo Image Gallery. The smoothed dust from the engine exhaust is very clear. Damn, what a difference!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2005 14:41:01 GMT -4
What's funny to me is that the original is not a very well-framed picture. Armstrong was trying to capture two subjects; Buzz and the landing pad. He held the camera crooked, and nearly cut-off the top of Aldrin's head: The more formal, iconic reproductions crop-out the pad, rotate the image clockwise and add black "space" to the top to vertically center the human figure: HBs like to point to these reproductions and say, "This image is too well framed to have been taken with a chest-mounted camera with no view finder!" When you tell them about the changes from the original, they say, "A-HA! So NASA has been altering the photographic record!"
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 14:44:06 GMT -4
Here is a link to the uncropped, first-generation scan at the Project Apollo Image Gallery. The smoothed dust from the engine exhaust is very clear. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 14:49:40 GMT -4
. He held the camera crooked, and nearly cut-off the top of Aldrin's head. He was holding the camera? I thought they were chest-mounted?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 15:05:43 GMT -4
But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack?
My first post in this thread is a lengthy, dispassionate, complete explanation of the phenomenon. You have ignored it completely. Do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from imagining ad hominem attacks?
He was holding the camera? I thought they were chest-mounted?
Only in the sense that a woman's purse is "shoulder-mounted".
The custom frame on the back of the camera featured a bayonet that slid into a receiver on the RCU -- the small control box on the astronaut's chest. That mount is relatively tight. However, the RCU merely hangs from the buckles of the straps for the backpack, which met at a ring on the chest. The hook hanger allows the RCU to swing freely in the "pitch" dimension, a very little bit in the "yaw" direction, and through an arc of about 45 degrees in the "roll" direction.
The camera could be removed very easily for hand-held photography, but for this photograph the camera was in its RCU mount. However, the RCU mount does not prevent the camera from tilting or otherwise moving independently of the astronaut.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 15:12:31 GMT -4
But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack?My first post in this thread is a lengthy, dispassionate, complete explanation of the phenomenon. You have ignored it completely. Do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from imagining ad hominem attacks? [ Yes, thank you Jay. I was not addressing you with that posting, and I can assure you that I have not ignored your posting but have read it carefully. Count Zero has produced a better image, for which I am thankful.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2005 15:27:23 GMT -4
He was holding the camera? I thought they were chest-mounted? It was chest mounted (you can see it in the reflection in Buzz's visor) but there was some play. When holding the pistol grip on the camera to take a picture, Neil had a tendency to tilt it, especially (but not exclusively) to the left . Here is the entire roll of film. Starting at AS11-40-5876, Buzz took the camera and did a bit better with the tilt. By AS11-40-5901, Neil has the camera back, and has many more tilted images.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2005 15:32:17 GMT -4
I suggest, if you dislike the ad hominem posts, or those which you believe to be ad hominem, you simply ignore them. Since that is where you seem to be focusing your energy, that is what you're getting.
If you have read my post carefully then you should be able to make quick work of the following questions.
1. Do you dispute that a difference in texture produces a different degree of apparent illumination? If so, on what grounds -- and explain what phenomenon instead has produced the sample photos.
2. Do you dispute that a difference in phase angle produces a different degree of apparent illumination? If so, on what grounds -- and explain what phenomenon instead has produced the sample photos.
3. Examine photograph AS11-40-5914. I represent that the crater on the right side of the image just below center is the crater in which Aldrin was standing when the other photo was taken. I represent that you see Aldrin's footprints in the crater. Describe what you see and how it may affect your interpretation of the other image, AS11-40-5903.
4. Show me, if you can, any direct evidence of an artificial light source. The alleged pool of light is not direct evidence; it is the observation for which you have postulated the artificial-light hypothesis as a cause.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 15:52:50 GMT -4
Ground texture would make a difference, distance from the camera would not. If Count Zero's photograph is unmodified, this would be more consistant with the lighting I would expect to see. However, NASA is not above falsification of photographs, as the Alan Shepherd golf photograph demonstrates.
If by "Show me, if you can, any direct evidence of an artificial light source", you mean "show me a photograph with a lighting gantry clearly visible, rather than just the light from it" then I cannot do that, nor would you reasonably expect me to. But then you are unable to accept that an astronaut is being suspended on a wire, simply because the wire itself is not visible, although the effects of its pulling clearly are.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2005 16:12:06 GMT -4
However, NASA is not above falsification of photographs, as the Alan Shepherd golf photograph demonstrates. Which photograph is that, and what suggests that it is falsified?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 16:26:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 20, 2005 16:30:11 GMT -4
Which photograph is that, and what suggests that it is falsified? There is a picture in Shepard's book that is a composite and I'm pretty sure it was even labelled as such. It was created specifically for the book by someone involved in it's publication, not by NASA.
|
|