|
Post by zeit on Dec 5, 2006 0:12:25 GMT -4
Thanks for the warm welcome! I used to hang out at BA's place a few years ago, back when Buzz Aldrin punched out Bart Sibrel. I put up several video links - Sibrel was on "The Daily Show" (where Samantha Bee called him "the biggest pussy in the world"), and Phil was on against him on a news program. I taped them and used my ATI card to capture the video from my VCR, then I posted links to them at the old BABB, so some of you may remember me from back then.
I was reminded of you guys recently when my daughter came home with a project for her science class - one part of it involves a report on Neil Armstrong, so she's taking some books out at the library. One of them is "Carrying the Fire", by Michael Collins, the copy she has is from the second printing, and it has the cropped photo on the overleaf that Ralph Rene claims was a "doctored NASA photo". Exactly as described at Clavius, nowhere in the book does it make any representation about the authenticity of that picture, and the actual photo it was cropped from is also included in the book, where it's attributed to NASA as it should be.
It was fun seeing it for myself, and it spurred a great discussion between us about conspiracy theories, critical thinking, etc. I'm going to discuss a lesson plan on it with her science teacher, I'd love to see them demonstrate how a little critical thinking goes a long way when someone's trying to sell you a bill of goods.
Hope that wasn't too much an off-topic post - see ya!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 8, 2006 4:51:36 GMT -4
One point I'd like to address is the camera and its placement inside the CM during the filming of the Earth. I've taken a snippet of the dialogue posted by kiwi earlier.... Below is a segment from the film, shortly after Armstrong says.... 0:52:22 Armstrong: Unfortunately, we only have one window that has a view of the earth and it's filled up with the TV camera so your view now is probably better than ours is.
And shortly after the segment above, we hear....
0:54:13 Houston (Duke): Apollo 11, Houston. It appears to us that we're seeing a view from outside plus a little of the inside. It appears you've taken the camera away from the left window now. Over.
0:54:37 Houston (Duke): We can still see the earth through the left window and it appears that we can see a floodlight off to the left, either that or some sun shafting through the hatch window.
0:54:52 Collins: It's a floodlight. Watching the segment above, the Earth shrinks in size due to the camera zooming out. Not because the camera itself has been moved away from the window. The "small" Earth is then filmed until the interior lights come back on. At this point, we can see that the camera is obviously several feet away from the window..... So at first, the window is "filled up with the TV camera". That is, the camera is placed right up to the window. At what point are there any indications that the camera is (or possibly is) being physically moved several feet back from the window, to the other side of the CM? To me, it appears as if the camera never was physically close up to the window during the filming of Earth. It was only zoomed in and then zoomed out, entirely from the other side of the CM.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 8, 2006 5:07:17 GMT -4
So how do you distinguish between zooming out and moving back? And how do you confirm that in fact both methods are not in use?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 8, 2006 5:16:17 GMT -4
So how do you distinguish between zooming out and moving back? And how do you confirm that in fact both methods are not in use? If the size of the earth reduces, it's a zoom out. If the earth stays the same small size but the floodlight comes into view, the camera is moving back.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 8, 2006 5:19:10 GMT -4
"... the Earth shrinks in size due to the camera zooming out. Not because the camera itself has been moved away from the window."
How is it you are able to tell which it is, with nothing else in the frame? And will you entertain the possibility it might have been a little of both?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 8, 2006 5:20:08 GMT -4
Ah yes, of course. The distance of a few feet won't be enough to make the Earth change size in the frame. D'oh!
So the Earth reduces in size because of the zoom, as turbonium says, but he then completely misses the point that the giveaway that they've moved the camera back is not the size of the Earth but that something else presumably came into frame somewhere between the zoom out that he posted and the comment from Houston that they appeared to have moved the camera back from the window?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 8, 2006 5:39:50 GMT -4
It's been a while since I watched this clip in full, but I seem to recall a fair amount of fumbling around; a zoom out, a shift around, another zoom, more shifting....at some point a bit of cabin light intrudes, but nothing else can be seen. Then more fumbling, shifting the camera all over the place until the cabin begins to become visible. Lather, rinse, repeat as the exposure is adjusted. Trying to knock it down into two specific and complete moves that are taken individually and can be linked to specific statements on the mission report....this is just silly. Worse, it is picking in search of any possible nit.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 8, 2006 6:22:52 GMT -4
I am going entire from memory here, but I can help explain the entire set of transmissions from that point on the way to the moon. I watched them entirely last week, so it is still somewhat fresh although I cant give time sepcifics.
The camera had a zoom lens, using a small monitor gaffer taped to the camera the team could see what they were shooting. However, the entire set of transmissions was full of bouncing, zooming, panning and tilting, that is not very pleasing to the eye from an artistic viewpoint. Handle held camera movement is always accentuated when it has zoomed in. Zoom out while moving the camera is perfectlz legitimate, and can often blur what is actually being done. (For example, in the film ET, to give the impression of impending doom, Spielberg moves the camera back while zooming in. This makes the foreground object appear the same size, and yet the background appears to grow or shrink relative to the foreground object..
As several people here have pointed out, when the cmera is moved around, the earth and the window frame do not change size independent of each other. Parralax does affect the positioning of background vs foreground objects, but _not_ their size within that same scene (assuming no zooming is taking place). What the transcripts do is point out that just like is clear on the video record, the camera was moving and zooming. Secondly, there is a noticeable delay from what is being seen to what is being discussed. Moreso notable when the computer display is being mentioned. Thirdly, in the unscheduled tx, Houston did not always have video feed. Like any other video service, the mocrowave links had to be leased and booked, therefore Goldstone was recording the unscheduled feeds for later replay to Houston. In the video recording you hear Charlie Duke refer to GDS for there appraisal of video. Even more revealing is the call from Houston, to Apollo stating that Goldstone was receiving unscheduled TV to which the crew reply they are just testing the equipment.
From someone who deals daily with video recording, editing, and playback there is nothing on the recordings that bothers me. Apart from the fire-hose shooting technique that is.
Claiming to be able to discern the blackness of space from the dark interior of the caspule at f22 is absurd and impossible on video footage, as clearly demonstrated by the contrast ratios described above. Don't take my word for it. Videotape the moon at night and see if your camera picks up any difference from your darkened room and the dark night sky. Remember to correctly expose for the moon. Just for fun hold a white piece of paper in front of the camera. Is it white or black?
Now try moving the camera back from the window. Keep framed on the moon. What happens now?
Now zoom in on the moon. While your doing that move the camera around. How does the moon look relative to your window frame?
I am certain you will actually help prove the TV transmissions en route to the moon, where made just as historical record indicates. BTW the main difference you _will_ see is that bright objects will create a vertical bright artifact extending from the object. This is part of low end CCD operations. Something saticon tubes never had.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 8, 2006 20:13:26 GMT -4
At what point are there any indications that the camera is (or possibly is) being physically moved several feet back from the window, to the other side of the CM? Sigh! I thought this post spelt it out at around the times you mention: apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1120036997&page=1#116463047152:08 Earth on screen. 52:38 Camera rotates as Charlie Duke asks for an internal view of the command module. 53:05 Camera moves around and zooms out until Earth is very small. 53:42 Earth and interior light visible. 53:47 Earth partly obstructed by internal fittings. 54:19 Earth disappears from view. 54:33 Earth reappears, partly cut off by window frame. 54:51 Earth finally disappears as camera is reconfigured for interior shot. Note the words "camera moves around." It specifically does not say "camera moves back from window" because it is not plainly obvious during the movements and due to the blackness of most of the scene that this is the case. However, from studying the preceding and the following film, listening to the dialogue, and applying William of Occam's razor, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this is indeed what happened. In fact there is little else that could be said, except, perhaps, by a hoax-believer. To me, it appears as if the camera never was physically close up to the window during the filming of Earth. It was only zoomed in and then zoomed out, entirely from the other side of the CM.And we are reminded that it "appeared" to someone that there was a bare arm on the moon during Apollo 12, apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1119855223&page=1#1119855223and that the same person thought: The neglect they showed by not photographing stars in specific leaves a bad taste in that they would or could have such little regard for how important or relevant it would have been to take these photos. The reasoning that it looks very similar to viewing from Earth is kind of a weak one, imo. The PR value alone of taking a photo of the Earth amongst the stars is incredible, and would take very little extra time or effort to do. But I guess I can be OK with the rationale - to a point.. Six times they had the chance to do it at least one time, and didn't.
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 8, 2006 20:19:43 GMT -4
[and that the same person thought: The neglect they showed by not photographing stars in specific leaves a bad taste in that they would or could have such little regard for how important or relevant it would have been to take these photos. The reasoning that it looks very similar to viewing from Earth is kind of a weak one, imo. The PR value alone of taking a photo of the Earth amongst the stars is incredible, and would take very little extra time or effort to do. But I guess I can be OK with the rationale - to a point.. Six times they had the chance to do it at least one time, and didn't. This seems an entirely valid point to me. Why do you find it so bizarre?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 8, 2006 20:32:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Dec 8, 2006 20:49:54 GMT -4
I already did. What's your point?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Dec 8, 2006 21:13:50 GMT -4
I already did. What's your point? 1. That they went to the moon to study -- wait for it -- Ta-daaaaah: The Moon. Not the stars. 2. That they would have had a fairly hard job fulfilling the ignorant and faulty expectations of hoax-believers 40-odd years in the future, especially because many of those HB's were not even yet born. What exactly is it about Jay Utah's post No. 16 My post No. 19 Echnaton's post No. 25 and Jay Utah's post No. 26 that you failed to understand? Perhaps if you enlighten us with more than a one-liner, we could enlighten you. But please also keep in mind the usual HB's trick of changing the subject. If your query is not about Bart BS Sibrel's "smoking gun" footage, you should open another thread or restart another on your exact subject.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 8, 2006 21:43:55 GMT -4
It is odd that they traveled to the moon 9 times. 2 lunar orbits, 1 lunar flyby and 6 landings. 4 Days of travel each way. Wow! 72 full days of travel to and fro and not one picture of the stars??
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Dec 8, 2006 22:39:37 GMT -4
|
|