|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 15, 2007 6:43:13 GMT -4
,,, because I only have super-slow 2.3 to 3.2 kb/second dialup. I just wanted to say ... Ouch!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 15, 2007 8:57:03 GMT -4
,,, because I only have super-slow 2.3 to 3.2 kb/second dialup.
I can empathize, having done the 300 baud acoustic coupler thing a long time ago. Now I am thoroughly spoiled by cable modem.
Whats up with this rover too? There's no tracks under the tires whats the deal with that?
cygnusx1, let me ask you a question. If you don't notice rover tracks, which is the more likely scenario: 1. NASA faked the images, using a wheeled rover, but lifted it into position rather than thinking of rolling it along the path they claimed it took. 2. You are not noticing the tracks because of illumination effects or something else.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 15, 2007 9:48:14 GMT -4
The flag is positioned on the far left of the lander on the first shot. Then on the second its on the far right... the mountain hardly moves in relation between the two photos despite the obviously large difference in angle - this is impossible. The following illustration is a rough representation of what's going on. As you can see, from position #1 the flag is to the left of the LM pointing to the left and from position #2 the flag is to the right of the LM pointing to the right. Also from position #1 the mountain is to the right of the LM and from position #2 the mountain is to the left of the LM. The photographs seem to be entirely consistent with this representation; I don't see a problem. The tracks don't seem to be readily visible in that image. So what? What do you think the deal is?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 15, 2007 18:05:42 GMT -4
Nice picture Bob, I was going to do one, but didn't get around to it. One of the things that seems to be forgotten, is that this is a panarama, the astronaut rotated 360° while taking the images. Just because when it's lying flat on the table the mountain and flag are in specific places in the image, doesn't mean they are when you jopin it in a circle and stand in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 15, 2007 18:54:04 GMT -4
Bob- The problem with your overhead schematic of the site is that the distance from the mountain to the lander, and the lander to the flag is roughly the same. Try doing it again and placing the mountain a few miles away where it should be and see what you get. The problem with the rover having no tracks is that there's a guys footprint directly to the right of the rear right tire. His footprint is about an inch deep in the dust and yet the rover tire made no mark? In case there's any more doubt about what I'm saying I decided to create a visual example for you guys. Notice the big mountain (A) in relation to the flag & tank (representing the lunar lander in this example). Now in the second shot the camera is placed with the flag on the opposite side of the tank just as in the Apollo photographs. Where did mountain (A) go? We are now looking at a completely different mountain why? BECAUSE NOW I AM LOOKING IN ALMOST 180 DEGREES THE OTHER DIRECTION! Mountain (A) was now over my left shoulder and slightly behind me.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 15, 2007 18:58:41 GMT -4
But the orientation of the LM in the pictures clearly and distinctly shows the move to be 90 degrees, NOT 180.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 15, 2007 19:01:11 GMT -4
Here is further evidence there is nothing wrong with the photographs: If we say the top photo was taken with the camera looking in a 12 o'clock direction, then the bottom photo was taken looking in a 3 o'clock direction. The scenery we see behind the LM should therefore change 90 degrees in azimuth between the top and bottom photos. The LM in the bottom photo should be seen in front of the background that is 90 degrees to the right of the LM in the top photo. Jack White says the panorama width is approximately 160 degrees. If we accept this as true, then 90 degrees is 9/16ths the width of the panorama. If we take 9/16 times the width of the panorama and measure this distance to the right of the LM in the top photo, then this is the approximate location were the LM should be positioned in the bottom photo. Let's check... As you can see, the LM in the bottom photo is located very close to the expected position. There is nothing wrong with these photographs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 15, 2007 19:10:25 GMT -4
The problem with the rover having no tracks is that there's a guys footprint directly to the right of the rear right tire. His footprint is about an inch deep in the dust and yet the rover tire made no mark? All that we known is that there is no tire track visible at the time the photograph was taken. You cannot conclude from this that the tire made no track. The track may have been there at one time but got covered up by dirt that was kicked around. Furthermore, if there is soil around the rover that so easily makes footprints, then how do you propose the rover got to where it is without leaving a tire track.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 19:18:15 GMT -4
The problem with the rover having no tracks is that there's a guys footprint directly to the right of the rear right tire. His footprint is about an inch deep in the dust and yet the rover tire made no mark?
What did you do to eliminate the possibilities that:
(a) the rover was backed into its parking place so that the track is in front of the wheel instead of where you expect it?
(b) the footprint spray covered up the track?
(c) you are seeing the entire photograph?
I'm not necessarily proposing these as definite explanations. But since you seem to be taking an indirect approach, I want to know what things you thought about before you declared this photo anomalous.
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 15, 2007 19:33:06 GMT -4
But the orientation of the LM in the pictures clearly and distinctly shows the move to be 90 degrees, NOT 180. Well then someone decided to pick up and move the flag then?? If the rotation was 90 degrees the flag would be in between the photographer and the lander wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by cygnusx1 on Mar 15, 2007 19:41:32 GMT -4
The problem with the rover having no tracks is that there's a guys footprint directly to the right of the rear right tire. His footprint is about an inch deep in the dust and yet the rover tire made no mark?What did you do to eliminate the possibilities that: (a) the rover was backed into its parking place so that the track is in front of the wheel instead of where you expect it? (b) the footprint spray covered up the track? (c) you are seeing the entire photograph? I'm not necessarily proposing these as definite explanations. But since you seem to be taking an indirect approach, I want to know what things you thought about before you declared this photo anomalous. Here's a rover with no tracks in front, behind or to the side. There's deep footprints all around it www.aulis.com/jackstudies_17.htmlA few footprints spray up enough dust to completely obliterate all traces of a tire track? Give me a break man. Why would they take the time to back up the rover? to fit it into a parking space? I don't see any tracks in front indicating it was backed up at all.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 19:44:26 GMT -4
Well then someone decided to pick up and move the flag then?
The flag does not have to move in order for these two photo sets to be valid. Look at Bob's illustration again and ignore the position of the mountain.
If the rotation was 90 degrees the flag would be in between the photographer and the lander wouldn't it?
Only if you can prove that the flag is the same distance from the photographer as the LM. If it is nearer or farther away, then it will not appear in front of the LM if you change your position 90 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 15, 2007 19:51:46 GMT -4
Here's a rover with no tracks in front, behind or to the side.
Why did we suddenly change photographs? Bait and switch doesn't work because explanations might differ from photo to photo. When we have finished examining the first photo to which you referred us, we can examine others.
There's deep footprints all around it
That would be your first clue that you might not see tire tracks. In a typical scenario of parking the rover and dismounting it, which occurs first: tire tracks or footprints?
A few footprints spray up enough dust to completely obliterate all traces of a tire track? Give me a break man.
Begging the question. How many footprints does it take to obliterate a tire track? Give me an exact number and show how you arrived at it.
Why would they take the time to back up the rover?
Irrelevant. The question is, did they?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 15, 2007 20:28:14 GMT -4
Well then someone decided to pick up and move the flag then?? If the rotation was 90 degrees the flag would be in between the photographer and the lander wouldn't it? It's not a questiojn of 'if'. The LM is the clearest indicator in those picture of where they were taken from. Check Bob's diagram of the LM and the flag again and think about it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 15, 2007 20:35:17 GMT -4
Well then someone decided to pick up and move the flag then?? If the rotation was 90 degrees the flag would be in between the photographer and the lander wouldn't it?
No, the flag isn't inline with the LM in front of the Astronaut when he is looking at the LM, it's off to his righthand side and much closer to him, he then turns to the right and takes a new photo. Look at the angles Bob marked on the images, the flag is at an angle of more that 45° to the LM
|
|