|
Post by stanzler on Mar 20, 2007 14:40:58 GMT -4
ha ha ha. Thats really cool guys, thank you everyone - you've compeletly debunked it. , from the hi-rez photo, it's now obvious, come to think of it. It does in no way look anything like the rover. I knew there would be an answer. This actually means that whole darn site is faked. Good job! Another photo, if you don't mind : ( Could this have been taken just after it was built on that site? ) A) Look just behind the wheel and you can see a partially covered track. B) The dust kicked up by the astronauts walking around is covering the tracks, which aren't always terribly visible anyway, see AS15-88-11899 for a good example of this. Do you know what? I think you've nailed it, thanks for pointing out the area just under the wheel, boot prints have blended the area. I've viewed all the links you guys have posted, and i'm 100% convinced, when looking carefully, the tracks can be seen. In some shots it is difficult to see due to the angle of the photo taken, the bright sun light kinda fades it in., however when zooming in, it can be seen clearly. Well done again. It incredible what one can learn from experts. More : Ok, i came across a website ( i think its aulis.com again) which claims that the astronauts would have not had enough time to take hundreds of photos. I'll post part of the article. ( any logical explanation for this? )
|
|
|
Post by stanzler on Mar 20, 2007 14:45:26 GMT -4
Superb work. There is no doubt in my mind it was the MESA and not the rover. I will send that to (Jack White study), they'll be embarrassed. Once these photos have been thoroughly refuted, the site owners should remove them. It'll only cause some other poor dude to be confused, just like i was....Darn
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 20, 2007 14:48:07 GMT -4
And taking off the lens cap and replacing it for each exposure with those big gloves on would take longer than that!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 20, 2007 14:57:12 GMT -4
Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time: Apart from this scenario being plausible itself (What's so odd about making one photo every 50 seconds on average?), Jack White doesn't mention the huge amount of panning shots made, where up to 20 photographs were made a mere few seconds after each other (as in, one photo every 2 seconds!). Which means there was more "time left" (in White's time frame) for other photographs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 20, 2007 14:59:56 GMT -4
This comes from Jack White as well. The first thing we should take into account is that there were two astronauts on the Moon, thus there were approximately 9,668 man-minutes. This works out to one photo every 1.67 minutes per astronaut. Furthermore, many of the photos were clicked off in rapid succession, such as panoramas or multiple frames of the same object (to increase the odds of getting a useable exposure). The cameras were equipped with motorized auto-winders allowing several shots to be taken quite rapidly with only a very brief pause to the film to advance. Considering all this, I simply don't find 1.67 minutes between exposures to be unusual or suspicious, especially since taking photographs was one of the astronauts’ primary tasks.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 15:02:02 GMT -4
Superb work. There is no doubt in my mind it was the MESA and not the rover. I will send that to (Jack White study), they'll be embarrassed. Once these photos have been thoroughly refuted, the site owners should remove them. It'll only cause some other poor dude to be confused, just like i was....Darn {laughts} If they do I'll be on the look out for flying pigs, Jack's "studies" have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked, Jack and the people running Aulis are either A) have so much invested in the idea that Apollo was a hoax that they can't admit that they are wrong or B) knowingly spreading deception.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 15:09:07 GMT -4
How long does it take to take a photo? Considering that the cameras used in Apollo had autowinders, the astronauts weren't worried about perfectly framing the pictures (wide angle lenses are good like that), and that the cameras spent most of their time firmly attached to the astronauts chests so all they had to do with reach over and press the release, I would estimate a rather small fraction of a second on average. Particularly as a lot of the photos were taken in groups and could be done while doing other tasks (eg walking around).
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 20, 2007 15:19:46 GMT -4
This comes from Jack White as well. The first thing we should take into account is that there were two astronauts on the Moon, thus there were approximately 9,668 man-minutes. This works out to one photo every 1.67 minutes per astronaut. Furthermore, many of the photos were clicked off in rapid succession, such as panoramas or multiple frames of the same object (to increase the odds of getting a useable exposure). The cameras were equipped with motorized auto-winders allowing several shots to be taken quite rapidly with only a very brief pause to the film to advance. Considering all this, I simply don't find 1.67 minutes between exposures to be unusual or suspicious, especially since taking photographs was one of the astronauts’ primary tasks. From my experience with a mostly manual (it has auto exposure) SLR I find it very easy to believe, and if anyone wants I would be quite happy to go take photos of interesting things around a local park to see how fast I can burn through a 36 film, even getting the pics (mostly) properly focused and half decently framed I bet I can do it in less than 15 minutes (including walking around).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 20, 2007 15:25:52 GMT -4
{laughts} If they do I'll be on the look out for flying pigs, Jack's "studies" have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked, Jack and the people running Aulis are either A) have so much invested in the idea that Apollo was a hoax that they can't admit that they are wrong or B) knowingly spreading deception. Sad but true. Welcome aboard, Stanzler. Unfortunately, we are all too familiar with the intellectual dishonesty of this crowd. However, we have the excellent resources of some of the great experts in Apollo on our side to educate those who actually want to learn.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 20, 2007 16:48:22 GMT -4
Superb work. There is no doubt in my mind it was the MESA and not the rover. I will send that to (Jack White study), they'll be embarrassed. No, they won't. They've been pushing this theory for a number of years, and they are well aware that everyone familiar with the LM knows just how wrong they are. They hope to trap clueless people who have lots of money and paranoia, not convince people who actually know anything.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 20, 2007 17:21:05 GMT -4
In some shots it is difficult to see due to the angle of the photo taken, the bright sun light kinda fades it in.There are a number of reasons why tracks cannot be seen in photographs. Lighting angle is certainly one of them. Here's a picture I took of a tire track with favorable lighting to reveal the contours. Now here's the very same track a few seconds later seen from the opposite angle. The track is there, but the photography doesn't reveal it. This is one of the differences between real photographic analysis and the clownish bumblings of Jack White. Jack White, Bart Sibrel, David Percy, and all the other self-proclaimed photo analysts make it sound as if tracks should always be seen everywhere in every photo. They say this so that they can make up all kinds of wild stories about how the rover got there if the tracks weren't visible. But if the tracks might not be visible for any number of ordinary reasons, then they would have to actually show evidence for their claims, not say instead that it's what must be the case because nothing else explains it. ...would have not had enough time to take hundreds of photos. I'll post part of the article. ( any logical explanation for this? )Not really, because it's not a logical argument. It's an example of a fallacy called begging the question. They go through all this math to accurately compute the average photo rate. But the real argument is whether a photo every 50 seconds on average is believable. He just assumes the reader will be shocked at how often the astronauts had to take photos. In practice the astronauts didn't take a single photo, work for 50 seconds, and then take another single photo. Instead they took groups of photos, perhaps one every 3-4 seconds for half a minute. Then for several minutes after that they went about their other duties without taking pictures. When the astronauts had the rover, they originally planned to use the 16mm film camera at a low frame rate to record the traverse. That is, they mounted the camera facing forward, set it to 2 fps or so, then drove forward. The scientists later could use those photos and some photogrammetry techniques to recreate the traverse exactly on their maps. Then on Apollo 16 they realized that the astronaut who wasn't driving could take a picture with his 70mm camera every 10-15 seconds and it would have the same effect. So a lot of the black and white photography from the last two missions were simply these traverse records. The astronaut had nothing else to do but sit in the passenger seat and push the shutter button every few seconds. I guess that's a logical explanation. Or rather, it's a logical refutation to an illogical claim.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 20, 2007 17:48:14 GMT -4
There's also the point that the "many other tasks" themselves included the photography. Collecting rocks included taking a picture of each rock in situ before it was picked up. Deploying the scientific instruments included photographing each instrument after deployment, etc.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Mar 20, 2007 19:41:12 GMT -4
Superb work. There is no doubt in my mind it was the MESA and not the rover. I will send that to (Jack White study), they'll be embarrassed. Once these photos have been thoroughly refuted, the site owners should remove them. It'll only cause some other poor dude to be confused, just like i was....Darn Don't hold your breath! I can almost guarantee that Jack White will "stand by his studies". You may get Aulis to add an editor's comment beneath Jack's studies, as they did for a couple that I dared to question a few months back. Persoanlly, I think even Aulis are a little embarrassed by some of Jack's claims, but they'll do anything to bait the water and get them little fishies biting.
|
|
|
Post by dano on Mar 20, 2007 19:45:38 GMT -4
Had I been in charge of a moon hoax, I would have faked far fewer fotos.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 20, 2007 20:11:26 GMT -4
Superb work. There is no doubt in my mind it was the MESA and not the rover. I will send that to (Jack White study), they'll be embarrassed.I wouldn't bother wasting my time to be honest, he's been told, repeatedly. He'll just call you a NASA provocature. A little background on Jack. His main claim to "frame" was in analysing the JFK photos and footage (very badly) but since then moved on to Apollo, and now 9/11 as well. Originally he started posting his "studies" in a private forum that would basically ban anyone that dared to disagree with him. About two years back however he moved to open up his work publically, posting to the Education Forum, and joining up with Aluis. On the Education Forum there are a number of people who's good work has destroyed his claims, but he has a number of yes men trailing about him as well. This thread is an excellent demolition of Jack's entire Apollo work, done by Evan Burton. Have fun reading through it all.
|
|