|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 20, 2007 20:36:49 GMT -4
Just one thing to add about the tracks: wasn't it also sometimes easier to turn an LRV by actually picking it up? That would lead to another class of "no track visible".
(Sorry if it was already mentioned)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 20, 2007 20:36:50 GMT -4
The original incarnation of this site, apollohoax.com, was started by a New York teenager who got hold of some Jack White treatments of photos, obtained his permission to post them, and attached a chat board to it. Voila, here we are some 7 years later still going strong. (I heard from Jon recently by the way: he got his life in order, got his behavioral issues diagnosed and treated, and is a happy, healthy person.)
White has been digging at Apollo for a long time, and in that time he has been presented repeatedly, politely, and conclusively with facts and arguments that defeat his claims. He rarely addresses them, calls any who criticises him a provocateur, and goes on his merry way making the same "errors" and omissions. When someone pointed him to my web site in which his claims were debunked, he sent me an e-mail in which he called me an "arrogant a--hole", threatened to sue me for libel, and dismissed my site as "obviously a slick government disinformation campaign." He never once addressed any point I raised.
And again what interests me is Jack White's fanatical following. Among his fans he seems to have achieved an almost godlike status. They leap instantly to his defense whenever his ideas are challenged. I'm jealous -- my colleagues here have a running contest to see who can catch me in an error. My side of the debate is sure a lot harder on the ol' self esteem.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 20, 2007 21:25:23 GMT -4
*pats Jay on the head*
There there. Want me to buy Gillian and Gewn a cheerleader's outfit and some pompoms for you?
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Mar 20, 2007 21:51:39 GMT -4
Per ardua victori spolia.
(My daughter could probably beat me up on this, but it's the 'thoight wot cownts, eh'?)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 20, 2007 23:18:56 GMT -4
Just one thing to add about the tracks: wasn't it also sometimes easier to turn an LRV by actually picking it up? That would lead to another class of "no track visible". (Sorry if it was already mentioned) The Apollo 16 debrief indicates a couple of instances where this was done, once right after unpacking it {so they wouldn't have to "back up"). One instance was accidental, where the force needed to unlatch some Velcro straps was more than that necessary to actually lift one end of the Rover. They complained mightily about the Velcro and the lunar gravity, dust, etc. They also figured that if they lost their steering, they would lift and aim it in the desired direction, drive a bit, dismount, lift and reaim, and press on. Seems it's an easy vehicle to pick up in 1/6g.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 21, 2007 0:45:55 GMT -4
Gillian has already offered to make him dinner if he's ever in town.
Jay, you have a fan club, you know. We love you. We admire the heck out of your mind. I won't wear a cheerleader costume for you (you wouldn't want me to attempt a cheer anyway; I'd just fall over), but I will do what I can to boost your self-esteem.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Mar 21, 2007 19:11:00 GMT -4
Jay, you have a fan club, you know. We love you. . Oh great, now we will get another "you are all just Jayfans" rant...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Mar 21, 2007 21:00:38 GMT -4
Maybe we could split the difference and change the prize to an "I corrected JayUtah" cheerleader uniform.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 21, 2007 22:00:04 GMT -4
Will there be Mylar baloons?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 21, 2007 22:06:21 GMT -4
Yes, but the reflections seen in photos of them will lead to charges that the whole thing is a fraud.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2007 2:10:03 GMT -4
For dinner? Don't be silly, Jay!
|
|
|
Post by stanzler on Mar 22, 2007 7:37:14 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. I like that... Excellent post, i hadn't actually thought of it that way. It seems obvious now that you've explained it. Great example of the photos above, b.t.w, the angle does make a huge difference...thanks Jay! Also as grashtel said the cameras had motorized auto-winders PhantomWolf, thanks for the link, after reading through those threads, i can confirm it has answered many puzzling questions. It has saved me time from posting repeated questions. After taking recommendations from some members here, I've removed Jack Whites Study links from my bookmarks. I don't think it's worth considering any of his work. I can confidently say you guys do post realistic answers. My recommendations to hoax believers, is that they use their common sense and learn to ask, research before accepting wild theories. Do not blindly accept anything, there is always an answer. Now, i've deleted most of these photos, theories, hoax sites...I had bookmarked, which i'd found whilst browsing google. Was my way of finding truth behind this. I'm happy most has been thoroughly debunked, with help from here. ;D Hope it's okay to post more Now this blog has many photos, i'd found answers to most, rest of the stuff he has is crap. Just this one i find a bit puzzling : ( source )
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 22, 2007 7:52:46 GMT -4
That is AS14-66-9306. Imagine you are up inside the lunar module "Antares". As you look out the window, what do you see? Actually, you don't have to imagine: The answer is AS14-66-9321. Note that this is a similar lighting geometry to Jay's photograph looking down-sun. This minimizes the shadows and maximizes the reflected light from the surface. Does this look like enough glare to illuminate the LM?
|
|
|
Post by stanzler on Mar 22, 2007 8:18:51 GMT -4
That is AS14-66-9306. Imagine you are up inside the lunar module "Antares". As you look out the window, what do you see? Actually, you don't have to imagine: The answer is AS14-66-9321. Note that this is a similar lighting geometry to Jay's photograph looking down-sun. This minimizes the shadows and maximizes the reflected light from the surface. Does this look like enough glare to illuminate the LM? That was too easy for you . I do think that bright ground would be enough to illuminate the LM. I had the same feeling, but i wanted to be sure. Especially if the camera was equipped with high sensitivity to light iso film. Highly possible. thanks.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 22, 2007 8:46:16 GMT -4
Now this blog has many photos, i'd found answers to most, rest of the stuff he has is crap. Just this one i find a bit puzzling : Here is a photograph I took using a small spotlight and a model: As you can see, the front of the model is illuminated enough by reflected light to make out some detail. There is not nearly as much detail as in the Apollo photo, but we have a fairly low intensity light and the amount of illuminated surface that can reflect back onto the model is quite small. If we where to replace the spotlight with a source as bright as the Sun, we would certainly expect the illumination on the shaded side of the LM to increase significantly. EDIT: Also note that when I took this picture almost two years ago I made the mistake of placing the model on a shinny plastic sheet. I did so because it was the right color, but I failed to consider it had the wrong texture. Much of the light in my photo is reflected down-sun by the shinny surface and away from the model. One of the properties of the lunar surface is that it has the tendency to reflect light up-sun back toward the source. This property adds to the illumination of the shaded side of an object because more light is reflected back toward the object. Had I used a surface with the right properties, the model would have probably been more brightly illuminated. My recommendations to hoax believers, is that they use their common sense and learn to ask, research before accepting wild theories. Most hoax believers will tell you common sense is all that is needed to see Apollo was a hoax. By believing this they can convince themselves no further research is necessary. They can then go merrily along believing whatever nonsense they want without having to burden themselves with doing any real work.
|
|